IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/publus/v55y2025i3p563-591..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From Cooperation to Conflict: Public Opinion, Parasecurity, and US States’ Divestment from China

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Musgrave

Abstract

Citing security concerns, many US states have recently divested or announced plans to divest from the People's Republic of China. This article explores how public opinion views such divestments. Responses to a high-quality national survey show baseline opposition to investing state funds in Chinese firms is pronounced, particularly among Republicans and older voters. Experimental results, however, show that warnings about financial losses, geopolitical tensions, and anti-Asian hate crimes can significantly reduce support for divestment policies. The effects for hate crimes are particularly strong when warnings come from an Asian-American source compared to a White one. I argue that these security-motivated divestments represent an example of a distinctive form of subnational foreign policy in which subnational units assert security interests against external threats, which I call “parasecurity.” This research demonstrates how studying public opinion contributes to understanding paradiplomacy in an era of increasing great-power competition.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Musgrave, 2025. "From Cooperation to Conflict: Public Opinion, Parasecurity, and US States’ Divestment from China," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 55(3), pages 563-591.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:55:y:2025:i:3:p:563-591.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/publius/pjaf017
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:55:y:2025:i:3:p:563-591.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/publius .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.