IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v50y2023i4p807-817..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

China’s use of formal science and technology agreements as a tool of diplomacy

Author

Listed:
  • Caroline S Wagner
  • Denis F

Abstract

China’s government uses a variety of diplomatic tools to pursue its foreign policy aims including negotiating and signing formal bilateral science and technology agreements (STAs). These agreements have been signed with at least fifty-two countries. We identified agreements with an additional sixty-four countries with science and technology (S&T), among other topics such as education, as subjects for cooperation. The Ministry of Science and Technology reports having signed 115 intergovernmental science and technology agreements (STAs) and established ties with 161 countries and regions, although we were not able to identify all these agreements. The earliest of China’s STAs were signed in the 1950s with communist countries, but, in the late 1970s, China began signing agreements with scientifically-advanced nations, which opened opportunities for S&T cooperation. More recently, China has negotiated and signed scientific and technological cooperation agreements with dozens of middle- and lower-income countries, possibly to establish political goodwill. While building political ties clearly remains an important Chinese objective, access to the latest know-how in S&T has become a critical part of China’s priorities in establishing formal relationships.

Suggested Citation

  • Caroline S Wagner & Denis F, 2023. "China’s use of formal science and technology agreements as a tool of diplomacy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(4), pages 807-817.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:50:y:2023:i:4:p:807-817.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scad022
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:scippl:v:50:y:2023:i:4:p:807-817.. 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/spp .

    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.