IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/chnrpt/v55y2019i1p41-56.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Should China Spend on UNPKOs? Findings from a Survey

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher B. Primiano

Abstract

When China joined the United Nations in 1971, it viewed UN peacekeeping operations (UNPKOs) as an instrument for powerful countries to exploit weaker countries. Today, under Xi Jinping, China contributes the largest number of UN peacekeeping personnel among the five permanent (P5) members of the UN Security Council. This article presents findings from a pilot study based on a survey conducted at two international universities in China in the fall of 2016, regarding how Chinese students perceive China’s UNPKO involvement. A total of 297 Chinese university students participated in this survey. Given that there has been little scholarship on how Chinese citizens view China’s UNPKO spending or involvement, this article aims to contribute to our understanding of this subject.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher B. Primiano, 2019. "Should China Spend on UNPKOs? Findings from a Survey," China Report, , vol. 55(1), pages 41-56, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:chnrpt:v:55:y:2019:i:1:p:41-56
    DOI: 10.1177/0009445518818217
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0009445518818217
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0009445518818217?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. King, Gary & Pan, Jennifer & Roberts, Margaret E., 2013. "How Censorship in China Allows Government Criticism but Silences Collective Expression," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 107(2), pages 326-343, May.
    2. Zhiming Cheng & Russell Smyth, 2016. "Why Give it Away When You Need it Yourself? Understanding Public Support for Foreign Aid in China," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(1), pages 53-71, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Leopoldo Fergusson & Carlos Molina, 2020. "Facebook Causes Protests," HiCN Working Papers 323, Households in Conflict Network.
    2. Sandra Wankmüller, 2023. "A comparison of approaches for imbalanced classification problems in the context of retrieving relevant documents for an analysis," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 91-163, April.
    3. Guriev, Sergei & Treisman, Daniel, 2020. "A theory of informational autocracy," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    4. Zhiming Cheng & Russell Smyth, 2016. "Why Give it Away When You Need it Yourself? Understanding Public Support for Foreign Aid in China," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(1), pages 53-71, January.
    5. Sergei Guriev & Nikita Melnikov & Ekaterina Zhuravskaya, 2021. "3G Internet and Confidence in Government," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 136(4), pages 2533-2613.
    6. Sergei Guriev & Daniel Treisman, 2020. "The Popularity of Authoritarian Leaders: A cross-national investigation," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03878626, HAL.
    7. Erin Baggott Carter & Brett L. Carter, 2021. "Propaganda and Protest in Autocracies," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 65(5), pages 919-949, May.
    8. Zhang, Weidong & Zuo, Na & He, Wu & Li, Songtao & Yu, Lu, 2021. "Factors influencing the use of artificial intelligence in government: Evidence from China," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    9. Xiaojun Li & Dingding Chen, 2021. "Public opinion, international reputation, and audience costs in an authoritarian regime," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 38(5), pages 543-560, September.
    10. Emilie Frenkiel & Anna Shpakovskaya, 2019. "The Evolution of Representative Claim-Making by the Chinese Communist Party: From Mao to Xi (1949–2019)," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(3), pages 208-219.
    11. Angelika J. Budjan & Andreas Fuchs, 2021. "Democracy and Aid Donorship," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 13(4), pages 217-238, November.
    12. Caroline Schlaufer & Marina Pilkina & Tatiana Chalaya & Tatiana Khaynatskaya & Tatiana Voronova & Aleksandra Pozhivotko, 2022. "How do civil society organizations communicate in an authoritarian setting? A narrative analysis of the Russian waste management debate," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(6), pages 730-751, November.
    13. Daron Acemoglu & Tarek A. Hassan & Ahmed Tahoun, 2018. "The Power of the Street: Evidence from Egypt’s Arab Spring," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 31(1), pages 1-42.
    14. Xiukang Wang, 2022. "Managing Land Carrying Capacity: Key to Achieving Sustainable Production Systems for Food Security," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-21, March.
    15. James Evans, 2022. "From Text Signals to Simulations: A Review and Complement to Text as Data by Grimmer, Roberts & Stewart (PUP 2022)," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 51(4), pages 1868-1885, November.
    16. John Chung-En Liu & Huijing Huang & Jingyi Ma, 2019. "Understanding China’s environmental challenges: lessons from documentaries," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 9(2), pages 151-158, June.
    17. Iacus Stefano M. & Salini Silvia & Siletti Elena & Porro Giuseppe, 2020. "Controlling for Selection Bias in Social Media Indicators through Official Statistics: a Proposal," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 36(2), pages 315-338, June.
    18. Brian Knight & Ana Tribin, 2022. "Opposition Media, State Censorship, and Political Accountability: Evidence from Chavez’s Venezuela," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 36(2), pages 455-487.
    19. Stephen A Meserve & Daniel Pemstein, 2020. "Terrorism and internet censorship," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(6), pages 752-763, November.
    20. Qi Wang & Mengdi Liu & Jintao Xu & Bing Zhang, 2023. "Blow the Lid Off: Public Complaints, Bargaining Power, and Government Responsiveness on Social Media," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 85(1), pages 133-166, May.

    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:sae:chnrpt:v:55:y:2019:i:1:p:41-56. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.