IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/joupea/v16y1979i4p333-347.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rationality, Bureaucratic Politics and Belief System: Explaining the Chinese Policy Debate, 1964-66

Author

Listed:
  • Steve Chan

    (Texas A&M University, U.S.A.)

Abstract

An understanding of the belief systems of foreign policy elites is necessary for any meaningful application of both the rational actor and the bureaucratic politics approaches of analysis. This argument is pursued through a case study of the policy debate between Chinese leaders during 1964-66. The analysis identifies the cognitive-analytic bases for the policy disagree ments between Peking officials, thus indicating which issues seem particularly likely to generate bureaucratic politics disputes. At the same time, this effort delineates the key logics and rationales in the Peking government's policy calculation. Such clarification is necessary if rational actor models are to yield accurate and powerful predictions of govern mental policy responses.

Suggested Citation

  • Steve Chan, 1979. "Rationality, Bureaucratic Politics and Belief System: Explaining the Chinese Policy Debate, 1964-66," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 16(4), pages 333-347, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:joupea:v:16:y:1979:i:4:p:333-347
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://jpr.sagepub.com/content/16/4/333.abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    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:sae:joupea:v:16:y:1979:i:4:p:333-347. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.prio.no/ .

    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.