IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/ceasxx/v72y2020i9p1445-1467.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Charm Offensive or Offensive Charm? An Analysis of Russian and Chinese Cultural Institutes Abroad

Author

Listed:
  • Milos Popovic
  • Erin K. Jenne
  • Juraj Medzihorsky

Abstract

Major powers have long used cultural institutes to enhance their appeal in foreign countries. As aspirant powers, Russia and China have recently launched cultural institutes of their own with the aim of improving their international reputations. However, the location and operations of the Confucius Institutes and Russkiy Mir Institutes often seem to run counter to these aims. Drawing on policy diffusion theory (PDT), we argue that these choices are less the product of strategic calculation than of policy emulation and decoupling. Using a mixed methods approach, we show that, while the Confucius Institutes and Russkiy Mir Institutes were modelled after their Western counterparts (emulation), China and Russia have operated their institutes in ways that go against the principles of cultural diplomacy (decoupling). An analysis of field research on these institutes suggests more overall decoupling with Confucius Institutes than with Russkiy Mir Institutes, which might help account for the relatively greater backlash against the Confucius Institutes in their host countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Milos Popovic & Erin K. Jenne & Juraj Medzihorsky, 2020. "Charm Offensive or Offensive Charm? An Analysis of Russian and Chinese Cultural Institutes Abroad," Europe-Asia Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 72(9), pages 1445-1467, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:ceasxx:v:72:y:2020:i:9:p:1445-1467
    DOI: 10.1080/09668136.2020.1785397
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/09668136.2020.1785397
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09668136.2020.1785397?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
    ---><---

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

    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:taf:ceasxx:v:72:y:2020:i:9:p:1445-1467. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/ceas .

    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.