IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/gigawp/283.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

International Alignment between Interests and Ideology: The Case of China's Partnership Diplomacy

Author

Listed:
  • Strüver, Georg

Abstract

This paper examines the determinants of alignment in bilateral partnerships. While it was impossible to think about international cooperation without referring to the term "alliances" during much of the Cold War period, strategic partnerships have taken a central place in many states' diplomatic toolkits over the past two decades. This paper sheds light on such international alignment decisions by examining the case of China's partnership diplomacy in the period from 1990 to 2014. Theoretically, the analysis draws on scholarly insights about alliance formation and international cooperation to formulate two broad assumptions about partner choice, which are based on interest-driven and ideology-based rationales of alignment. Binary regression estimations highlight the importance of economic interests in explaining partnership onset. In contrast to common arguments about alliance formation, partnerships seem to be less driven by shared domestic ideologies. In fact, bilateral partnerships help bridge ideological gaps, enabling the partners' pursuit of economic gains and diplomatic preferences, at least in the case of China.

Suggested Citation

  • Strüver, Georg, 2016. "International Alignment between Interests and Ideology: The Case of China's Partnership Diplomacy," GIGA Working Papers 283, GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:gigawp:283
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/130607/1/857233033.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. D. Scott Bennett & Allan C. Stam, 2000. "Eugene : A conceptual manual," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(2), pages 179-204, March.
    2. Richard Williams, 2012. "Using the margins command to estimate and interpret adjusted predictions and marginal effects," Stata Journal, StataCorp LLC, vol. 12(2), pages 308-331, June.
    3. La Porta, Rafael & Lopez-de-Silanes, Florencio & Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert, 1999. "The Quality of Government," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 222-279, April.
    4. Brian Lai & Dan Reiter, 2000. "Democracy, Political Similarity, and International Alliances, 1816-1992," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 44(2), pages 203-227, April.
    5. Snyder, Glenn H., 1991. "Alliances, balance, and stability," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 45(1), pages 121-142, January.
    6. Leeds, Brett Ashley, 2003. "Alliance Reliability in Times of War: Explaining State Decisions to Violate Treaties," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 57(4), pages 801-827, October.
    7. R.N. Rosecrance, 1966. "Bipolarity, multipolarity, and the future," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 10(3), pages 314-327, September.
    8. King, Gary & Zeng, Langche, 2001. "Explaining Rare Events in International Relations," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(3), pages 693-715, July.
    9. Patrick Royston, 2013. "marginscontplot: Plotting the marginal effects of continuous predictors," Stata Journal, StataCorp LLC, vol. 13(3), pages 510-527, September.
    10. Shale Horowitz & Michael Tyburski, 2016. "When are similar regimes more likely to form alliances? Institutions and ideologies in the post-communist world," Post-Soviet Affairs, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(2), pages 176-200, March.
    11. Douglas Gibler & Toby Rider, 2004. "Prior Commitments: Compatible Interests versus Capabilities in Alliance Behavior," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(4), pages 309-329, October.
    12. Carter, David B. & Signorino, Curtis S., 2010. "Back to the Future: Modeling Time Dependence in Binary Data," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(3), pages 271-292, July.
    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. Thorin M. Wright & Toby J. Rider, 2014. "Disputed territory, defensive alliances and conflict initiation," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 31(2), pages 119-144, April.
    2. Jesse C. Johnson & Brett Ashley Leeds & Ahra Wu, 2015. "Capability, Credibility, and Extended General Deterrence," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(2), pages 309-336, March.
    3. Choong-Nam Kang, 2017. "Capability revisited: Ally’s capability and dispute initiation1," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(5), pages 546-571, September.
    4. Michael Horowitz & Rose McDermott & Allan C. Stam, 2005. "Leader Age, Regime Type, and Violent International Relations," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 49(5), pages 661-685, October.
    5. Kyle Haynes, 2017. "Diversionary conflict: Demonizing enemies or demonstrating competence?," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(4), pages 337-358, July.
    6. Glynn Ellis, 2010. "Gauging the Magnitude of Civilization Conflict," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 27(3), pages 219-238, July.
    7. Yuki Matsuura & Masanori Kubota & Kaoru Hidaka & Taku Yukawa, 2024. "Who Pursues the Bomb? Leaders’Education Abroad and the Development of Weapons of Mass Destruction," OSIPP Discussion Paper 24E005, Osaka School of International Public Policy, Osaka University.
    8. Xiang Jun & Primiano Christopher B. & Huang Wei-hao, 2015. "Aggressive or Peaceful Rise? An Empirical Assessment of China’s Militarized Conflict, 1979–2010," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 21(3), pages 301-325, August.
    9. Markku Maula & Wouter Stam, 2020. "Enhancing Rigor in Quantitative Entrepreneurship Research," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 44(6), pages 1059-1090, November.
    10. Christopher Gelpi & Nazli Avdan, 2018. "Democracies at risk? A forecasting analysis of regime type and the risk of terrorist attack," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 35(1), pages 18-42, January.
    11. Jesse C Johnson & Stephen Joiner, 2021. "Power changes, alliance credibility, and extended deterrence," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 38(2), pages 178-199, March.
    12. Emilie M. Hafner-Burton & Alexander H. Montgomery, 2008. "Power or Plenty," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 52(2), pages 213-242, April.
    13. Rotondi, Valentina & Stanca, Luca, 2015. "The effect of particularism on corruption: Theory and empirical evidence," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 219-235.
    14. Gokmen, Gunes, 2019. "Clash of civilizations demystified," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    15. Sung Chul Jung, 2024. "Economic slowdowns and international conflict," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 61(2), pages 180-196, March.
    16. Muhammet A. Bas & Robert J. Schub, 2016. "How Uncertainty about War Outcomes Affects War Onset," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 60(6), pages 1099-1128, September.
    17. Spilker, Gabriele, 2013. "The WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism – Enforcement, State Power, and Dispute Recurrence," Papers 584, World Trade Institute.
    18. Jungmoo Woo, 2021. "The effect of oil export on direct external democratizing pressures," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(6), pages 2599-2618, November.
    19. Timothy M Peterson, 2011. "Third-party trade, political similarity, and dyadic conflict," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 48(2), pages 185-200, March.
    20. Sam R. Bell, 2013. "What you don’t know can hurt you: Information, external transparency, and interstate conflict, 1982–1999," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 30(5), pages 452-468, November.

    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:zbw:gigawp:283. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dueiide.html .

    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.