Search results

The relations between China and Singapore were once exampled as good bilateral relations in the region: stable and promising. Albeit gradually increasing competition, bilateral economic cooperation remains to be a stabilizer. However, the ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and even more complicated Sino-US relations add up more uncertainties to bilateral relations. This paper aims to examine the fragility of bilateral relations against the overall backgrounds of the dynamic regional balance of power while analyzing the economic cooperation as the stabilizer and reviewing political mutual trust between China and Singapore.

This paper will apply historical and documentary review and qualitative analysis.

Led by its pragmatic foreign policy, Singapore hedges against China, even it seeks to deeply engaging China in all dimensions of bilateral ties, including economic, cultural and political. The grand strategy of the BRI signals the era of “keeping low profile”, leaving us far away. It will inevitably change the regional landscape geo-strategically. The USA clearly defines China as a strategic competitor, which represent Sino-US relations will not go back to the past. The traditional counterbalance strategy applied by Singapore works more difficultly when China intends to be stronger politically in the region. Economically and politically, there are no reasons for Singapore not to show positive support for the BRI. However, the BRI essentially provides a warning message that Singapore should explore a more practical and realistic strategy for not being constrained by China's geo-economic strategy. Singapore's picking side and its increasing military budget, China's assertiveness and the changing Sino-US relations imply the looming fragilities to bilateral relations.

The relations between China and Singapore were once exampled as good bilateral relations in the region: stable and promising. However, China and Singapore relations also ran into bumps from time to time over the years. We usually believe it is because of the peculiarity of Singapore's China policy. However, we should not neglect the dynamic regional balance of power and the changing Sino-US relations after the BRI was proposed. To fill this research gap, this paper will review the factors of stabilizers and the factors that bring fragility to bilateral relations between China and Singapore. The paper also argues that it is time for Beijing to make reflections on whether Beijing proposed BRI too early and whether Beijing over addressed on the magnificence and ambitions of the BRI.

The pattern of US–China relations can be analyzed through the two opposite experiences – chilling bitterness and friendly accommodations. For a long time, China was neglected by the United States and treated as an enemy due to ideological considerations. The nature of bilateral relations between Washington and Beijing is a very complex one. The US–China economic relationship has reached a critical juncture. Over the few years, the United States has imposed tariffs of $250 billion worth on Chinese imports, and in return, China also raised high tariffs on US exports. The basic objectives of this research are to investigate the causes and potentiality of China–US bilateral trade. It has used the content analysis method and observation method in this study. The result of the study will be manifested based on recent trade restrictions and economic sanctions to each other. The impact of the recent Sino-American trade war resulted in a negative impact on not only both countries’ economies but also on the world economy.

The USA and China have had a complex relationship since the 1949 establishment of the People’s Republic of China. This relationship has gone from hostility to guarded friendliness to increased tension at the beginning of the new millennium. Recent years have seen the emergence of literature stressing China’s potential emergence as a national security threat to the USA. This article will look at books, government documents, and Internet resources examining the current and possible future national security relationship between these two countries from 1995/1996 to the present. This literature presents US and international perspectives representing a variety of viewpoints on a subject that may have a major impact on international relations during the twenty‐first century.

In light of China’s rapid development and the USA’s “Pivot to Asia” policy, both China and the USA need to view each other objectively and cooperate with each other in order to keep their relations peaceful. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

A literature review has been undertaken to prove that power transition theory is not sufficient for the adequate analysis of Sino-US relations.

Considering its empirical and theoretical defects, power transition theory, which it has been generally considered can be used to explain China’s future development and the future course of Sino-US relations, cannot be used to explain and forecast Sino-US relations scientifically.

Power transition theory cannot be used to explain and forecast Sino-US relations scientifically, considering its empirical and theoretical defects.

This paper attempts to critically question present IPE approaches and analyses that aim at assessing China’s role within the international political economy. Thus, unlike common theorizations that see the country as being integrated within US hegemony (Panitch and Gindin) or those accounts that claim that we are already witnessing the “terminal crisis” of US hegemony accompanied by a hegemonic transition toward China (Arrighi), the paper will argue that China was able to gain “relative geopolitical autonomy” as a result of the revolutionary processes it went through and eventually assert itself as a contender state, now just in the process of challenging US hegemony. Dissatisfied with existent theorizations of hegemony, I will be drawing on the critical edition of Gramsci’s Quaderni and attempt to offer a new perspective regarding the conceptualization thereof. Thus applying the elaborated framework of analysis to the current situation, I argue that unlike the US’s ability to counter the challenge of its traditional imperial rivals Germany and Japan as they developed under the grip of US hegemony, the country is facing difficulties in countering China’s ascent. However, while maintaining that China does indeed represent a challenge to US hegemony, particularly in East Asia, I will argue that the idea of a “crisis of US hegemony” is premature as China remains distant from fully realizing hegemonic relations, even at the regional level.

The purpose of this paper is to review the history, current activities, and prospects of Sino‐US cooperation in science and technology (S&T). It seeks to understand the role of S&T in Sino‐US relations, how the relationship has affected Chinese scientific development and, more generally, to better understand the ways S&T affect – and are affected by – the foreign policies of nation states.

Employing an institutional perspective, the paper is based on interviews in China and the USA and reviews of government documents and press reports.

Owing to the impacts of the Cultural Revolution on Chinese S&T, the relationship is highly asymmetrical when it began in the late 1970s. As Chinese capabilities have improved, aided measurably by the relationship with the USA, the two sides are now in a position to cooperate more fully across a wide range of areas of interest to both sides. Channels for cooperation have been developed through the two governments, through Chinese and US corporations and through academic institutions in the two countries. Together, these allow for collaborative activities in basic science, commercial research and development, and in S&T in support of public goods.

The Sino‐US relationship in S&T has become more important to the two countries as they face an array of daunting challenges of energy, public health, basic research, and new industrial technologies. Yet, the relationship has not been extensively studied in spite of its growing importance. This paper attempts to help overcome this neglect. A better understanding of the relationship will contribute to improved understandings of Sino‐US relations more generally, and to the ways in which S&T fit into the foreign relations of major powers.

Trade relations between China and the USA have been marked by conflict, especially since China’s membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO). These conflicts have been analyzed from a variety of perspectives, including the loss of jobs in the USA due to Chinese imports, competition in high technology sectors and the balance of trade. Conceptual frameworks have employed models of domestic differences as well as models of international power distribution. Among domestic differences examined are the existence of state-owned enterprises in China compared to the domination of the USA economy by private firms, the large role of the Communist Party in China and the influence of labor and environmental and labor groups in the USA. Power distribution theories focus on the systemic effects of the distribution of power on trade openness and on the pattern of intra-bloc versus between-bloc trade. This paper aims to examine the role of macroeconomic policy factors in China and the USA, in particular, the role of national patterns of savings, investment and consumption (both private and government). The paper concludes that insofar as the balance of trade is an important component of the trade conflict, domestic macroeconomic factors continue to be important. The resolution of the conflict will have to take into account the respective macroeconomic policies of China and the USA.

The design is an analytic case study of US–China trade relations with a particular focus on the balance of trade. The conceptual framework employed involves an analysis of macroeconomic policy categories, especially the overall pattern of savings (household, firm and government), investment and consumption. Process tracing over time since China's membership in the WTO is carried out with an eye toward the relationship between the balance of trade and macroeconomic policy.

The main findings are that there is a strong relation between the respective macroeconomic policies of the USA and China and their trade relations. The domestic political economy of the USA encourages consumption and a low rate of savings. The opposite is true of China where household income is low by design and national savings are high. China depends on the USA to consume what is not consumed domestically. The USA depends on Chinese imports for additional consumption encouraged by its low rate of savings. The two economies are locked in a mutual dependence.

Key research implications are that there should be more focus on domestic macroeconomic policies since these are the root causes of the trade imbalance. This is not to say that trade frictions centering on jobs, subsidies and competition in high technology are unimportant. However, without the resolution of differences in the management of macroeconomic policies, trade conflicts between the USA and China will continue.

Practical implications are huge, in some ways much more important than the academic implications. Macroeconomic policy differences in savings, investment, government spending, taxation and infrastructure are important. Furthermore, there are available tools in both China and the USA to manage the macroeconomy, particularly, monetary and fiscal policy.

One implication of this paper is that satisfaction or dissatisfaction of workers is dependent on income distribution which in turn affects trade. Treatment of people in different socioeconomic categories, such as the elderly, the young, and those at working age are a function of macroeconomic policies.

Many people have written about macroeconomics. It is a conventional subfield of economics. The originality of this paper lies in its advocacy of a shift of focus and attention and in the argument that traditional macroeconomics is related to trade. Despite its importance, macroeconomics has not been the center of attention for most political scientists, though economists have made it more central.

Why have so many overlapping regional institutions been established in the Asia-Pacific? Is there any possibility of a convergence of these institutions into a single (or a few) “authoritative” regional institution(s)? What implications do the emerging overlapping regional institutions have for an evolving regional architecture in Asia? I argue first that the proliferation of regional institutions reflects complicated strategies taken by the countries to respond to the increased insecurity and uncertainty caused by the structural changes. Second, the countries of the region are taking a variety of national strategies through regional institutions, ranging from engagement to soft balancing and risk-hedging, to respond to these changes. Third, all the states of the region want to maintain a variety of institutional choices to respond to their uncertain futures. Fourth, what makes the institution-building so complicated lies in the fact that there are two major (and uncertain) powers to whom the regional countries have to respond through regional institutions: the United States and China. This makes the bargaining game for regional institution-building more complicated and competitive. Fifth, the amalgamation or convergence of the existing institutions into a single (or few) “authoritative” institution(s) through “institutional competition” will not take place in the foreseeable future. Sixth, the countries of the region may engage in “forum shopping.” Seventh, the roles of these institutions have been and will be quite modest. However, the regional institutions could to some extent contribute to moderating inter-state tensions and putting institutional constraints on the deviant behaviors of member countries.

The author attempts to examine the existence and pattern of coalitions in international relations across countries, and investigates whether international relations of coalition partners influence a country's enaction of agricultural non-tariff measures (NTMs).

The author adopts a machine learning technique to identify international relation coalition partnerships and use network analysis to characterize the clustering pattern of coalitions with high-frequent records of global event data. The author then constructs a monthly dataset of agricultural NTMs against China and international relations with China of each importer and its coalition partners, and designs a panel structural vector autoregressive (PSVAR) model to estimate impulse response functions of agricultural NTMs with regard to international relation shocks.

The author finds countries to establish coalition partnerships. Two major clusters of coalitions are noted, with one composed of coalitions primarily among “North” countries and the other of coalitions among “South” countries. The United States is found to play a pivotal role by connecting the two clusters. The PSVAR estimation reveals reductions of NTMs against China following improved international relations with China of both the importer and its coalition partners. NTM responses are more substantial for measures that are trade restrictive. These results confirm that coalitions in international relations lead to coordination of agricultural NTMs.

The author provides international political insights into agricultural trade policymaking by showing interactions of NTM enaction across countries in the same coalition of international relations. These insights offer useful policy implications to predict and cope with hidden barriers to agricultural trade.