Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:12:21.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

U.S.-Soviet-Chinese Relations: Routine, Reciprocity, or Rational Expectations?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Joshua S. Goldstein  and
John R. Freeman
Joshua S. Goldstein
Affiliation:
University of Southern California
John R. Freeman
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

International relations theorists disagree about whether great power behaviors reflect bureaucratic routine or reciprocity. Recently, some have suggested that these behaviors result from great powers' rational expectations rather than from simple routine or reciprocity. The debate is flawed in several respects. The quasi-experimental studies of great power behavior suffer from specification and measurement errors. Furthermore, most studies of great power behavior focus exclusively on the superpowers, without adequately appreciating China's role in world politics. We present an improved analysis that recognizes the potential effects of Chinese behavior and ameliorates the methodological flaws in existing work. The results indicate that the behaviors of the United States, the Soviet Union, and China are a relatively stable mix of bureaucratic routine and reciprocity. The results also indicate complex, asymmetrical connections among U.S.-Soviet, U.S.-Chinese, and Soviet-Chinese relations, consistent with the notion of a strategic triangle.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 85 , Issue 1 , March 1991 , pp. 17 - 35
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1991 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Achen, Christopher H. 1987. “Statistical Models for Event Data: A Review of Errors in Variable Theory.” Paper delivered at the first Data Development for International Research Conference on Event Data, Columbus.Google Scholar
Achen, Christopher H. 1988. “A State with Bureaucratic Politics Is Representable As a Unitary Rational Actor.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Ashley, Richard K. 1980. The Political Economy of War and Peace: The Sino-Soviet-American Triangle and the Modern Security Problematique. London: Frances Pinter.Google Scholar
Axelrod, Robert. 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Axelrod, Robert, and Keohane, Robert O.. 1985. “Achieving Cooperation under Anarchy: Strategies and Institutions.” World Politics 38:226–54.Google Scholar
Azar, Edward E. 1980. “The Codebook of the Conflict and Peace Data Bank (COPDAB).” University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Bull, Hedley. 1977. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Cusack, Thomas R., and Ward, Michael Don. 1981. “Military Spending in the United States, Soviet Union, and the People's Republic of China.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 25:429–69.Google Scholar
Dittmer, Lowell. 1981. “The Strategic Triangle: An Elementary Game-theoretical Analysis.” World Politics 33:485–515.Google Scholar
Dittmer, Lowell. 1987. “The Strategic Triangle: A Critical Review.” In The Strategic Triangle: China, the United States, and the Soviet Union, ed. Kim, Ilpyong J.. New York: Paragon House.Google Scholar
Freeman, John R. 1983. “Granger Causality and the Time Series Analysis of Political Relationships.” American Journal of Political Science 27:327–58.Google Scholar
Freeman, John R. 1990. “Systematic Sampling, Temporal Aggregation, and the Study of Political Relationships.” In Political Analysis, ed. Stimson, James A.. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, John R., Williams, John T., and Lin, Tse-min. 1989. “Vector Autoregression and the Study of Politics.” American Journal of Political Science 33:842–77.Google Scholar
Friedberg, Aaron L. 1983. “The Collapsing Triangle: U.S. and Soviet Policies toward China, 1969–1980.” Comparative Strategy 4:113–46.Google Scholar
Garthoff, Raymond. 1985. Détente and Confrontation: American-Soviet Relations from Nixon to Reagan. Washington: Brookings.Google Scholar
George, Alexander L., Farley, Philip J., and Dallin, Alexander, eds. 1988. U.S.-Soviet Security Cooperation: Achievements, Failures, Lessons. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Joshua S. N.d. “Reciprocity in Superpower Relations: An Empirical Analysis.” International Studies Quarterly. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Joshua S., and Freeman, John R.. 1990. Three-Way Street: Strategic Reciprocity in World Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gowa, Joanne. 1986. “Anarchy, Egoism, and Third Images: The Evolution of Cooperation and International Relations.” International Organization 40:167–86.Google Scholar
Hansen, Lars R., and Sargent, Thomas J.. 1980. “Formulating and Estimating Dynamic Linear Rational Expectations Models.” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 2:7–46.Google Scholar
Huth, Paul K. 1988. Extended Deterrence and the Prevention of War. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Jensen, L. 1984. “Negotiating Strategic Arms Control, 1969–1979.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 28:535–59.Google Scholar
Jervis, Robert. 1976. Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Jervis, Robert. 1981. “Security Regimes.” International Organization 36:357–78.Google Scholar
Jordan, J. S., and Radner, R.. 1982. “Rational Expectations in Macroeconomic Models: An Overview.” Journal of Economic Theory 26:201–23.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. 1986. “Reciprocity in International Relations.” International Organization 40:1–27.Google Scholar
Kim, Ilpyong J., ed. 1987. The Strategic Triangle: China, the United States, and the Soviet Union. New York: Paragon House.Google Scholar
King, Gary. 1989. “Event Count Models in International Relations.” International Studies Quarterly 33:123–48.Google Scholar
Larson, Deborah Welch. 1988. “The Psychology of Reciprocity in International Relations.” Negotiation Journal 4:281–301.Google Scholar
Leng, Russell J., and Wheeler, Hugh G.. 1979. “Influences, Strategies, Success, and War.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 23:655–84.Google Scholar
Lynch, Allen. 1987. The Soviet Study of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McClelland, Charles A. 1971. “The Management and Analysis of International Event Data.” University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Typescript.Google Scholar
McGinnis, Michael D., and Williams, John T.. 1986. “Constrained Competition between the Superpowers: A Model of Military Expenditures and Hostility Levels.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
McGinnis, Michael D., and Williams, John T.. 1989a. “Stability and Change in Superpower Rivalry.” American Political Science Review 83:1101–24.Google Scholar
McGinnis, Michael D., and Williams, John T.. 1989b. “Bayesian Rationality and Superpower Rivalry: A Game-theoretic Model.” Presented at the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Majeski, Stephen J. 1985. “Expectations and Arms Races.” American Journal of Political Science 29: 217–45.Google Scholar
Majeski, Stephen J., and Jones, David. 1981. “Arms Race Modeling: Causality Analysis and Model Specification.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 25: 259–88.Google Scholar
Makins, Christopher J. 1985. “The Super-Power's Dilemma: Negotiating in the Nuclear Age.” Survival 27:169–78.Google Scholar
Most, Benjamin A., and Starr, Harvey. 1984. “International Relations Theory, Foreign Policy Substitutability and ‘Nice Laws’.” World Politics 36: 383–406.Google Scholar
Osgood, Charles E. 1962. An Alternative to War or Surrender. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, Charles W., and Marra, Robin F.. 1986. “U.S. Defense Spending and the Soviet Estimate.” American Political Science Review 80: 819–42.Google Scholar
Oye, Kenneth A. 1986. “Explaining Cooperation under Anarchy: Hypotheses and Strategies.” In Cooperation under Anarchy, ed. Oye, Kenneth A.. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rajmaira, Sheen, and Ward, MichaelD.. 1988. “Reciprocity and Equilibria in the Superpower Triad, 1950–1978.” University of Colorado, Boulder. Typescript.Google Scholar
Richardson, Lewis F. 1960. Arms and Insecurity. Pittsburgh: Boxwood.Google Scholar
Robinson, Thomas W. 1987. “On the Further Evolution of the Strategic Triangle.” In The Strategic Triangle: China, the United States, and the Soviet Union, ed. Ilpyong J. Kim. New York: Paragon House.Google Scholar
Rostow, W. W. 1987. “On Ending the Cold War.” Foreign Affairs 65:831–51.Google Scholar
Sargent, Thomas J. 1984. “Autoregressions, Expectations, and Advice.” American Economic Review 74:408–15.Google Scholar
Segal, Gerald. 1982. The Great Power Triangle. New York: St. Martin's.Google Scholar
Sims, Christopher. 1980. “Macroeconomics and Reality.” Econometrica 48:1–48.Google Scholar
Snidal, Duncan. 1985. “Coordination Vs. Prisoner's Dilemma: Implications for International Cooperation and Regimes.” American Political Science Review 79:923–42.Google Scholar
Starr, Harvey. 1982. “‘Détente’ or ‘Two against One’? The China Factor.” In Foreign Policy: USA/USSR, ed. Kegley, Charles W. Jr. and McGowan, Pat. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
Stoll, Richard J., and McAndrew, William. 1986. “Negotiating Strategic Arms Control, 1969–1979: Modeling the Bargaining Process.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 30:315–26.Google Scholar
Talbott, Strobe. 1981. “The Strategic Dimension of the Sino-American Relationship.” In The China Factor, ed. Solomon, Richard H.. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Thompson, William R., and Rapkin, David P.. 1982. “Conflict, Inertia, and Reciprocity: Coping with the Western Bloc.” In Foreign Policy: USA/USSR, ed. Kegley, Charles W. Jr. and McGowan, Pat. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
Vincent, Jack E. 1979. Project Theory. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Wagner, R. Harrison. 1983. “The Theory of Games and the Problem of International Cooperation.” American Political Science Review 77:330–46.Google Scholar
Ward, Michael Don. 1982. “Cooperation and Conflict in Foreign Policy Behavior.” International Studies Quarterly 26:87–126.Google Scholar
Ward, Michael Don. 1984. “Differential Paths to Parity: A Study of the Contemporary Arms Race.” American Political Science Review 78: 297–317.Google Scholar
Williams, John T., and McGinnis, Michael D.. 1988. “Reaction in a Rational Expectations Arms Race Model of U.S.-Soviet Rivalry.” American Journal of Political Science 32:968–95.Google Scholar
Zinnes, Dina A. 1980. “Three Puzzles in Search of a Researcher.” International Studies Quarterly 24: 315–42.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.