Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T23:44:31.194Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why China's Rise Will Be Peaceful: Hierarchy and Stability in the East Asian Region

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 August 2005

David C. Kang
David C. Kang
Affiliation:
Dartmouth College ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Will China's expected emergence as the predominant state in East Asia result in hierarchy or balancing? At least three major bodies of literature predict that a rising China will be destabilizing. Realpolitik pessimists see China's rise as inherently so. John Mearsheimer writes that if China threatened to dominate the entire region, “It would be a far more dangerous place than it is now … Engagement policies and the like would not dull China's appetite for power.” Power transition theorists also see rapidly rising power as a likely cause of conflict. Robert Powell writes that, “A rapidly shifting distribution of power combined with the states' inability to commit to an agreement can lead to war.” Finally, those who focus on signaling emphasize that an authoritarian state has more difficulty in making credible statements about its intentions than a democratic state.David C. Kang is associate professor of government at Dartmouth College ([email protected]).

Type
SYMPOSIUM: TEN YEARS FROM NOW
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , September 2005 , pp. 551 - 554
Copyright
© 2005 American Political Science Association

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

Alagappa, Muthiah. 2003. Managing Asian security: Competition, cooperation and evolutionary change. In Asian security order: Instrumental and normative features, ed. Muthiah Alagappa, 571–605. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Ang, Cheng Guan. 2004. The South China Sea dispute revisited. Unpublished manuscript, Nanyang Technological University.
Betts, Richard K. 1993. Wealth, power, and instability: East Asia and the United States after the Cold War. International Security 18 (3): 34–77.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D. 1994. Domestic political audiences and the escalation of international disputes. American Political Science Review 88 (3): 577–92.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D. 1995. Rationalist explanations for war. International Organization 49 (3): 379–414.Google Scholar
Friedberg, Aaron. 1993–94. Ripe for rivalry: Prospects for peace in a multipolar Asia. International Security 18 (3): 5–33.Google Scholar
Glaser, Charles. 1992. Political consequences of military strategy: Expanding and refining the spiral and deterrence models. World Politics 44 (4): 497–538.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Avery. Forthcoming. Rising to the challenge: China's grand strategy and international security. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Heginbotham, Eric, and Richard J. Samuels. 2003. Japan. In Strategic Asia 2002–03: Asian aftershocks, ed. Richard J. Ellings and Aaron L. Friedberg with Michael Wills, 87–121. Seattle: National Bureau of Asian Research.
Hoge_Jr. James F. 2004. A global power shift in the making: Is the United States ready? Foreign Affairs 83 (4): 2–7.Google Scholar
Ikenberry, G. John. 2004. American hegemony and East Asian order. Australian Journal of International Affairs 58 (3): 353–67.Google Scholar
Kang, David C. 2003. Getting Asia wrong: The need for new analytic frameworks. International Security 27 (4): 57–85.Google Scholar
Kang, David C. 2005. China reassures East Asia: Hierarchy and stability in international relations. Unpublished manuscript, Dartmouth College.
Kydd, Andrew. 1997. Game theory and the spiral model. World Politics 49 (3): 371–400.Google Scholar
Kydd, Andrew. 2005. Trust and mistrust in international relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Martin, Lisa. 1993. Credibility, costs, and institutions: Cooperation on economic sanctions. World Politics 45 (3): 406–32.Google Scholar
Mastanduno, Michael. 2003. Incomplete hegemony: The United States and security order in Asia. In Asian security order, ed. Muthiah Alagappa, 141–70. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Mearsheimer, John. 2001. The tragedy of great power politics. New York: W. W. Norton.
Powell, Robert. 2002. Bargaining theory and international conflict. American Review of Political Science 5:1–30.Google Scholar
Powell, Robert. 2004. The inefficient use of power: Costly conflict with complete information, American Political Science Review 98 (2): 633–48.Google Scholar
Shambaugh, David. 2004–5. China engages Asia: Reshaping the regional order. International Security 29 (3): 64–99.Google Scholar
Womack, Brantley. 2003–4. China and Southeast Asia: Asymmetry, Leadership, and Normalcy. Pacific Affairs 76 (4): 529–48.Google Scholar