The European Studies Field

國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

coordination efforts and engagement with the media. Some of the most fortunate scholars are able to draw on multiple sources of influence.

This section will identify some of the key players within the European Studies field in China. By considering the positional, experiential, and expertise sources and related pathways of influence available to scholars and institutes within this field, it is possible to conjecture which wield the most influence over China’s policy towards the EU. Although it is difficult to establish the personal ties of individual academics, a combination of high positional and expert influence carries a greater likelihood of larger personal networks amongst policy practitioners and academic peers, which indicates a greater source of personal influence. By identifying the most influential institutes and academics, those wishing to better understand the relationship of academia with policy making in the European Studies field can narrow their search to the research output of those with actual sway.

5.2.1 The European Studies Field

Before going on to outline the most influential actors, this section begins by outlining the general conditions and status of the European Studies field in China. Historically the Chinese European Studies field has been largely underdeveloped when seen in relation to research on the United States and Russia. After China established diplomatic relations with the European Community, the fledgling manifestation of the European Union, in 1975, the field drew more attention, and continued to expand throughout the 1980s and 90s. Currently Chinese scholars are showing a renewed interest in the European Union, largely because it represents a never-before-seen international actor, with rich research

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

potential in terms of regional integration, economic, legal and social programmes, and multilateralism.

According to Dai Bingran (2008), 1850 articles appearing in 598 journals, as well as 285 theses and 307 books, were published on European Studies between 1994 and 2005, written by 1283 different authors. Although by Chinese standards, the European Studies field is relatively small and underdeveloped (Dai, 2008), this represents a large body of Chinese language academic output to analyse, and of these 1283 authors, 2442 published works and 598 journals, by no means will most wield any discernible policy influence. Since Dai’s study, carried out in 2008, European Studies have continued to develop. A simple search for reference to the term ‘European Union’ in the public CNKI site (China Integrated Knowledge Resources Database) revealed 22,336 hits with a massive emphasis towards economics: 7204 articles registered on the subject of economics and trade, 4642 on industrial economics, 1225 on agricultural economics, 1049 on economic reform, 1593 on economic management and sustainable development, and 699 on finance, but just 2060 on politics. The articles are further categorised: the biggest three types are the 9608 articles based on specific industry guidance, 4256 considered ‘fundamental research’, and 1935 classed as policy research.

These articles make at least one reference to the European Union within their content. A more specific search of the fee-paying CNKI journal database returned 2760 articles with the word ‘European Union’ appearing in the title from 2005 to the present day.

In terms of the general content of European Studies’ research output, as Shambaugh (2008a) astutely points out: “There is a remarkable homogeneity, uniformity, and conformity in Chinese perceptions of Europe and Sino-European relations.” (p. 128) Lacking different ‘schools of opinion,’ in general European Studies

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

scholars present very similar analyses of Europe, with the difference in the details as opposed to the overall standpoint. As it stands, policy makers actually have very little to choose from regarding different approaches to the European Union amongst academics.

What’s more, analysts such as Shambaugh (2008a) and Zhu Liqun (2008a) point out that Chinese European Studies scholars suffer from – as is clear to outsiders – ‘cognitive dissonance:’ many academics conclude what they already wish to be the case, as a result of strong pre-conceptions or hopes. This means that some conclusions reached by successive academics are arguably falsely construed, which may influence the awareness of Chinese policy makers about different European affairs. Sections 5.3 to 5.5 will discuss some of the main issue areas discussed by European Studies scholars.

Dai (2008) writes: “It is still difficult to make an assessment of the actual impact of European Studies on China’s decision making and foreign policy towards Europe and the EU. The influences are there, to be sure… Except for the few very privileged, an ordinary academic could only guess if he has influenced policy.” (pp. 113-114) However, he goes on to point out that the situation is beginning to show signs of change, as European specialists have been called on ever more increasingly by the Foreign Ministry to provide consultations and conduct seminars. He also points out that

“Whenever something occurs between China and Europe, Europe specialists can expect to get calls from newspapers or television correspondents, asking for comments or interviews.” (p. 111) In other words, China’s European specialists are beginning to make inroads in the public, peer, and decision making spheres.

As Shambaugh, Sandschneider and Hong (2008) write: “While there is a robust community of ‘Europe Watchers’ active in China today… the views and writings of this community are virtually unknown outside China.” (p. 4) As the European Studies field

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

grows within China, outside observers can benefit from becoming familiar with some of the ‘big names’ in this community.