International Relations Academia in China

國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

politics has historically been greatly marginalised in modern China. This is beginning to change, but civil society as yet has nowhere near the influence seen in other countries.

(Deng and Wang, 2005) Finally, and most importantly for this research, China’s foreign policy is increasingly influenced by academics, official research institutes, and university departments. Well-educated academics are beginning to wield their influence over China’s foreign policy direction and it is thus important to take into consideration their views and analyses when considering China’s foreign relations.

1.1.2 International Relations Academia in China

The world of international relations academia in China is flourishing. China’s international relations research institutes now overwhelm those of the USA and Europe in terms of number and size. (Leonard, 2008) It is the responsibility of these research institutes, as well as academics hailing from China’s most powerful universities, such as Beijing, Qinghua, and Shanghai Fudan, to analyse China’s international image, measure Comprehensive National Power, and consider potential outcomes of policy decisions.

(Leonard, 2008) As such, many ideas are mooted during consideration and research which occasionally give rise to new guiding philosophies for China’s continued international development, as well as for policies targeted at individual countries and regions. As Shambaugh (2002) explains, in recent times, “Chinese IR think tanks have evolved in their functions, responsibilities and influence. Cumulatively, they have gained in importance (although there are exceptions to this generalisation) and today they must be considered important actors in the foreign policy making process in the PRC.”

(p. 581)

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

In the past, during the politically-charged eras of Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping, research institutes were tightly controlled and often functioned only as representatives of the various Party organisations to which they were affiliated. (Shambaugh, 2002; Zhu, 2013) However, Tanner (2002) argues that now a newer generation of research institutes have begun to spring up in China. Many scholars in research institutes today are free to pursue relatively unlimited topics and even to criticise existing government policy. (Zhu 2009; 2013) As the world of academia grows in size and influence, the ideas debated within these research institutes may reach the attention of policy makers.

There are many ways in which the work of academics may influence policy. On occasion, policy makers will actively solicit the advice of academics, either through informal consultation or by commanding the organisation of conferences and research groups to address specific policy questions. Academics may also have opportunities to submit unsolicited research products to leaders and thereby influence policy (Glaser and Saunders, 2002; Zhu, 2009) In addition to this, there are also indirect methods of garnering influence. The debates and discussions gaining traction in the freer intellectual environment in China may also add to the general understanding of decision makers on any given topic. (Weiss, 1979; Glaser and Medeiros, 2007; Zhu, 2013) As such, academics may also collectively influence policy making by indirectly shaping general opinion about an issue.

For outside analysts wishing to gain a greater comprehension of the dynamics of policy making in China, considering policy after it has already been made does not tell the whole story. The source of many prevalent ideas in the foreign affairs field can be traced to the world of academia. (Glaser and Medeiros, 2007; Leonard, 2008) Studying the output of research institutes can provide clear insights into the debates and schools

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

of opinion which eventually come to shape the thinking of policy makers – before policy is made. Tanner (2002) argues: “Since their emergence in the early 1980s, China’s growing networks of government affiliated research institutes (colloquially referred to as ‘think tanks’ by most foreign analysts) have become some of the most important windows through which foreign analysts can observe China’s usually opaque policy-making system.” (p. 559) This is corroborated almost word-for-word by Zhu (2009):

“These institutions are usually regarded as windows through which foreign scholars can take a peek at the closed policy process of Chinese politics, though few such observers have actually looked inside the mechanism at their behaviour and function.” (p. 356)

Zhu’s final point rings particularly true. There is thus far only a very restricted body of literature on China’s research institutes, and even less in the English language.

In 2002, China Quarterly ran a special issue dedicated to China’s research institutes, which outlined general explanations of the system and the potential influence of scholars, but little has been added since. In addition to an understanding of the world of academia itself, external observers are sorely lacking comprehension of the actual output of China’s many research institutes. In light of Leonard (2008)’s claim that

“China’s ideas on world order… will have as dramatic an effect on our foreign policies as its cheap exports had on our economic ones,” (p. 117) it is imperative that analysts begin to take note of the work of Chinese academics.

As Tanner writes, “A final, universal concern among these [China Quarterly special issue] authors is that Western researchers, especially governments, are not using the vast amounts of unique research materials from think tank sources to anything like maximum advantage… The unprecedentedly wide-open policy debate that takes place in these unclassified journals is a rich and greatly under-utilised database on

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

the range of policy opinions inside the Chinese government, and scholars who have exploited it have reaped a rich harvest.” (p. 574) In short, better and deeper analysis of Chinese research institute output can only add to the accuracy and insightfulness of foreign observers’ analyses.