Diverging China Strategies in the West

Securitization and the Overlooked Role of Business Interests

Bibliographic Data

ID6146969
AuthorsLunting Wu (0000-0002-7450-8953, Freie Universität Berlin, corresponding author)
Year2024
Volume4
Issue3
Publication date2024-07-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueGlobal Studies Quarterly (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 2634-3797 • E-ISSN: 2634-3797
PublisherOxford University Press (OUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1093/isagsq/ksae082
OpenAlexW4404303426
LanguageEN
Citations received6
References cited49

Amidst the current great-power competition and geopolitical tensions, why have western states formulated different strategies towards Beijing? Drawing upon literature on domestic politics and securitization, this article posits that the different China strategies are jointly shaped by, ceteris paribus, (1) whether interdependence with Beijing is anticipated to bring cost or benefit to the interest groups central to the decision-making process and (2) whether securitization of China is high or low in the country. The combination thereof leads to four main types of China strategies: pragmatic detachment, confrontation, business as usual, and distancing. These four strategies are further empirically assessed in a focused, structured comparative case study on Germany, the US, New Zealand, and Romania. Findings from this research support the societal approach of studying international relations in that foreign strategies are more than an automatic response to structural conditions, e.g., interdependence, and are constantly constructed and contested by societal actors within the confines of state-led securitization

Business · China · Financial system · Political science · Securitization · Global Peace and Security Dynamics · Global Security and Public Health · International Relations and Foreign Policy · Law

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access