{"title":"Manufacturing consensus: China’s strategic narratives and geoeconomic competition in Asia","authors":"A. Lin, Saori N. Katada","doi":"10.1177/13540661231219090","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"China’s attempt to build geopolitical influence through economic instruments has become a critical facet of US-China competition. How can rising powers convince follower states to join alternative (geoeconomic) initiatives created and/or led by the rising powers, in the shadow of potential rebuke from the hegemon? This article theorizes how rising powers can use strategic narratives to ameliorate the follower states’ concerns of antagonizing the hegemon for aligning with alternative initiatives. We argue that rising powers can control the narrative through “two-front narration”: simultaneously telling the hegemon that they seek limited changes, while telling follower states that they do not have to worry about crossfire because the rising powers-hegemon relations are non-zero-sum. By sending the right messages to different audiences to induce motivated reasoning, rising powers can manufacture the appearance of consensus among multiple audiences to help follower states hedge, while blunting the formation of containment coalitions. We adopt a mixed-methods approach to substantiate our theory: (1) text analysis of China’s messaging about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) from 2008 to 2016; (2) case study of the rhetorical action-reactions between China, the United States, and the follower states on the relationship between the TPP and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership; and (3) parallel case study of the rhetorical action-reactions between China, the United States, and the follower states on the relationship between the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and multilateral development banks such as the World Bank. Our analysis has implications for theories of strategic narratives in international politics and debates about geoeconomic competition/hedging in Asia.","PeriodicalId":48069,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of International Relations","volume":"4 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of International Relations","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13540661231219090","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
China’s attempt to build geopolitical influence through economic instruments has become a critical facet of US-China competition. How can rising powers convince follower states to join alternative (geoeconomic) initiatives created and/or led by the rising powers, in the shadow of potential rebuke from the hegemon? This article theorizes how rising powers can use strategic narratives to ameliorate the follower states’ concerns of antagonizing the hegemon for aligning with alternative initiatives. We argue that rising powers can control the narrative through “two-front narration”: simultaneously telling the hegemon that they seek limited changes, while telling follower states that they do not have to worry about crossfire because the rising powers-hegemon relations are non-zero-sum. By sending the right messages to different audiences to induce motivated reasoning, rising powers can manufacture the appearance of consensus among multiple audiences to help follower states hedge, while blunting the formation of containment coalitions. We adopt a mixed-methods approach to substantiate our theory: (1) text analysis of China’s messaging about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) from 2008 to 2016; (2) case study of the rhetorical action-reactions between China, the United States, and the follower states on the relationship between the TPP and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership; and (3) parallel case study of the rhetorical action-reactions between China, the United States, and the follower states on the relationship between the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and multilateral development banks such as the World Bank. Our analysis has implications for theories of strategic narratives in international politics and debates about geoeconomic competition/hedging in Asia.
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of International Relations publishes peer-reviewed scholarly contributions across the full breadth of the field of International Relations, from cutting edge theoretical debates to topics of contemporary and historical interest to scholars and practitioners in the IR community. The journal eschews adherence to any particular school or approach, nor is it either predisposed or restricted to any particular methodology. Theoretically aware empirical analysis and conceptual innovation forms the core of the journal’s dissemination of International Relations scholarship throughout the global academic community. In keeping with its European roots, this includes a commitment to underlying philosophical and normative issues relevant to the field, as well as interaction with related disciplines in the social sciences and humanities. This theoretical and methodological openness aims to produce a European journal with global impact, fostering broad awareness and innovation in a dynamic discipline. Adherence to this broad mandate has underpinned the journal’s emergence as a major and independent worldwide voice across the sub-fields of International Relations scholarship. The Editors embrace and are committed to further developing this inheritance. Above all the journal aims to achieve a representative balance across the diversity of the field and to promote deeper understanding of the rapidly-changing world around us. This includes an active and on-going commitment to facilitating dialogue with the study of global politics in the social sciences and beyond, among others international history, international law, international and development economics, and political/economic geography. The EJIR warmly embraces genuinely interdisciplinary scholarship that actively engages with the broad debates taking place across the contemporary field of international relations.