The concept of hedging and its application to Southeast Asia: a critique and a proposal for a modified conceptual and methodological framework

IF 1.7 3区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS International Relations of the Asia-Pacific Pub Date : 2019-09-01 DOI:10.1093/IRAP/LCZ010
J. Haacke
{"title":"The concept of hedging and its application to Southeast Asia: a critique and a proposal for a modified conceptual and methodological framework","authors":"J. Haacke","doi":"10.1093/IRAP/LCZ010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In the context of the complex unipolar post-Cold War period that has witnessed China’s reemergence as an economic and military power, small and middle powers are increasingly considered to be hedging. This analysis is especially prevalent in relation to Southeast Asian countries, many of which face security challenges posed by China. However, as the literature on hedging has expanded, the concept’s analytical value is no longer obvious. Different understandings of hedging compete within the literature, and there are many criteria by which hedging is empirically ascertained, leading to confusion even over the basic question of which countries are hedging. In response, this article presents a modified conceptual and methodological framework that clearly delineates hedging from other security strategies and identifies key criteria to evaluate whether smaller powers are hedging when confronting a serious security challenge by one of the major powers. This framework is then applied to Malaysia and Singapore.","PeriodicalId":51799,"journal":{"name":"International Relations of the Asia-Pacific","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/IRAP/LCZ010","citationCount":"51","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Relations of the Asia-Pacific","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/IRAP/LCZ010","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 51

Abstract

In the context of the complex unipolar post-Cold War period that has witnessed China’s reemergence as an economic and military power, small and middle powers are increasingly considered to be hedging. This analysis is especially prevalent in relation to Southeast Asian countries, many of which face security challenges posed by China. However, as the literature on hedging has expanded, the concept’s analytical value is no longer obvious. Different understandings of hedging compete within the literature, and there are many criteria by which hedging is empirically ascertained, leading to confusion even over the basic question of which countries are hedging. In response, this article presents a modified conceptual and methodological framework that clearly delineates hedging from other security strategies and identifies key criteria to evaluate whether smaller powers are hedging when confronting a serious security challenge by one of the major powers. This framework is then applied to Malaysia and Singapore.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
套期保值的概念及其在东南亚的应用:对修改概念和方法框架的批评和建议
在复杂的单极后冷战时期,中国重新崛起为经济和军事大国,中小大国越来越被认为是对冲。这种分析在东南亚国家尤其普遍,其中许多国家面临着中国带来的安全挑战。然而,随着套期保值文献的扩展,这一概念的分析价值不再明显。对套期保值的不同理解在文献中相互竞争,套期保值有许多凭经验确定的标准,甚至导致对哪些国家进行套期保值这一基本问题的困惑。作为回应,本文提出了一个修改后的概念和方法框架,将套期保值与其他安全战略明确区分开来,并确定了评估小国在面临大国之一的严重安全挑战时是否进行套期保值的关键标准。该框架随后适用于马来西亚和新加坡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
7.10%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: International Relations of the Asia-Pacific is an exciting journal that addresses the major issues and developments taking place in the Asia-Pacific. It provides frontier knowledge of and fresh insights into the Asia-Pacific. The journal is a meeting place where various issues are debated from refreshingly diverging angles, backed up by rigorous scholarship. The journal is open to all methodological approaches and schools of thought, and to ideas that are expressed in plain and clear language.
期刊最新文献
Bury the corpse of colonialism: The revolutionary feminist conference of 1949 Shocking contrasts: political response to exogenous supply shocks, Ronald L. Rogowski Financial cooperation in the Asia-Pacific as regime complex: explaining patterns of coverage, membership, and rules Taking ideas and words seriously: explaining the institutionalization of the Lancang-Mekong cooperation Practicing Peace: Conflict Management in Southeast Asia and South America
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1