{"title":"平衡、追随或对冲:台湾在中国崛起时代的战略选择","authors":"T.Y. Wang, A. C. Tan","doi":"10.1080/00323187.2021.1967765","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Small states have three strategic options when they are confronted by a rising power: balancing, bandwagoning, and hedging. With an increasingly powerful and assertive China as its neighbour, Taiwan, as a small state, is in such a conundrum. Employing survey data collected during the past two decades, this study examines how Taipei’s cross-Strait policy has been closely associated with the public’s preferences. Because Taiwan citizens reject a unification under Beijing’s terms, the bandwagoning policy has never been considered as an acceptable strategy. A ‘pure’ balancing policy is also unpalatable due to the enormous costs and associated risks. Instead, the island citizens are generally supportive of setting aside the sovereignty dispute with a rapprochement approach towards China. Hedging has thus become a preferred strategic option for most Taiwan citizens. The public’s support for a hedging policy has shifted recently due to China’s aggressive conduct and America’s supportive policy towards Taiwan. Because Beijing’s assertive behaviour is expected to persist and the Biden administration will remain supportive of Taiwan, Taipei’s strategic choice is likely to have a stronger balancing component. The cold and tense cross-Strait relationship since 2016 is expected to continue beyond the tenure of Taiwan’s pro-independence incumbent government.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Balancing, bandwagoning or hedging: Taiwan’s strategic choices in the era of a rising China\",\"authors\":\"T.Y. Wang, A. C. Tan\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00323187.2021.1967765\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Small states have three strategic options when they are confronted by a rising power: balancing, bandwagoning, and hedging. With an increasingly powerful and assertive China as its neighbour, Taiwan, as a small state, is in such a conundrum. Employing survey data collected during the past two decades, this study examines how Taipei’s cross-Strait policy has been closely associated with the public’s preferences. Because Taiwan citizens reject a unification under Beijing’s terms, the bandwagoning policy has never been considered as an acceptable strategy. A ‘pure’ balancing policy is also unpalatable due to the enormous costs and associated risks. Instead, the island citizens are generally supportive of setting aside the sovereignty dispute with a rapprochement approach towards China. Hedging has thus become a preferred strategic option for most Taiwan citizens. The public’s support for a hedging policy has shifted recently due to China’s aggressive conduct and America’s supportive policy towards Taiwan. Because Beijing’s assertive behaviour is expected to persist and the Biden administration will remain supportive of Taiwan, Taipei’s strategic choice is likely to have a stronger balancing component. The cold and tense cross-Strait relationship since 2016 is expected to continue beyond the tenure of Taiwan’s pro-independence incumbent government.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20275,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Political Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Political Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00323187.2021.1967765\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00323187.2021.1967765","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Balancing, bandwagoning or hedging: Taiwan’s strategic choices in the era of a rising China
ABSTRACT Small states have three strategic options when they are confronted by a rising power: balancing, bandwagoning, and hedging. With an increasingly powerful and assertive China as its neighbour, Taiwan, as a small state, is in such a conundrum. Employing survey data collected during the past two decades, this study examines how Taipei’s cross-Strait policy has been closely associated with the public’s preferences. Because Taiwan citizens reject a unification under Beijing’s terms, the bandwagoning policy has never been considered as an acceptable strategy. A ‘pure’ balancing policy is also unpalatable due to the enormous costs and associated risks. Instead, the island citizens are generally supportive of setting aside the sovereignty dispute with a rapprochement approach towards China. Hedging has thus become a preferred strategic option for most Taiwan citizens. The public’s support for a hedging policy has shifted recently due to China’s aggressive conduct and America’s supportive policy towards Taiwan. Because Beijing’s assertive behaviour is expected to persist and the Biden administration will remain supportive of Taiwan, Taipei’s strategic choice is likely to have a stronger balancing component. The cold and tense cross-Strait relationship since 2016 is expected to continue beyond the tenure of Taiwan’s pro-independence incumbent government.
期刊介绍:
Political Science publishes high quality original scholarly works in the broad field of political science. Submission of articles with a regional focus on New Zealand and the Asia-Pacific is particularly encouraged, but content is not limited to this focus. Contributions are invited from across the political science discipline, including from the fields of international relations, comparative politics, political theory and public administration. Proposals for collections of articles on a common theme or debate to be published as special issues are welcome, as well as individual submissions.