Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Review of International Political Economy
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rrip20
Introduction – IPE with China's characteristics
Gregory China, Margaret M. Pearsonb & Wang Yongc a Department of Political Science, York
University,
Toronto, Canada
b Department of Government and Politics, University of Maryland, College Park, USA
c cSchool of International Studies, Peking University, Beijing, China
Published online: 18 Dec 2013.
To cite this article: Gregory Chin, Margaret M. Pearson & Wang Yong (2013) Introduction
– IPE with China's characteristics, Review of International Political Economy, 20:6, 1145-1164,
DOI: 10.1080/09692290.2013.831370
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2013.831370
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)
contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our
licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or
suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication
are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &
Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified
with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,
actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection
with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub- licensing, systematic supply, or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can
be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Review of International Political Economy, 2013
Vol. 20, No. 6, 1145–1164, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2013.831370
Introduction – IPE with China’s characteristics
Gregory Chin,1 Margaret M. Pearson2 and Wang Yong3
1Department of Political Science, York University, Toronto, Canada 2Department of Government and
Politics, University of Maryland, College Park, USA
3School of International Studies, Peking University, Beijing, China
ABSTRACT
This article serves as an introduction to the five articles submitted for the special issue on IPE
in China. In addition to summarizing the special issue articles on key themes in IPE, we outline
the genesis of IPE as a field of study inside China, detail the core characteristics of Chinese
IPE, as seen in this special issue, and consider the limits of the development of Chinese IPE to
date. Finally, we provide a road map for the development of the IPE field in China, and identify
the potential contributions which the Chinese scholarship could make to knowledge creation in IPE,
and to the global conversation, in the future.
KEYWORDS
International political economy; China; Chinese IPE; origins; field building; future research.
This collection on international political economy (IPE) in China starts from three premises.
First, the study of IPE, globally, is changing continually, in terms of ‘what is IPE?’ and ‘how do
we study it?’ These shifts reflect the evolving world in which knowledge is created and
transformed. Second, the global rise of China in particular (as well as other ‘emerging’ nations),
and the steady maturation of IPE inside China give cause to reevaluate the so-called ‘consensus’
that has emerged during the past 20 years around general positivist theories, methods, analytical
frameworks and important questions (described by Frieden and Martin, 2003: 19), or what some call,
OC 2013 Taylor & Francis
REVIEW OF INTERNAT IONAL P OLITICAL E CONOMY
Open Economy Politics (Keohane, 2009; Lake, 2009). Third, it is worth- while to strive to better
understand multiple versions of IPE, and there is something important to be gained from conscious
bridge building across distinct national and cultural spheres of IPE. In the global spread of IPE,
China is one of, if not ‘the’ major growth area for IPE in the world (Cohen, forthcoming). China is
potentially the most potent source of knowledge creation, moving forward. This volume strives to
see what that source brings to the global conversation.
Following from these premises, this collection attempts to add to our understanding by analyzing
how IPE is studied in China, and how scholars in China, ‘by virtue of geography, intellectual
history, personal training and socialization’, think about IPE and write about the subject matter
(Blyth, 2009: 2). Each piece is co-authored by a prominent PRC scholar residing in China and a
‘foreign’ IPE scholar, some of whom specialize on China. Together each pair outlines what they
think are the core Chinese concerns of one key issue or area of substance in IPE, and indicate what
this understanding adds to the global conversation.
What Chinese IPE scholars are writing about inside China is usually of most direct interest to
China specialists. However the comparisons be- tween Chinese IPE and IPE in the Anglosphere, and
the analysis of broader implications ought to register with a general IPE audience. To paraphrase
Cohen, such comparison allows us to appreciate IPE as a ‘mental con- struct,’ and better understand
where a field’s ideas come from – how they originated, and how they develop over time (2008: 2). It
also helps us to think through why, among IPE scholars situated in China, some ideas have gained
traction and influence, and the differences and similarities with IPE in the West.
In this special issue, we examine the evolving boundaries and internal content of IPE as studied in
China, and compare Chinese IPE to the foun- dational ideas of the West. We seek to expand the
discussion beyond the focus on the ‘transatlantic divide’ of British and American IPE (started by
Benjamin Cohen, 2007, 2008; Phillips and Weaver, 2011). Early efforts to expand geographically
include, most recently, the chapters on ‘IPE in Asia’ in Blyth’s Handbook of IPE, (Arrighi, 2009;
Bello, 2009; Yeung, 2009).1 While these pieces are a useful start, we suspect that there is
dramatic variation in the IPE experience between differing national contexts in Asia, and that
further disaggregation is needed, i.e. that the concept of ‘Asian IPE’ is too broad. The broad
references to ‘Asian’ IPE can lead to over-generalization such as:
. . . what American scholars celebrate as hegemony as leadership (see Gilpin, 1987; Mandelbaum,
2005), and British scholars question as hegemony a` la critical perspectives (see Cox, 1987), Asian
scholars tend to see as (neo) imperialism (Bello, 2005). (Blyth, 2009: 5)
1146
CHIN, P EARSON AND WANG: INTRODUCTION
In contrast, the articles by Wang Yong and Louis Pauly, and by Qingxin
K. Wang and Mark Blyth in this special issue show that, even just for
China, the narrative on hegemony is not quite so straightforward. Indeed,
looking within China we see considerable diversity of views. In these arti-
cles, we see that scholarly conceptualization of ‘hegemony’ inside Chinese
IR and IPE has evolved steadily during the past 30 years, starting from
the critical view of world hegemony as ‘imperialism’, with initial roots
in Marxist thought; toward the power-politics conception of hegemony
of IR realism by the late 1990s; and more recently, to Kindelberger-type
‘hegemonic stability’.2 Wang and Pauly (in this issue) see convergence in
the mainstream of Chinese IPE toward American traditions, and yet they
also notice a return, of sorts, to some concepts of Confucianism, such as
‘tributary system’ and ‘equilibrium analysis,’ and the re-conceptualization
of power as ‘harmony’ in the global realm, from scholars searching for in-
digenous sources of innovation.
In this introduction, we also inquire as to source of ideas and ideational
innovation in Chinese IPE. The strong influence of Western IPE shows
throughout the essays in this issue. We also note, however, that ideas in
the Chinese literature exist as a result of the need inside China to respond
to changes in official policy, and the norms of the governing Chinese Com-
munist Party (CCP). To be explicit, ideational patterns in Chinese IPE are
strongly influenced by political power, particularly the role of the CCP in
encouraging and steering ideational and normative innovation, and defin-
ing the parameters of policy debate – to paraphrase Fewsmith (2003), in
determining where ‘correct ideas’ come from. The other determining factor
is the dramatic change in material conditions that China has experienced
in the past three decades. Especially pertinent has been China’s increasing
integration into world trade and investment flows, and more recently, the
country’s rise as an international creditor and growing international mon-
etary influence (see the contributions by Wang Xin and Gregory Chin, and
Wang and Blyth in this special issue).
The role of political power in shaping Chinese IPE can be seen in the
evolving way that the term ‘globalization’ was handled in the scholarship.
‘Globalization’ started to feature in the lexicon of the Chinese academy only
in the late 1990s (discussed by Yu Keping, 2004: 1), and came after the term
first appeared in the speeches of foreign minister Qian Qichen at the UN in
1996, and General Secretary Jiang Zemin at the 15th Party Congress in 1997.
Prior to this quasi-official sanctioning, many academics shied away from
referring to globalization as it was synonymous, ideologically, with world
capitalism. It took the Party until October 2002 to spell out what it meant, officially, by
‘economic globalization’, and in the Communique´ of the 15th
CPC Central Committee Plenum (9–11 October 2002).3 But once the term
came into official use, it set the tone inside Chinese IR and IPE, as more
scholars began focusing on the opportunities and challenges presented
1147
REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY
by the ‘inevitable force’ of economic globalization. We anticipate a similar dynamic for use of the
term ‘hegemony’ if or when it is recast in the Party’s official foreign policy. Such a conceptual
shift will be more difficult for the CPP to orchestrate given that ‘hegemony’ has such a strong
stigma in Maoist theory because of its association with ‘superpower bullying’ of the third world.
Nonetheless, as mentioned above, we can see the beginnings of such a conceptual shift in the
analysis of Chinese IPE scholars.
Wang and Blyth (in this issue) identify two ways in which the Party and state authorities have
played the pivotal role as the source of ideational change and defining of norms. They show how
China’s ‘neoliberal eco- nomic turn’ during the 1990s was preceded by the ‘triumph of neoliberal’
policy ideas that were championed by technocratic elites around Premier Zhu Rongji. At the same
time, Wang and Blyth also suggest that Marx- ism remains the defining ideological underpinning for
Chinese IPE. They suggest that this unique hybrid is the guiding logic for China’s foreign policy
and diplomacy. Wang and Chin show that Chinese IPE scholars have tended to stick to the official
policy line when analyzing the source of global macro-imbalances. They also observe that after
China’s monetary policy elites issued their calls for global reserve currency reform (Zhou
Xiaochuan, 2009), the scholars subsequently shifted their attention onto international monetary
system reforms. As mentioned above, the neo- Confucian turn in Chinese IR/IPE (addressed in Wang
and Pauly, and in the article by Pang Zhongying and Hongying Wang) has followed in the wake of the
CCP’s own return to Confucian thinking, that started in the late 1990s when those around then Party
General Secretary Jiang Zemin were searching for indigenous ideas for reviving the official state
doctrine. We notice that conceptual shifts in IPE inside the universities tend to follow changes in
China’s official policy, and its international positioning, and often emanate from ‘establishment’
think tanks and policy research centers. Some of the noteworthy conceptual shifts mentioned above
have been preconditioned by changes in the research agenda of influential pol- icy enclaves such as
key Party and state policy organs. For example, in the realm of grand strategy and the theorization
of the balance of power, the precursors of evolution in IPE stem from places such as the Insti-
tute of International Strategy of the Central Party School, or the China Institutes for
Contemporary International Relations, when, for example, during the last decade, the discussion on
international order and great power relations moved beyond power-balancing, to the possibilities
for concert-type cooperation.4 For the study of the politics of the world econ- omy, we see similar
trend-setting shifts in academic IPE emanating from the leading think tanks for economic policy
such as the Policy Research Office of the Chinese Communist Party, the Policy Research Office of
the State Council, and the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, or for
1148
CHIN, PEARSON AND WANG: INTRODUCTION
sector-specific research, from the research agenda of the People’s Bank of China, Ministry of
Finance or Ministry of Commerce. At issue here, then, are questions of both ontology and
epistemology: on the hand, the basic units of reality, and the relationships (dynamics) between the
constituent units; and, on the other hand, the methods and grounds of, and purposes for, knowledge
creation in Chinese IPE.
GENESIS O F T HE FIELD
The origins of IPE inside China trace back to the visits of American scholars in the mid 1980s, who
introduced IPE readings in their guest teaching in China. US Fulbright scholar Leo Chang, a
professor of political science at Regis College, introduced books such as Joan Spero’s IPE textbook
The Politics of International Economic Relations and Hans Morganthau’s Politics Among Nations, to
the students at Peking University in 1986 and 1987. The Center for Chinese and American Studies
jointly run by Nanjing University and Johns Hopkins University (School of Advanced International
Studies) was one of the first institutions inside China to offer IPE training within its courses.
American scholar George T. Crane taught a course on IPE at the Nanjing-Hopkins Center in
1988–1989.5
The earliest signs of indigenous Chinese IPE thinking inside China emerged in the late 1980s. Wu
Kaicheng and Professor Sang Yucheng6 (1987) at Fudan University (Shanghai) wrote a “review of IPE”,
one of the first articles to introduce the concepts of interdependence, the poli- tics of the
international economy, and post-hegemony cooperation. They argued that these new conceptualizations
reflected fundamental changes in the nature of international relations, and unprecedented linkages
be- tween politics and economy, that albeit ultimately worked in the service of “monopoly capital”.
Chen Dezhao (1988), a research fellow at the China Institute of International Studies (a think tank
under the foreign ministry) added to the nascent Chinese IPE narrative by describing how IPE had
became a new discipline in the United States, and suggesting that China should pay more attention
to the development of this field.
In 1988, Professor Yuan Ming, a respected scholar at Peking University, invited three IPE scholars
from the University of California, San Diego – John Ruggie, Peter Gourevitch and Miles Kahler – to
lecture to graduate students for one month. Wang Yong, then a graduate student at Peking
University, interviewed Kahler during the visit, leading to one of the earli- est Chinese pieces on
the study of IPE in the United States. Kahler discussed the general path, history, and major
methodologies and approaches of IPE in the United States, and commented briefly on how the study of
IPE could be developed inside China. The substance of this interview was published in the Social
Sciences Newspaper, a weekly published by the
1149
REVIEW OF INTERNAT IONAL P OLITICAL E CONOMY
Beijing Academy of Social Sciences that at the time was one of the most important periodicals for
introducing Western social science to Chinese scholars.
In the late 1980s, several foundational Western IPE books were trans- lated into Chinese. One of
the earliest such works was Bruno Frey’s In- ternational Political Economics (1986), translated in
1988 by Wu Yuanzhan, a professional translator at the Guangdong Academy of Social Sciences. Joan
Spero’s The Politics of International Relations (3rd ed.) was translated by a group of Chinese
researchers of international economic cooperation at the University of International Business and
Economics (UIBE) in Beijing, and published in 1989. Robert Gilpin’s The Political Economy of
International Relations was translated by Yang Yuguang of the Institute of World Econ- omy at Fudan
University, and published in 1989.7 Yang also later translated writings of Susan Strange.8 It is
interesting that these classic works of West- ern IPE were often translated by Chinese economists
who specialized on the world economy, and only later came to the attention of Chinese scholars of
international politics.
IPE, as such, emerged as a distinct area of study and research inside China in the early 1990s (Fan
Yongming, 2001; Zhu Wenli, 2001). Chinese IPE has developed in an intellectual context that has
borne the imprint of Marxism as the official state doctrine since 1949. Marxian political econ- omy
was the mandated approach to studying the ‘world economy’ from the 1950s to the 1980s. It remains
the preferred approach of some scholars of political economy (such as Cheng Enfu and Yang Bing at
the Institute for Marxism of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences). However, from the early 1990s
onwards, a growing body of Chinese IPE scholars occu- pied themselves with absorbing and
interpreting the classics of Western IPE, especially the Realism that also influenced Chinese IR
(e.g. Gilpin, Krasner), and introducing the Western canon to Chinese students. In the 1990s,
‘modern IPE’, with its set of ‘foreign’ concepts and unique per- spectives for interpreting the
past, current and future world order, caught on quickly with Chinese scholars and students, and
even some policy analysts. For example, at the foreign policy think tank, China Institute of
Contemporary International Relations (CICIR), under the Ministry of State Security, Wang Zaibang
produced what we believe to be the first doctoral thesis on US global hegemony (completed in 1994)
that explicitly used an IPE framework. Wang’s book (1999) introduced an IPE understand- ing of
‘hegemonic stability’, which many credit with enriching Chinese policy analysis of American global
power and the post-World War II US- dominated world order, especially in moving the Chinese reading
beyond security studies. From the mid 1990s onwards, Chinese IPE scholars also familiarized
themselves with some of the main works on China’s interna- tionalization produced by Western China
scholars (Pearson, 1991; Shirk, 1994; Moore, 2002; Zweig, 2002).
1150
CHIN, PEARSON AND WANG: INTRODUCTION
FIELD BUILDING IN CHINA
The institutional context for IPE studies in China has grown considerably in the past two decades.
As Cohen has suggested, the building of IPE as a field of study can be conceptualized along three
dimensions, publishing outlets, the formation of courses and programs dedicated to the area of
study (including academic hirings), and sustained community-building initiatives including
conferences, workshops and seminars (2008). In the first category, publishing outlets, IPE has seen
steady growth inside China as it relates to journals and books. There has yet to be a Chinese
journal in China dedicated solely to IPE – the equivalent of Review of International Political
Economy for China.9 If we define ‘IPE’ broadly as the area of so- cial scientific study that
focuses on the interrelation between ‘politics’ and ‘economics’, and the ‘international’ and the
‘domestic,’ then there are five or six journals in China that publish articles by scholars that
self-identify as doing ‘IPE’, and articles that are framed in reference explicitly to IPE
literature, or deal with issues that are at the core of the analytical terrain of IPE. These five
or six leading IPE-related journals include World Economics and Politics (published by the Chinese
Academy of Social Sciences, hence- forth CASS), International Economic Review (published by CASS),
Compar- ative Economic and Social Systems (published by Central Compilation and Translation Bureau
of the Chinese Communist Party), International Poli- tics Quarterly (published by the School of
International Studies, Peking University), and notably, Studies on Marxism (published by the
Institute of Marxism of CASS).10
The journal, World Economics and Politics is mainly the preserve of IR scholarship, and IPE
articles have constituted between 10–15 per cent of the published work. International Economic
Review is dedicated mainly to publishing the work of economists, however, about 20–25 per cent of
its publications could be classified as directly related to IPE.11 World Economics and Politics,
International Political Studies Quarterly and another leading journal for IPE articles,
Contemporary Asia-Pacific Studies, have gone beyond ad hoc publishing of IPE-related articles to,
periodically, publishing three or four IPE articles in one issue as a special feature.
The rising tide of IPE-related articles in the World Economics and Politics began under the
editorship of Wang Yizhou (199812), a specialist on IR and international organization, when he was
deputy director general of the Institute for World Economy and Politics (IWEP) at CASS. Under Zhang
Yuyan as lead editor (since 200913), the proportion of IPE-related articles in World Economics and
Politics has increased to around 25 per cent. Although trained originally as an economist, Zhang
has come to be one of the lead- ing forces for IPE in China, from the vantages of both heading a
leading research institute focusing on the intersection of international economic and political
affairs, and as the editor of one of the leading publishing
1151
REVIEW OF INTERNAT IONAL P OLITICAL E CONOMY
outlets for IPE scholars.14 The number of books on IPE, both single- authored and edited, has grown
inside China, but there has yet to be a book series that is dedicated to ‘IPE’ equivalent to the
Palgrave or Rout- ledge series published in Britain, or the Cornell Studies in Money. Instead,a
number of book series on international politics have featured IPE-related books, such as the Series
on World Politics and International Relations – Orig- inal Copy, published by Peking University
Press since 2003 (this series mainly publishes foundational works by US scholars15). Dongfang
Trans- lation Series, published by Shanghai People’s Publishing House (since 2000); the series on
‘China and International Organization’, co-published by Shanghai People’s Publishing House and
Fudan University (edited by Fudan’s Su Changhe); and the series ‘New Directions in the Study of
World Politics’, published since 2002 by Peking University Press (edited by Zhao Baoxu and Qin
Yaqing).
With regards to the introduction of courses and programs of study in IPE in the university system,
Renmin University China (or People’s University) was the first to offer IPE classes, starting in
the mid 1990s. Song Xinning, in particular, introduced IPE at Renmin University. Song, exhibiting
what one Chinese scholar called ‘long-term vision’, switched his research focus from IR theory to
IPE early in his career, and equally important, as the vice chair of the Department of
International Politics at Renmin University, had the power to push for introducing IPE courses into
the general program of international politics at the university.16 Together with Chen Yue, the
executive dean of the School of International Studies at Renmin University, Song co-authored the
first IPE textbook in the Chinese academy, titled Introduction to International Political Economy
(Song and Chen, 1999).
A second institutional locus of IPE studies in China is Fudan University in Shanghai. As mentioned
above, faculty in the world economics institute at Fudan were pioneering forces for IPE in China
when they introduced realist IPE. In the late 1990s, political scientist Fan Yongming also gained
prominence at Fudan as a specialist of IPE, and published a book on Western International Political
Economy (2001). Chen Zhimin, then the associate dean of Fudan’s School of International Relations
and Public Affairs, co-edited a book (Chen and Zweig, 2006) that featured the writings of Chinese
and Western IPE scholars. By 2004, Fudan University had introduced courses on IPE into its general
IR program, and the school has attracted a nucleus of IPE scholars that also includes Song Guoyou
and Zhang Jianxin. Song Guoyou has risen to prominence inside IPE circles as a leading contributor
to debates on international reserve currencies. Zhang Jianxin is editing a forthcoming special
issue of Fudan Review of International Relations, with a collection of articles by IPE scholars on
evolving great power dynamics and global governance reform. IPE studies at Fudan University has
strong links with the influential American Studies program at the School of In- ternational
Relations and Public Affairs. The latter has reinforced IPE at
1152
CHIN, P EARSON AND WANG: INTRODUCTION
Fudan as “American studies” has promoted the study of IR and IPE inside China.
Peking University holds the distinction of being the first university in China to offer a
specialized program, a specialized major, in IPE at both the undergraduate and graduate levels
(Renmin University also recently introduced its specialized program in IPE at the two levels). The
program at Peking University is housed in the School of International Studies. The internal
lobbying for the program began in the late 1990s but the break- through only came in 2001, when Pan
Guohua, the executive dean of the School of International Studies, and Yuan Ming, director of the
Institute of International Relations, both gave their support to establish the new Center for
International Political Economy at the School of International Studies. The creation of the new
research center was initiated by Wang Yong, and Pan Guohua backed its creation on the understanding
that the proposed research and work on trade policy and capacity-building would attract resources
and funding at a time when China was preparing for accession to the WTO. Approval came in late
2001, and Wang Yong was appointed the director of the center, and remains in the position.
In 2001–2002, Pan Guohua and Yuan Ming also agreed to lead the ap- plication to create a new
specialty in IPE at Peking University, to enable students at the undergraduate level to major in
IPE, within their program of study at the School of International Studies. Their combined efforts
came to fruition in 2002, when Peking University became the first univer- sity in China to
establish a specialized IPE major at the undergraduate level, and the graduate major soon followed
(the decision to create the major for IPE, was taken within Peking University, but also received
the sanctioning of the Ministry of Education). In 2002, Wang Zhengyi (then newly arrived from
Nankai University) became the chair of the new de- partment of IPE, and Wang Yong, Ding Dou and Zhu
Wenli the founding faculty members. Wang Jisi’s arrival as the dean of the school in 2005 gave a
further boost to IPE at the university, and several new faculty joined the IPE team including Zha
Daojiong, an energy expert, who transferred from Renmin University. IPE research and curricular
offerings have continued to expand at Peking University, and by the end of the Spring 2013 school
term, over 100 undergraduate and graduate students specializing in IPE have matriculated.
Institution-building in Chinese IPE took another step forward in 2011 when CASS’s Institute of
World Economy and Politics (IWEP) established a new IPE division. The creation of this research
unit was one of the first institutional moves of the newly promoted director general of IWEP, Zhang
Yuyan, as already mentioned, a leading force in IPE inside China. Zhang staffed CASS’ new IPE unit
with researchers, some of whom did their graduate studies in economics, but specializing in IPE,
and some form international politics. Some of the staff were supervised by Zhang as
1153
REVIEW OF INTERNAT IONAL P OLITICAL E CONOMY
graduate students. Feng Weijiang, who did his doctoral degree in eco- nomics at CASS, was appointed
deputy director of IPE research, and over- sees research on regional cooperation and global
economic governance, and Li Youshen, who did his graduate studies at Renmin University in
economics, was appointed as research fellow, and works on finance and capital markets.
Also at CASS is the Institute of Marxism, which remains a stronghold of Marxian political economy,
under the leadership of senior scholar Cheng Enfu. The severity of the 2008-09 global financial
crises brought a return of sorts to Marxian critiques of instability and contradictions in the
‘capitalist world economy’ inside Chinese policy circles, and in turn, the IPE debates. The
IPE-related research of Cheng Enfu, and Yang Bing on the source and impact of the global crisis,
using the ‘mode of production’ and ‘production relations’ as guiding concepts have received
attention of late. Cheng Enfu and the CASS Institute of Marxism edit the journal Studies on
Marxism, which was cited above as one of the leading IPE-related journals inside China, as well as
the journal Review of Political Economy in the World. While Marxian political economy continues to
have a place in Chinese IPE, it is important not to overstate the influence. In the university
programs, new generations of students continue to be trained mainly in Western IPE methods and on
modern IPE approaches to trade, finance, and production, and the interconnections between the
levels of analysis, including the regional, between the national and the global.
In the years since the financial crisis, IPE scholarship has received sup- port for research, both
directly and indirectly, from China’s Ministry of Education. The ministry has developed a long-term
plan to promote ed- ucation and research in international studies, to meet with the growing
interest and demand inside the Chinese academy. For example, the School of International Studies at
Peking University (under Dean Wang Jisi), and the Department of International Studies at Tsinghua
University (directed by Professor Liu Jiangyong) have each received funding to conduct re- search
to provide forecasting and future projections on world politics over the next 10–20 years. One
component of the project focuses on ‘economic globalization’, specifically on how economic
globalization is evolving, and analyzing major trends in regional and global development, using
political–economic perspectives. During the last three years, IPE scholars (including Wang Yong)
from Peking University, the Institute of Economics at CASS and the University of International
Business and Economics in Beijing, have collaborated on a project on global economic governance
sponsored by the Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM). The research group provides recommendations to
MOFCOM on G20 Summitry and global economic issues. In order to meet the growing demand for policy
consul- tation from the Chinese government, during the past decade, the Ministry
1154
CHIN, P EARSON AND WANG: INTRODUCTION
of Education has augmented the investment by individual universities to encourage them to build new
centers on systemically-important countries and regions, including the emerging economies, and on
themes related directly to IPE, such as global governance and the G20. This has led to creation of
the Center for the Study of Global Governance at Renmin Uni- versity, headed by Pang Zhongying, the
BRICS Research Center at Fudan University, and the newly created G20 Research Institute at Shanghai
In- ternational Studies University.
At a third level of field building, Chinese IPE scholars have recently begun to connect as a
scholarly community, outside of their own univer- sities. This has been evidenced over the past
four years by the annual gathering of Chinese scholars who self-identify as doing ‘IPE’. An ‘IPE
Fo- rum’ jointly founded by the Institute of World Economics and Politics of CASS and Peking
University’s School of International Studies held its first meeting in 2010. Subsequent annual
meetings have been co-sponsored by other universities, specifically, the University of
International Rela- tions (in Beijing) in 2011, Fudan University and Shanghai International Studies
University in 2012, and Guangdong Foreign Studies University (in Guangzhou) in 2013. The first
conference of the IPE Forum carried the theme ‘International Political Economy and China,’ and the
discus- sion concentrated on theory and methodology in IPE, the implications of the global
financial crisis for China, and regional cooperation. Of par- ticular note, the participants at the
first forum discussed the so-called trans-Atlantic IPE debate, and its implications for the
development of IPE in China. Themes covered in the next forums included world mone- tary politics
(including the condition of the international monetary system, and currency internationalization),
emerging economies and global gover- nance, current debt crises, and the political economy of
climate change and peace-keeping.
What has been achieved so far at these gatherings? The meetings have mainly served to encourage a
sense of community and intellectual and professional networks which, as Cohen suggests, is a key
condition of field building. Each conference attracted a growing number of scholars from China’s 30
major universities and think tanks, and included scholars from different academic disciplines and
specialties ranging from international relations and political science, to economics and law. The
IPE Forum and the annual conferences have contributed to the growing sense of shared identity among
the scholars, and helped to attract more graduate students and scholars to the emerging field. It
would be premature to suggest that the first four gatherings have resulted in a coherent or focused
agenda for research and innovation in Chinese IPE, but such outreach across the intellectual
fiefdoms in the Chinese academy is a positive step forward in building China’s IPE community.
1155
REVIEW OF INTERNAT IONAL P OLITICAL E CONOMY
CORE CHARACTERISTICS
Each article in this special issue delves into a core theme or issue of IPE. Three main
characteristics of IPE, as carried out in China, emerge across the articles. First, the main
reference points in the scholarship are often China’s own policy concerns. Evident is the
overarching concern for the impact of the global economy on China, on Chinese national interests as
defined by the state, and on questions of how China should respond. Indeed, one of the main
differences between IPE in China and IPE in the West is the ‘Sinocentricism’ of the former, in
which explicit focus is consistently placed on the implications and consequences of global trends
for China.
Second, is the statist preoccupation in Chinese IPE. There is usually di- rect linkage between
scholarship and the emphasis on policy prescription, and the scholarship is quite explicit about
its normative underpinnings and the need for scholarship to support state interests. Tianbiao Zhu
and Margaret Pearson suggest in their article in this Special Issue that Chinese IPE exhibits a
standardized format of analysis – a ‘challenge–response’ mode in which the challenges raised for
China by global develop- ments are presented, followed by a prescribed ‘response,’ usually in the
form of policy recommendations for the Chinese government. The ‘challenge–response’ mode of
scholarly exposition appears to be closely related to the ties between scholars and the work of the
Chinese state.
The Chinese government generously funds well-regarded scholars with foreign affairs expertise,
including scholars knowledgeable about IPE is- sues. Pang and Wang note that this relationship
hearkens back to the role of scholar-gentry, signifying a symbiosis between scholarship and the Em-
peror, and the dynastic tradition in which scholarship was performed in the service of the state.
The policy orientation of Chinese IPE, similar to dependencia in Latin America, is not only a field
of study in which politics is observed, but also a normative terrain of policy action about what
the government and nation can and should do. It should also be highlighted, however, that although
there is little if any space between political writ- ing and policy, and even though Chinese IPE
scholars have often directed their research to advising the state, as Zhu and Pearson show, Chinese
IPE has given only limited attention to studying the role of the Chinese state per se in China’s
own integration into the global economy17 – the core theme of the Western political economy
scholarship on China (see Riskin, 1987; Shirk, 1994). Zhu and Pearson suggest this is due, in part,
to the late development of comparative politics inside China, and in part, to a lack of incentives
to focus on this theme inside China.
Third, IPE in China today exhibits significant diversity. The terrain of ‘respectable’ perspectives
ranges from the main variants of ‘modern IPE’
(i.e. realism, liberal institutionalism to critical schools) to Marxian political economy, and
accepted methodology from positivist empiricism and
1156
CHIN, P EARSON AND WANG: INTRODUCTION
quantitative modeling to more historical and qualitative modes of analy- sis. Some Chinese IPE
scholars have attempted to synthesize competing Western theoretical approaches to produce a new
hybrid that is deemed more suitable to addressing China’s global concerns (see Su Changhe, 2000).
The enduring influence of Marxian political economy, even if the Marxian ranks are dwindling, is
not surprising if one considers that Marx- ian political economy was practiced as the unchallenged
approach for many decades, and given that Marxism served as the basis for the study of all
politics, economics, philosophy, sociology, and history after the found- ing of the People’s
Republic (1949). Moreover, think tanks and research centers that practice Marxian political
economy, such as the Institute of Marxism at CASS, continue to receive privileged support from the
state.
The scholarship that has emerged recently in response to the 2008–2009 global financial crisis
exhibits the diversity of perspectives in Chinese IPE Some of the scholarship emphasizes
interdependence and common inter- ests between China and the global economy has been seen as
helpful to Chinese leadership efforts to shape how the PRC pursues international cooperation in the
G20 process. For example, Zhang Boli (2009), vice presi- dent of the Central Party School,
emphasizes that neither anti-globalization nor de-globalization are the right solution to the
impact of the global finan- cial crisis, and strengthening international cooperation and
coordination is the only choice. This echoes the statement of former President Hu Jin- tao at the
London G20 summit: ‘this global financial crisis takes place in the context of deepening economic
globalization and increasing interstate interdependence. No country is immune, and cooperation
should be the right choice’. The global crisis has, however, brought about a resurgence in IPE
scholarship that theorizes from the realist perspective or more crit- ical political economy
approaches, including Marxism, which emphasize that the global crisis has revealed the ‘unfair’
structure of power, wealth and representation in the global economic system, and the negative im-
plications of the dollar order for China, the emerging economies, and the developing world. Such
Realist and Marxian IPE critiques have recently seen a return to influence vis-a`-vis
policy-makers. The article by Wang and Chin in this special issue shows that most Chinese IPE
scholars attribute the fundamental cause of global economic imbalance to the hegemonic position of
the US dollar as the major reserve currency (see also Cheng and Yang, 2010; Zheng, 2011); see the
IMF as lacking evenhandedness, due to the balance of representation and power in its
decision-making struc- ture, and incapable of preventing major financial crises because it is
biased toward neoliberal policies (Cheng and Yang, 2010).
In brief, the field as it currently exists in China reflects solid ground- ing in the core concepts
and terms used in modern (Western) IPE, and coexistence with Marxist approaches to IPE that focus
on production re- lations, and emphasize the instability of world capitalism – though direct
1157
REVIEW OF INTERNAT IONAL P OLITICAL E CONOMY
communication is limited between the two streams of IPE analysis, ‘mod- ern’ and Marxist.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Two of the articles in this special issue (Wang and Chin; Wang and Blyth) suggest that Chinese IPE
may be reaching a turning-point in its develop- ment, as scholars consider the challenges of global
finance and existing international currency arrangements, China’s place in the evolving sys- tems
of global economic governance, and China’s positioning on norms, and identity in a diverse
multi-centered world. Across these themes, we see early signs of evolution in Chinese IPE research.
Moreover, as Chinese IPE enters its third decade, and due to the severity of the recent crisis of
Anglo-American finance, more attention is turning to critical evaluation of the Western texts, as
younger scholars push for empirical breakthroughs and new theoretical-conceptual interpretations.
We see the rise of another generation of Chinese IPE scholars who are rethinking the development of
the field, with the latest global conditions in mind (Li We, 2012), and some such as Chen Ping at
Dalian University, who works on monetary politics, and resides outside of the three established
universities for Chinese IPE.
In the next five years, what will Chinese IPE look like? Chinese schol- ars seem poised to explore
the rationalist basis for international studies that dominates in American IR and IPE. Much of the
development of Chi- nese IPE over the past three decades has been a story of learning, and
internalizing Western IPE, especially American practices, and theoretical preferences. Pang and
Wang argue in their article that the main reason why there is yet to be a ‘Chinese school’ in
studying international orga- nization is because the socializing effects of the Western scholarship
has overwhelmed indigenous theoretic innovation. Until recently, and specif- ically the fallout
from the crisis of Anglo-American finance in 2008–2009, Chinese IPE scholars who had been trained
in the ‘modern’ schools, ap- peared hesitant to critique the Western traditions.
However, the 2008–2009 financial crisis and the moves to internation- alize the RMB could be a
turning-point for Chinese IPE. We have fur- thermore noted above the juxtapositions and sometimes
tensions between ‘imported’ – mainly rationalist – IPE, and the more critical applications of
Realism and Marxism that are favored inside China. A consistent theme in the articles in this
special issue is the sentiment that America’s hegemonic power has led US-based academics to see
American power as benevolent, and to downplay the inequities of power in the international system.
As the world enters a phase in which we cannot necessarily assume a static world order dominated by
the US, particularly within the Asian region, it would seem to be a prime moment for Chinese IPE
scholars to conduct more detailed comparative research on the rise of China (and the other
1158
CHIN, P EARSON AND WANG: INTRODUCTION
emerging economies), and to ask big questions about the resulting shifts in the nature of the world
system, and the foundational order. It may be that Chinese scholars, ever incentivized to be policy
relevant, will be nudged toward innovation by the actions taken by the Chinese state in developing
new regulatory and institutional arrangements to allow for the internationalization of the RMB, and
China’s rise as a creditor. As sug- gested in the article by Wang and Chin, these path-breaking
financial and monetary developments could lead Chinese IPE scholars to consider, more forcefully,
which theories or concepts best explain these processes, realism, liberalism, critical, or
something new that may draw on indigenous Chi- nese theoretical approaches. The global financial
crisis, the inklings of a return to Marxist critique, and the reexamination of indigenous political
thought, might be employed not just for political criticism but also as a route to epistemological
debate about possible alternative knowledge creation. Could Chinese IPE, in other words, become the
crucible for re- considering the links between material and ideational power? The articles in this
special issue offer a mixed assessment, with Pang Zhongying and Hongying Wang the most skeptical,
and Wang Xin and Gregory Chin, and Qingxin K. Wang and Mark Blyth probing the possibilities.
In addition to the theoretical and meta-theoretical considerations, it is important for Chinese IPE
scholars to consider the emerging empirical patterns or transformations that are associated with
China’s outward turn. One major substantive omission in the Chinese IPE literature, to date, is
analysis on the impact of Chinese demand and supply on the structure of the global economy. What
are the implications of China’s extensive participation in global commodities markets, especially
in energy and raw materials? Researchers in G7 national governments and central banks have been
tracking China’s impact on global pricing. For example, a report from the Bank of Canada notes that
in the decade since China’s accession to the WTO (December 2001), Chinese exports of consumer goods
and imports of primary commodities have grown exponentially, and have had a major effect on the
respective demand and supply of these commodities. Globally, the price of consumer goods such as
clothing, toys, and electronics have fallen relative to other consumer goods and services, while
the relative price of commodities such as oil and metals have risen (Francis, 2007).
Western scholars of IPE have begun to disaggregate China’s outward impact, offering
regionally-specific analyses on China’s impact on devel- oping countries in Africa and Latin
America (Shaw et al., 2007; Jenkins et al., 2008). Admittedly, such research on China’s impact on
the system ‘in total’, its global structural impact, is also new for Western scholars. The most
systematic accounts, to date, have focused on China’s systemic influence as a ‘buyer’ and ‘seller’
(Lampton, 2008). It is still early to gauge China’s global impact, and the studies that do exist
are self-consciously cautious, or ‘partial’ in drawing conclusions (Shambaugh, 2013). Building
1159
REVIEW OF INTERNAT IONAL P OLITICAL E CONOMY
on research by the forecasting units of the established global policy bodies, such as the OECD and
the IEA,18 which have highlighted how surging demand from Asia, and China especially, have exerted
a strong impact on global commodity and energy prices, Western scholars have begun to dissect
China’s influence on global commodity prices and the correlated impact on other developing
countries. China’s impact on Brazil, for example, is mixed. On the one hand, Brazil has benefitted
from higher prices for its commodity exports which have resulted from strong demand from China,
even while, on the other hand, China’s manufacturing competitiveness is undermining Brazilian
manufacturers where they compete directly for third markets (Jenkins, 2011).
A second growing concern, where Chinese IPE can make a major contri- bution to the global
conversation is global governance reform, and the role of rising states (including China) within
these processes. There is grow- ing interest in ‘global governance’ inside PRC IPE circles these
days. This interest is driven, on the one hand, by what Chinese analysts perceive as the ‘crisis of
global governance’, especially with the onset of the global financial crisis in 2007, and the rise
of the G20 Leaders process, and on the other hand, by the growing exogenous pressure on China to
assume a larger role in upholding the existing global institutional order. Chinese IPE scholars
have recently turned more attention to exploring China’s role in the provision of global public
goods (Yu and Chen, 2005; Cai and Yang, 2012). It should be noted, however, that while IPE scholars
inside China (and outside) have been focusing on the global stakeholdership ques- tion, the Chinese
Party-state has moved ahead to innovate institutionally, both with the global spread of the
aforementioned Confucius Institutes, as well as recent efforts to turn the idea of a joint BRICS
Development Bank into a reality. These institutional innovations have coincided with a return to
ancient Chinese thought on foreign relations, as seen for example in Zheng Bijian’s ‘peaceful rise’
mantra, and the interest on Chinese ‘excep- tionalism’ and traditional concepts related to the
tributary system such as ‘tianxia’ (all under heaven). This turn to the past for the present, and
future has not been well explained by either Chinese IPE scholars or China spe- cialists in the
West. There appears to be a disconnect between the emerg- ing reality of China’s growing role in
driving international institutional innovations, and Chinese and Western IPE theorizing of China
and inter- national governance. Addressing this intellectual gap would be a major contribution from
Chinese IPE, in advancing our collective understanding of China’s global impact, as well as to the
global conversation of the field.
NOTES
1 Earlier treatments of IPE in China, designed to provide a ‘state-of-the-field’ perspective, see
Breslin (2007), Chen and Zweig (2006), Fan Yongming (2001),
1160
CHIN, P EARSON AND WANG: INTRODUCTION
Li Wei (2008), Wang Zhengyi (2006, 2010), Zhu Wenli (2001), and Zweig and Chen (2007). Recent
surveys on IR as a whole include Qin Yaqing (2010) and Shambaugh (2011).
2 Bello’s characterization may have been accurate for the prevailing conception of the
international order in Maoist China, yet much has changed in scholarship since that time.
Counter-currents of Chinese ‘Old Left’ and ‘New Left’ thinking that would support “hegemony” as
“imperialism” continue to exist, though they are no longer in the mainstream.
3 See: http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/45280.htm.
4 Chin’s discussions with lead researchers of the IIS at the Central Party School:
Beijing, November 2004–May 2006.
5 Crane (1990) later published The Political Economy of China’s Special Economic
Zones (Armonk, New York and London: M. E. Sharpe), one of the first IPE
inspired books written by an American scholar of China.
6 Sang Yucheng is currently Assistant President of Fudan University.
7 The preface for the translation of Gilpin’s book was written by Liu Tongxun,
a professor of international economics at the institute who encouraged inter-
disciplinary research between economics and political science.
8 Robert Cox’s Production, Power, and World Order (1987), one of the founda-
tional books of “critical political economy”, was translated into Chinese, and
published in 2004 by China Finance Press (Beijing).
9 A range of factors likely account for the lack of an IPE journal in China including
the IPE scholarly community inside China is only now reaching the critical
mass needed to support an autonomous IPE journal; there is still limited debate
on the scope, boundaries and methodology of IPE as a field of study inside
China’s IPE community; and the persistence of institutional and administrative
barriers that inhibit the development of the field.
10 This list of the leading Chinese IPE-related journals is the result of consultations
with leading Chinese IPE scholars, including Su Changhe and Wang Yong, and
foreign specialists on the IPE of China.
11 Wang Yong verified these approximate statistics.
12 We thank Wang Yizhou for this information.
13 Zhang Yuyan succeeded Yu Yongding as director general of CASS IWEP in
2009.
14 Yu Yongding is one of China’s leading public intellectuals (economist) and a
regular commentator on government policy in the media. Zhang Yuyan has
recently taken over the editorship of International Economic Review and World
Economy, two CASS journals that have published articles that are related to
IPE, and were edited formerly by Yu Yongding.
15 The Advisory Board for this Series includes prominent IR and IPE scholars such
as Wang Jisi, Yuan Ming, and Jia Qingguo. Song Xinning and Wang Zhengyi
select the IPE books for this Series, and manage the manuscript review process
with reviewers.
16 Song Xinning has also become a leading figure in China for European studies,
and the driving force behind the establishment of the EU-funded Monet Eu-
ropean Studies Chairs in three Chinese universities, and he held this Research
Chair at Renmin University.
17 An important exception is the literature on the internal bureaucratic politics
behind the major policy decisions to join the global trading regime (Wang
Yong, 2004).
18 For recent examples see: http://www.oecd.org/agriculture/41227216.pdf;
http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/news/2012/december/name,33787,
en.html.
1161
REVIEW OF INTERNAT IONAL P OLITICAL E CONOMY
REFERENCES
Arrighi, G. (2009) ‘Reading Hobbes in Beijing: Great Power Politics and the Chal- lenge of Peaceful
Ascent’, in M. Blyth (ed.) Routledge Handbook of International Political Economy, New York:
Routledge Press, pp. 163–179.
Bello, W. (2009) ‘States and Markets, States versus Markets: the Developmental State Debate as the
Distinctive East Asian Contribution to International Po- litical Economy’, in M. Blyth (ed.)
Routledge Handbook of International Political Economy, New York: Routledge Press, pp. 180–200.
Blyth, M. (2009) ‘Introduction: International Political Economy as a Global Conver- sation’, in M.
Blyth (ed.) Routledge Handbook of International Political Economy, New York: Routledge, pp. 1–20.
Breslin, S. (2007) China and the Global Political Economy, London: Palgrave Macmil- lan.
Cai, T. and Yang, H. (2012) ‘Guoji gonggong wupin de gongji: zhongguo de xuanze yu shijian’ [The
Supply of International Public Goods: Choice and Practice of China], Shijie jingji yu zhengzhi
[World Economics and Politics], 10: 95–115.
Cheng, E. and Yang, B. (2010) ‘Guoji jinrong weiji dui zibenzhuyi shengcun yu fazhan de yingxiang’
[The Impact of the International Financial Crisis on the Survival and Development of Capitalism],
Hongqi wen gao [Red Flag Working Paper), No. 11: 4–8.
Chen, D. (1988) ‘Xifang guoji zhengzhi jingjixue chutan’ [A Preliminary Analysis of International
Political Economy], Shijie jingji yu zhengzhi [World Economics and Politics], 4: 1–7.
Chen, Z. and Zweig, D. (eds) (2006) IPE and China’s Globalization [Guoji Zhengzhi Jingjixue yu
Zhongguo de Quanqiuhua], Shanghai: Shanghai Sanlian Shudian Publishers, pp. 262–84.
Cohen, B. J. (2007) ‘The Transatlantic Divide: Why are American and British IPE So Different?’,
Review of International Political Economy, 14: 197–219.
Cohen, B. J. (2008) International Political Economy: An Intellectual History, Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Cohen, B. J. (2014) International Political Economy: An Advanced Introduction, Chel- tenham: Edwin
Elgar.
Cox, R. W. (1987) Production Power and World Order, New York: Columbia University Press.
Crane, G. T. (1990) The Political Economy of China’s Special Economic Zones, Armonk, NY: M. E.
Sharpe.
Fan Yongming (2001) Western International Political Economy [Xifang Guoji Zhengzhi Jingjixue],
Shanghai: Shanghai Renmin Press.
Fewsmith, J. (2003) ‘Where Do Correct Ideas Come From? The Party School, Key Think Tanks, and the
Intellectuals’, in D. Finkelstein and M. Kivlehan (eds) Chinese Leadership in the Twenty-first
Century: The Rise of the Fourth Generation, New York: M. E. Sharpe, pp. 152–64.
Francis, M. (2007) ‘The Effect of China on Global Prices’, Bank of Canada Review, Au- tumn: 13–25,
http://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/
francis1.pdf. (accessed June 3, 2013).
Frey, B. (1986) International Political Economics, London: Blackwell.
Frieden, J. and Martin, L. (2003) ‘International Political Economy: Global and Do-
mestic Interactions’, in I. Katznelson and H. V. Milner (eds) Political Science:
The State of the Discipline, New York: W. W. Norton.
Gilpin, R. (1987) The Political Economy of International Relations, Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
1162
CHIN, P EARSON AND WANG: INTRODUCTION
Jenkins, R. (2011) ‘The “China” Effect on Commodity Prices and Latin American Export Earnings’,
Revista CEPAL, 103: 77–93.
Jenkins, R., Dussel Peters, E. and Mesquita Moreira, M. (2008) ‘China’s Im- pact on Latin
America and the Caribbean’, World Development, 36(2): 235– 53.
Keohane, R. (2009) ‘The Old IPE and the New’, Review of International Political Economy, 16(1):
34–46.
Lake, D. (2009) ‘Open Economy Politics: A Critical Review’, Review of International Organization,
4(3): 219–44.
Lampton, D. M. (2008) The Three Faces of Chinese Power: Might, Money, and Minds, Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Li, W. (2008) ‘Tixi, shehui, guojia: Meiguo duiwai jingji zhengce de sanzhong yanjiu lujing’
[‘System, Society and Country: Studying Three Logics of the External Economic Policies of the US’],
Guoji Guancha [International Review] 1: 72–79.
Li, W. (2012) ‘Development of IPE and Its Current Status in China’, Quarterly Journal of
International Politics, 1: 138–75.
Mandelbaum, M. (2005) The Case for Goliath: How America Acts as the World’s Gov- ernment,
Washington, DC: Public Affairs.
Moore, T. G. (2002) China in the World Market: Chinese Industry and International Sources of
Reform, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pang, Z. and Wang Hongying (2013) ‘IPE in China: International Institutions and Global Governance’,
Review of International Political Economy, 20(6).
Pearson, M. (1991) Joint Ventures in the People’s Republic of China: The Control of Foreign Direct
Investment under Socialism, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Phillips, N. and Weaver, C. (eds) (2011) International Political Economy: Debating the Past,
Present and Future, London: Routledge.
Qin Yaqing (2010) ‘Why Is There No Chinese International Relations Theory?’, in
A. Acharya and B. Buzan (eds) Non-Wesern International Relations Theory, New
York: Routledge, pp. 26–50.
Riskin, C. (1987) China’s Political Economy: The Quest for Development since 1949,
New York: Oxford University Press.
Shambaugh, D. (2011) ‘International Relations Studies in China: History, Trends,
and Prospects’, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 11(3): 1–34.
Shambaugh, D. (2013) China Goes Global: The Partial Power, New York: Oxford
University Press.
Shaw, T., Cooper, A. F. and Antkiewicz, A. (2007) ‘Global and Regional Develop-
ment at the Start of the Twenty-first Century? China, India and (South) Africa’,
Third World Quarterly, 28(7): 1255–70.
Shirk, S. (1994) How China Opened Its Door: The Political Success of the PRC’s Foreign
Trade and Investment Reform, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Shirk, S. (1995) The Political Logic of Economic Reform in China, Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Slaughter, A. M. (2004) A New World Order, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Song Xinning and Chen Yue (1999) An Introduction to International Political Economy,
Beijing: Renmin University Press.
Su Changhe (2000) Quanqiu Gonggong Wenti yu Guoji Hezuo: Yizhong Zhidu Fenxi
[Global Public Goods and International Cooperation: An Institutional Ap-
proach], Shanghai: People’s Publishing House.
Sun Xuefeng, Ferchen, M. and Taylor Fravel, M. (2011) ‘Rethinking China’s Rise:
A Reader’, Chinese Journal of International Politics.
Wang, Q. K. and Blyth, M. (2013) ‘Constructivism and the Study of International
Political Economy in China’, Review of International Political Economy, 20(6).
1163
REVIEW OF INTERNAT IONAL P OLITICAL E CONOMY
Wang, X. and Chin, G. (2013) ‘Turning Point: Chinese IPE on Global Finance and Money’, Review of
International Political Economy, 20(6).
Wang, Y. (2007) Zhongmei jingmao guanxi [The Political Economy of China–US Trade Relations],
Beijing: zhongguo shichang chuanshe [China Market Press].
Wang, Y. (2008) Guoji maoyi zhengzhi jingjixue [The Political Economy of Interna- tional Trade],
Beijing: zhongguo shichang chubanshe [China Market Press].
Wang, Y. (2011) ‘Guoji zhengzhi jingjixue yingmei xuepai de lunzhan:xueshu fenye,guojia diwei yu
zhongguo yiti’ [Debates between the American School and the British School on International
Political Economy: Academic Culture, Status of National Power, and China Themes], Guoji Zhengzhi
Yanjiu [Interna- tional Politics Quarterly], 1: 137–52.
Wang, Y. (2012) ‘Seeking a Balanced Approach on the Global Economic Rebalanc- ing: China’s Answers
to International Policy Cooperation’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 28(3): 569–86.
Wang, Y. and Pauly, L. (2013) ‘Chinese IPE Debates on (American) Hegemony’,
Review of International Political Economy, 20(6).
Wang Zaibang (1994) Critique of the Hegemonic Stability Theory, Beijing: Shishi
chubanshe.
Wang, Z. (2006) ‘International Political Economy beyond Gilpin’s Typology: IPE
since the 1990s and Its Development in China’, International Political Studies
[Guo Ji Zheng Zhi Yan Jiu], 2: 22–39.
Wang, Z. (2010) ‘Quanqiuhua yu guoji zhengzhi jingji xue: chaoyue fanshi
zhizheng’ [Globalization and International Political Economics: Debate be-
yond Paradigm?], Shijie jingji yu zhengzhi [World Economics and Politics], 10:
4–21.
Wu, K. and Sang, Y. (1987) ‘Review of International Political Economy’, Guoji
ZhengzhiYu Jingji [World Economics and Politics], 4: 31–36.
Yeung, H. (2009) ‘The Rise of East Asia’, in M. Blyth (ed.) Routledge Handbook of
International Political Economy, New York: Routledge Press, pp. 201–215.
Yu Keping (2004) ‘From the Discourse of “Sino-West” to “Globalization”: Chi-
nese Perspectives on Globalization’, GHC Working Paper 04/1, Global Human
Condition Working Paper Series, pp. 1–11.
Yu, Z. and Chen Yugang (2005) ‘Quanqiu gongzhi lilun chutan’ [A Preliminary
Study of Collective World Governance], Shijie jingji yu zhengzhi [World Eco-
nomics and Politics], 2: 8–15.
Zhang, B. (2009) ‘Jingji quanqiuhua, jinrong weiji yu guoji hezuo ji xietiao’ [Eco-
nomic Globalization, Financial Crises and International Cooperation and Co-
ordination], Qiushi [Seeking Truth], 11: 57–59.
Zheng, X. (2011) ‘Chenggong yingdui guoji jinrong weiji de zhongliudizhu’ [China:
The Main Force to Successfully Deal with International Financial Crisis], Qiushi
[Seeking Truth], 13: 45–48.
Zhou, X. (2009) ‘Reflections on Reforming the International Monetary System’,
Speeches – People’s Bank of China, www.pbc.gov.cn. (accessed June 3, 2013).
Zhu, T. and Pearson, M. (2013) ‘Globalization and the Role of the State: Reflections
on Chinese International and Comparative Political Economy Scholarship’,
Review of International Political Economy, 20(6).
Zhu Wenli (2001) ‘International Political Economy from a Chinese Angle’, Journal
of Contemporary China, 10(26): 45–54.
Zweig, D. (2002) Internationalizing China: Domestic Interests and Global Linkages.
Cornell Studies in Political Economy, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Zweig, D. and Zhimin Chen (eds) (2002) China’s Reforms and International Political
Economy, London: Routledge.
1164