My current research interest was inspired by a book I read a few years ago called War by Other Means: Geoeconomics and Statecraft. This book built largely on the prior work of Baldwin’s Economic Statecraft, which in turn had built on Hirschman’s National Power and the Structure of Foreign Trade. Its essential argument is that states are increasingly relying on economic means to accomplish foreign policy objectives (a phenomenon aided by the renaissance of state capitalism), and it outlines some of the primary forms this takes, mostly drawing from China as a case study.
Interesting examples are abundant. China cut off exports of rare earth elements to Japan in 2010 during a territory dispute in the South China Sea [1]. Since China began predicating its foreign direct investment in Africa on an acceptance of the One China policy, the number of African countries to recognize Taiwan as an independent country has dropped from thirteen to only four [2]. Saudi Arabia threatened to dump U.S. treasury bonds in retaliation for the bill to allow U.S. families to sue Saudi Arabia for its potential role in 9/11 [3], evidence that strategic economics reach beyond only sanctions. Russia’s pipeline politics are rather infamous, and its threats to cut off access to natural gas hover over its interactions with Ukraine and even the rest of Europe, as is evident in the difficulty the U.S. has in persuading its European allies to agree to multilateral sanctions [4].
I find this a particularly interesting area because it hasn’t been studied extensively (with the exception of the literature on sanctions), and these economic considerations open up an entirely new realm of foreign policy for which few countries are prepared. For now, I’ve decided to concentrate on China, since it is the world’s most adroit practitioner of this new statecraft, and specifically its energy policy. However, the novelty of the phenomenon means that there are myriad even basic questions that remain unanswered. Did this new form of statecraft begin recently, or has it existed but only gained prevalence recently? What, then, led to the breakdown of the Bretton Woods institutions and the “Washington consensus” that accompanied them in favor of this style of economics? Is this style of statecraft effective? If so, is it effective because of its economic impacts or because of its use as a signaling mechanism? With regards to China specifically, how does its energy demand shape its economic foreign policy, and how do its state-owned enterprises play a role in that process? Moreover, how do China’s internal politics influence how these policies take shape?
My intuition is that a small-n case study comparison would best suit these types of questions, due to the specificity and context required to study strategic considerations. However, I could also envision a more relational analysis investigating how China’s history and culture impact its broader worldview and how that translates to the manifestation of these policies. China’s Century of Humiliation immediately comes to mind for the latter type of analysis, although it would be reductionist to view China’s culture only through that lens.
I look forward to speaking with my faculty mentor this next week to work through some of these questions and which approach might suit them. I still feel the need to read more before I can speak to the core of the issues I’m considering, and so I also hope that my mentor will be able to point me towards some literature that will help me continue to refine my thoughts.
- Keith Bradsher. “Amid Tensions, China Blocks Vital Exports to Japan.” The New York Times, 22 Sept. 2010.
- Robert Blackwill and Jennifer Harris. War by Other Means: Geoeconomics and Statecraft. (Cambridge: Harvard University, 2016), 56.
- Andrew Buncombe. “Saudi Arabia Threatens to Sell Off US Assets if Congress Passes 9/11 Bill.” The Independent, 16 April 2016.
- Edoardo Saravalle. “Russia’s Pipeline Power.” Politico, 20 June 2017.
David, I really think this is a fascinating research topic you have chosen to explore, and I’m surprised that not more research has been done on it. I think China proves a particularly interesting case example due to its history (a long history of being a dominant economic power to, as you say, a Century of Humiliation) and its internal politics. Moreover, think the question “how do China’s internal politics influence how these policies take shape?” could lead to some really interesting discoveries. As far as any suggestions go, I think that generalizing your research (as it talked about at the end of the Scientific Study of Politics chapter) to make any theories you may come up expandable to other countries would make sense for a small-n comparison, although you could honestly just focus on China and change your research method.
Furthermore, I think it would be helpful to start digging deeper into why these questions “demand explanation,” so to speak. I am guessing part of this will come out in the research project as discover more nuance and depth to the topic.
You are off to a good start here David with some good thoughts on the directions that your research might take and some good empirical examples of the phenomenon that interests you. As you continue your work I would encourage you to dive into the scholarly literature on the general topic area (covering ideas such as sanctions, as you note, but also theoretical material in IR realism that emphasizes ideas of trade and interdependence in explaining puzzles like this). Starting to investigate scholarship on your broad/general topic area is a good next step since identifying the debates among scholars (debates about what we understand / what we don’t understand) is one important part of identifying your own specific research puzzle. Since we will be investigating a range of methodologies, I’d hold off on committing to any particular approach just yet. Case study research may be a good option, or it might not be! Much of that depends on how the puzzle develops and on what we learn as we work through the various methodology modules. You might be surprised! I look forward to seeing how the research develops as the term continues.