Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

China, Hegemony, and Leadership in East Asia

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Responding to China’s Rise

Part of the book series: The Political Economy of the Asia Pacific ((PEAP,volume 15))

Abstract

Is China today a “rising great power,” destined to behave like rising European powers of the past, such as Wilhelmine Germany or Napoleonic France? Are China and the East Asia region something unique, and should they be taken on their own terms? Or are there other theoretical approaches that might help us explain and contextualize contemporary East Asia? China’s recent economic and diplomatic dynamism has prompted tremendous speculation about regional and global implications. In academic and policymaking circles, this debate coheres around the question of whether or not East Asia will devolve into a great game of balance of power politics similar to that experienced in Europe. However, although China may be unlikely to follow the path that did European great power aspirants, that clearly does not mean that East Asia as a region is sui generis, and taking East Asia on its own terms rather than as a reflection of Europe does not mean arguing for a unique and unchanging East Asia.

Historical precedents may not be tremendously helpful … A century of chaos and change, and the increased influence of the rest of the world and in particular the United States, would lead one to conclude that a Chinese-led regional system would not look like its historical predecessor.

(Kang 2003:67, 70)

China’s ultimate intentions in the distant future are still unclear … if China actually becomes the most powerful state in East Asia, it could increasingly pressure and intimidate other states … The actions that states take in the present will have an effect on what intentions and identities develop.

(Kang 2007:201–202)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Goh (<CitationRef CitationID="CR18” >2007</Citation Ref>/2008); <CitationRef CitationID="CR31” >Kang (2007)</Citation Ref>; Ross (<CitationRef CitationID="CR60” >2006</Citation Ref>); Womack (<CitationRef CitationID="CR74” >2006</Citation Ref>).

  2. 2.

    I should note that I am using the modern social science term “hegemon,” not the Chinese term bawang (霸王), which refers to a powerful person at a time when there is not a legitimate dynasty in place, such as Xiang Yu before the Han Dynasty was established. Thanks to Liam Kelley for this point.

  3. 3.

    Wohlforth (<CitationRef CitationID="CR73” >2009</Citation Ref>).

  4. 4.

    Lebow (<CitationRef CitationID="CR44” >2008</Citation Ref>, 4).

  5. 5.

    Waltz (<CitationRef CitationID="CR69” >1979</Citation Ref>).

  6. 6.

    Lake (<CitationRef CitationID="CR42” >2007</Citation Ref>, 54).

  7. 7.

    Wendt and Friedheim (<CitationRef CitationID="CR72” >1995</Citation Ref>, 697).

  8. 8.

    The question of leadership is prevalent in the international relations literature. See, for example, Nye (<CitationRef CitationID="CR53” >2006</Citation Ref>) and Sutter (<CitationRef CitationID="CR68” >2006</Citation Ref>).

  9. 9.

    Donnelly (<CitationRef CitationID="CR10” >2006</Citation Ref>, 154, fig. 2).

  10. 10.

    Mastanduno (<CitationRef CitationID="CR49” >2005</Citation Ref>, 179).

  11. 11.

    Clark (<CitationRef CitationID="CR5” >2009a</Citation Ref>, 466). For realist versions of hegemony, see Layne (<CitationRef CitationID="CR43” >1993</Citation Ref>, 11–12) and Haugaard (<CitationRef CitationID="CR21” >2006</Citation Ref>, 62).

  12. 12.

    Ikenberry and Kupchan (<CitationRef CitationID="CR27” >1990</Citation Ref>, 283).

  13. 13.

    Joseph (<CitationRef CitationID="CR29” >2002</Citation Ref>, 1).

  14. 14.

    Hurd (<CitationRef CitationID="CR24” >2007a</Citation Ref>, 78–79); Lake (<CitationRef CitationID="CR41” >2006</Citation Ref>, 28).

  15. 15.

    Mastanduno (<CitationRef CitationID="CR48” >2003</Citation Ref>, 145).

  16. 16.

    Clark (<CitationRef CitationID="CR6” >2009b</Citation Ref>); Cronin (<CitationRef CitationID="CR8” >2001</Citation Ref>).

  17. 17.

    Lake (<CitationRef CitationID="CR40” >2003</Citation Ref>, 304).

  18. 18.

    Hurrell (<CitationRef CitationID="CR26” >2009</Citation Ref>, 2).

  19. 19.

    Donnelly (<CitationRef CitationID="CR10” >2006</Citation Ref>, 142).

  20. 20.

    Hurd (<CitationRef CitationID="CR23” >1999</Citation Ref>, 389, 392).

  21. 21.

    Samuels (<CitationRef CitationID="CR61” >2003</Citation Ref>).

  22. 22.

    Hurd ((<CitationRef CitationID="CR25” >2007b</Citation Ref>), 194).

  23. 23.

    Lake (<CitationRef CitationID="CR42” >2007</Citation Ref>, 53).

  24. 24.

    Friedberg (<CitationRef CitationID="CR14” >1993</Citation Ref>,  7). See also Buszynski (<CitationRef CitationID="CR2” >2009</Citation Ref>); Howle (<CitationRef CitationID="CR22” >2001</Citation Ref>); Mearsheimer (<CitationRef CitationID="CR51” >2001</Citation Ref>); <CitationRef CitationID="CR52” >Mearsheimer (2006)</Citation Ref>; Odgaard (<CitationRef CitationID="CR55” >2007</Citation Ref>); Papayoanou and Kastner (<CitationRef CitationID="CR56” >1999</Citation Ref>); Rosecrance (<CitationRef CitationID="CR59” >2006</Citation Ref>, 32); Wang (<CitationRef CitationID="CR70” >1998</Citation Ref>); “China’s Rise and the Road to War,” Wall Street Journal Asia, 5 August 2010.

  25. 25.

    Goldstein (<CitationRef CitationID="CR19” >2003</Citation Ref>, 58); Kristof (<CitationRef CitationID="CR38” >1993</Citation Ref>, 72).

  26. 26.

    O’Brien (<CitationRef CitationID="CR54” >2002</Citation Ref>, 27).

  27. 27.

    Cumings (<CitationRef CitationID="CR9” >2005</Citation Ref>).

  28. 28.

    Levy and Thompson (<CitationRef CitationID="CR46” >2010</Citation Ref>, 9).

  29. 29.

    Much of the following section draws from Kang (<CitationRef CitationID="CR33” >2010</Citation Ref>).

  30. 30.

    Even the nomads valued Chinese stability, and as John Mears notes, “[n]omadic confederacies … seemed best served by the preservation of a stable Chinese regime.” Mears (<CitationRef CitationID="CR50” >2001</Citation Ref>, 8). See also Perdue (<CitationRef CitationID="CR58” >2005</Citation Ref>, 521).

  31. 31.

    Fiskesjo (<CitationRef CitationID="CR13” >1999</Citation Ref>); Keyes (<CitationRef CitationID="CR36” >2002</Citation Ref>).

  32. 32.

    Smits (<CitationRef CitationID="CR63” >1999</Citation Ref>, 36).

  33. 33.

    Kang (<CitationRef CitationID="CR34” >1997</Citation Ref>, 6–9); Son (<CitationRef CitationID="CR66” >1994</Citation Ref>).

  34. 34.

    Thanks to Bruce Cumings for this point.

  35. 35.

    Kelly (<CitationRef CitationID="CR35” >2012</Citation Ref>); Zhang (<CitationRef CitationID="CR75” >2014</Citation Ref>).

  36. 36.

    Doyle (<CitationRef CitationID="CR11” >2005</Citation Ref>).

  37. 37.

    The major exception was the Manchus. Descended from Jurchens, the Manchus were never Mongols, and for long stretches of time their economic agenda was comparable to Chosŏn, Ming, and other more settled societies. Indeed, the Manchu conquest of the Ming was more opportunism than design; and while ruling China and absorbing some of the traditional Han institutions, the Manchus retained unique Manchu elements as well. Although Manchu worldviews and identity never completely Sinicized, the Manchus used many of the institutional forms and discursive style of traditional Chinese dynasties in dealing with neighboring states. See Elliot (<CitationRef CitationID="CR12” >2001</Citation Ref>).

  38. 38.

    Collins and Rennack (<CitationRef CitationID="CR7” >1990</Citation Ref>, 10, 16).

  39. 39.

    Goldstein (<CitationRef CitationID="CR20” >2011</Citation Ref>, 5–6).

  40. 40.

    Pei (<CitationRef CitationID="CR57” >1994</Citation Ref>).

  41. 41.

    Gill and Huang (<CitationRef CitationID="CR15” >2006</Citation Ref>); “The End of the Beijing Consensus: Can China’s Model of Authoritarian Growth Survive?” Foreign Affairs, 2 February 2010.

  42. 42.

    Christensen (<CitationRef CitationID="CR4” >2011</Citation Ref>); Glaser (<CitationRef CitationID="CR17” >2011</Citation Ref>); Wang (<CitationRef CitationID="CR71” >2011</Citation Ref>).

  43. 43.

    BBC World Service Poll, 7 March 2011.

  44. 44.

    Kivimaki (<CitationRef CitationID="CR37” >2011</Citation Ref>, 58).

  45. 45.

    Ibid.

  46. 46.

    Stockholm Institute for Peace Research (<CitationRef CitationID="CR67” >2012</Citation Ref>).

  47. 47.

    See, for example, Kang (<CitationRef CitationID="CR32” >2009</Citation Ref>); Lee (<CitationRef CitationID="CR45” >2011</Citation Ref>); Snyder (<CitationRef CitationID="CR64” >2009</Citation Ref>).

  48. 48.

    Brooks and Wohlforth (<CitationRef CitationID="CR1” >2005</Citation Ref>).

  49. 49.

    Andrei Lankov, quoted in “Island’s Naval Base Stirs Opposition in South Korea,” The New York Times, 18 August 2011.

  50. 50.

    Solingen (<CitationRef CitationID="CR65” >2007</Citation Ref>).

  51. 51.

    “S. Korea, China, Japan Begin Free Trade Talks,” Associated Press, 26 March 2013.

  52. 52.

    Kurlantzick (<CitationRef CitationID="CR39” >2007</Citation Ref>).

  53. 53.

    Glaser and Medeiros (<CitationRef CitationID="CR16” >2007</Citation Ref>).

References

  • Brooks, Stephen, and William Wohlforth. 2005. Hard Times for Soft Balancing. International Security 30(1): 72–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buszynski, Leszek. 2009. Sino-Japanese Relations: Interdependence, Rivalry and Regional Security. Contemporary Southeast Asia 31(1): 143–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, Thomas. 2011. The Advantages of an Assertive China: Responding to Beijing’s Abrasive Diplomacy. Foreign Affairs 90(2): 54–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, Ian. 2009a. How Hierarchical Can International Society Be? International Relations 23: 464–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • ____. 2009b. Towards an English-School Theory of Hegemony. European Journal of International Relations 15(2): 203–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, John, and Dianne Rennack. 1990. US/Soviet Military Balance: Statistical Trends, 1980–1989. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, Bruce. 2001. The Paradox of Hegemony: America’s Ambiguous Relationship with the United Nations. European Journal of International Relations 7(1): 103–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cumings, Bruce. 2005. We Look at it and See Ourselves. London Review of Books 27(24): 11–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donnelly, Jack. 2006. Sovereign Inequalities and Hierarchy in Anarchy. European Journal of International Relations 12(2): 139–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, Michael. 2005. Three Pillars of the Liberal Peace. American Political Science Review 99(3): 463–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, Mark. 2001. The Manchu Way: The Eight Banners and Ethnic Identity in Late Imperial China. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiskesjo, Magnus. 1999. On the ‘Raw’ and ‘Cooked’ Barbarians of Imperial China. Inner Asia 1(2): 139–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedberg, Aaron L. 1993. Ripe for Rivalry: Prospects for Peace in a Multipolar Asia. International Security 18(3): 5–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gill, Bates, and Yanzhong Huang. 2006. The Sources and Limits of Chinese “Soft Power”. Survival 48(2): 17–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, Bonnie, and Evan Medeiros. 2007. The Changing Ecology of Foreign Policy-Making in China: The Ascension and Demise of the Theory of “Peaceful Rise”. China Quarterly 190(June): 291–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, Charles. 2011. Will China’s Rise Lead to War? Why Realism Does Not Mean Pessimism. Foreign Affairs 90(2): 80–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goh, Evelyn. 2007/2008. Great Powers and Hierarchical Order in Southeast Asia: Analyzing Regional Security Strategies. International Security 32(3): 113–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, Avery. 2003. An Emerging China’s Emerging Grand Strategy: A Neo-Bismarckian Turn? In International Relations Theory and the Asia-Pacific, ed. G. John Ikenberry and Michael Mastanduno, 57–106. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, Joshua. 2011. Think Again: War. Foreign Policy 188: 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haugaard, Mark. 2006. Power and Hegemony in Social Theory. In Hegemony and Power: Consensus and Coercion in Contemporary Politics, ed. Mark Haugaard and Howard H. Lentner, 45–64. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howle Jr., Roy C. 2001. An Evitable War: Engaged Containment and the US-China Balance. Parameters 31(3): 92–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurd, Ian. 1999. Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics. International Organization 53(2): 379–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • _____. 2007a. After Anarchy: Legitimacy and Power in the United Nations Security Council. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • _____. 2007b. Breaking and Making Norms: American Revisionism and Crises of Legitimacy. International Politics 44 (2/3):194–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurrell, Andrew. 2009. Rising Powers and the Question of Status in International Society. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, 15–18 February, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ikenberry, John G., and Charles A. Kupchan. 1990. Socialization and Hegemonic Power. International Organization 44(3): 283–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Institute for Strategic Studies. Various years. The Military Balance. London: IISS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joseph, Jonathan. 2002. Hegemony: A Realist Analysis. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kang, David C. 2003. Getting Asia Wrong: The Need for New Analytical Frameworks. International Security 27(4): 57–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • _____. 2007. China Rising: Peace, Power, and Order in East Asia. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • _____. 2009. Between Balancing and Bandwagoning: South Korea’s response to China. Journal of East Asian Studies 9(1):1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • _____. 2010. East Asia Before the West: Five Centuries of Trade and Tribute. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang, Etsuko. 1997. Diplomacy and Ideology in Japanese-Korean Relations: From the Fifteenth to the Eighteenth Century. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, Robert E. 2012. A “Confucian Long Peace” in Pre-Western East Asia? European Journal of International Relations 18(3): 407–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keyes, Charles. 2002. The Peoples of Asia: Science and Politics in the Classification of Ethnic Groups in Thailand, China, and Vietnam. Journal of Asian Studies 61(4): 1163–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kivimaki, Tivo. 2011. East Asian relative peace and the ASEAN Way. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 11(1): 57–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristof, Nicholas. 1993. The Rise of China. Foreign Affairs 72(5): 59–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurlantzick, Joshua. 2007. Charm Offensive: How China’s Soft Power is Transforming the World. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lake, David A. 2003. The New Sovereignty in International Relations. International Studies Review 5(3): 303–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • _____. 2006. American Hegemony and the Future of East-West Relations. International Studies Perspectives 7(1): 23–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • _____. 2007. Escape from the State of Nature: Authority and Hierarchy in World Politics. International Security 32 (1): 47–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Layne, Christopher. 1993. The Unipolar Illusion: Why New Great Powers Will Rise. International Security 17(4): 5–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lebow, Richard Ned. 2008. A Cultural Theory of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Chung Min. 2011. Coping With Giants: South Korea’s Responses to China’s and India’s Rise. In Strategic Asia 2011-12: Asia Responds to its Rising Powers, China and India, ed. Ashley Tellis, Travis Tanner, and Jessica Keough, 161–94. Seattle, WA: National Bureau of Asian Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, Jack S., and William R. Thompson. 2010. Balancing on Land and at Sea. International Security 35(1): 7–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maddison, Angus. 2001. The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective. Paris: OECD.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mastanduno, Michael. 2003. Incomplete Hegemony: The United States and Security Order in Asia. In Asian Security Order: Instrumental and Normative Features, ed. Muthiah Alagappa, 141–70. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • _____. 2005. Hegemonic Order, September 11, and the Consequences of the Bush Revolution. International Relations of the Asia Pacific 5(2): 177–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mears, John. 2001. Analyzing the Phenomenon of Borderlands from Comparative and Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Unpublished manuscript, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, John J. 2001. The Future of the American Pacifier. Foreign Affairs 80(5): 46–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • _____. 2006. China’s Unpeaceful Rise. Current History 105(690): 160–2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nye, Joseph S. 2006. Transformational Leadership and U.S. Grand Strategy. Foreign Affairs 85(4): 139–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, Patrick K. 2002. The Pax Britannica and American Hegemony: Precedent, Antecedent, or Just Another History? In Two Hegemonies: Britain 1846-1914 and the United States 1941-2001, ed. Patrick O’Brien and Armand Clesse, 3–65. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Odgaard, Liselotte. 2007. China’s Premature Rise to Great Power. MIT Center for International Studies Audit of the Conventional Wisdom 7(7).

    Google Scholar 

  • Papayoanou, Paul A., and Scott L. Kastner. 1999. Sleeping with the (Potential) Enemy: Assessing the U.S. Policy of Engagement with China. Security Studies 9(2): 157–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pei, Minxin. 1994. From Reform to Revolution: The Demise of Communism in China and the Soviet Union. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perdue, Peter C. 2005. China Marches West: The Qing Conquest of Central Eurasia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosecrance, Richard. 2006. Power and International Relations: The Rise of China and its Effects. International Studies Perspectives 7(1): 31–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, Robert. 2006. Balance of Power Politics and the Rise of China: Accommodation and Balancing in East Asia. Security Studies 15(3): 355–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuels, Richard. 2003. Machiavelli’s Children: Leaders and their Legacies in Italy and Japan. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, J. David. 1987. Reconstructing the Correlates of War Dataset on Material Capabilities of States, 1816–1985. International Interactions, 14(2):115–132. Updated dataset v3.02 available from the Correlates of War project at http://www.correlatesofwar.org/ (accessed 6 March 2013).

  • Smits, Gregory. 1999. Visions of Ryukyu: Identity and Ideology in Early-Modern Thought and Politics. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, Scott. 2009. China’s Rise and the Two Koreas. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solingen, Etel. 2007. Pax Asiatica versus Bella Levantina: The Foundations of War and Peace in East Asia and the Middle East. American Political Science Review 101(4): 757–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Son, Seung-chol. 1994. Choson sidae hanil gwangywe yonku [Korea-Japan relations during the Choson period]. Seoul: Jisungui Sam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stockholm Institute for Peace Research. 2012. Military Expenditure of Korea, Republic of (South Korea). Stockholm: SIPRI Military Expenditure Database. http://milexdata.sipri.org/result.php4.

  • Sutter, Robert G. 2006. China’s Rise: Implications for U.S. Leadership in Asia, Policy Studies, vol. 21. Washington, DC: East-West Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltz, Kenneth. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Fei-ling. 1998. To Incorporate China: A New Policy for a New Era. Washington Quarterly 21(1): 67–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Jisi. 2011. China’s Search for a Grand Strategy. Foreign Affairs 90(2): 68–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, Alexander, and Daniel Friedheim. 1995. Hierarchy Under Anarchy: Informal Empires and the East German State. International Organization 49(4): 689–721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wohlforth, William. 2009. Unipolarity, Status Competition, and Great-Power War. World Politics 61(1): 28–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Womack, Brantly. 2006. China and Vietnam: The Politics of Asymmetry. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Feng. 2014. How Hierarchic was the Historical East Asian System? International Politics 51: 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of International Relations, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    David C. Kang

Authors
  1. David C. Kang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David C. Kang .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of California Berkeley APEC Study Center, Berkeley, California, USA

    Vinod K. Aggarwal

  2. 1 Bow Street, Harvard College Writing Program, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA

    Sara A. Newland

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kang, D.C. (2015). China, Hegemony, and Leadership in East Asia. In: Aggarwal, V., Newland, S. (eds) Responding to China’s Rise. The Political Economy of the Asia Pacific, vol 15. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10034-0_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation