Mutual Perceptions and China-South Korea Relations: A Comparative Study of the Academic Literature

IF 1.4 4区 社会学 Q1 AREA STUDIES
Pacific Affairs Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.5509/2023964723
See-Won Byun
{"title":"Mutual Perceptions and China-South Korea Relations: A Comparative Study of the Academic Literature","authors":"See-Won Byun","doi":"10.5509/2023964723","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How do China and South Korea see their relationship after 30 years of normalization, and why have views shifted since 2017? Research on perceptions and their foreign policy implications usually draws from official discourse and public opinion. This review essay assesses the nature and drivers of China-South Korea mutual perceptions by comparing their academic literature on bilateral relations. Scholarly accounts may offer longer-term interpretations of specialized interests, and a fuller picture of how and why views vary. On both sides of the China-South Korea academic debate, the quantitative volume of studies and qualitative appraisal of relations declined in the 2017–2021 Xi Jinping-Moon Jae-in period. Levels of optimism/pessimism vary by issue-area. Views of third-party constraints on security relations, and domestic political influences on societal relations, drive mutual pessimism. Koreans are more pessimistic about the economic partnership and reassess historical relations more unfavourably, which trace back to views of relative dependence and hierarchy. Three implications emerge for post-2022 relations in light of leadership transition in Beijing and Seoul. Enduring security priorities require minimum strategic interdependence and stronger trust-building mechanisms. Positive functional spillovers from economic and local/nonstate cooperation remain in question. And lasting cultural costs of political disputes compel joint efforts to enhance mutual understanding. Overall, shifts in structural and ideational factors that historically drove normalization are driving the current discord, and prompting both sides to lower future expectations of each other.","PeriodicalId":47041,"journal":{"name":"Pacific Affairs","volume":"163 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pacific Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5509/2023964723","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

How do China and South Korea see their relationship after 30 years of normalization, and why have views shifted since 2017? Research on perceptions and their foreign policy implications usually draws from official discourse and public opinion. This review essay assesses the nature and drivers of China-South Korea mutual perceptions by comparing their academic literature on bilateral relations. Scholarly accounts may offer longer-term interpretations of specialized interests, and a fuller picture of how and why views vary. On both sides of the China-South Korea academic debate, the quantitative volume of studies and qualitative appraisal of relations declined in the 2017–2021 Xi Jinping-Moon Jae-in period. Levels of optimism/pessimism vary by issue-area. Views of third-party constraints on security relations, and domestic political influences on societal relations, drive mutual pessimism. Koreans are more pessimistic about the economic partnership and reassess historical relations more unfavourably, which trace back to views of relative dependence and hierarchy. Three implications emerge for post-2022 relations in light of leadership transition in Beijing and Seoul. Enduring security priorities require minimum strategic interdependence and stronger trust-building mechanisms. Positive functional spillovers from economic and local/nonstate cooperation remain in question. And lasting cultural costs of political disputes compel joint efforts to enhance mutual understanding. Overall, shifts in structural and ideational factors that historically drove normalization are driving the current discord, and prompting both sides to lower future expectations of each other.
相互认知与中韩关系:学术文献比较研究
中韩关系正常化30年后,双方如何看待两国关系?为何自2017年以来看法发生了转变?对认知及其外交政策影响的研究通常来自官方话语和公众舆论。本文通过比较中韩两国关于双边关系的学术文献,评估中韩相互认知的性质和驱动因素。学术研究可能会提供对专业兴趣的长期解释,并更全面地说明观点是如何以及为什么不同的。乐观/悲观的程度因问题领域而异。第三方对安全关系的制约以及国内政治对社会关系的影响的观点,导致了双方的悲观情绪。韩国人对经济伙伴关系更加悲观,对历史关系的重新评价更加不利,这可以追溯到相对依赖和等级观念。根据中韩两国领导人的换届,对2022年后的两国关系有以下三点影响。持久的安全优先事项需要最低限度的战略相互依存和更强有力的建立信任机制。经济和地方/非国家合作的积极功能溢出效应仍然存在问题。政治争端的持久文化代价迫使我们共同努力增进相互理解。总体而言,历史上推动两国关系正常化的结构性和观念性因素的变化,正在推动当前的不和谐,并促使双方降低对彼此未来的期望。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pacific Affairs
Pacific Affairs AREA STUDIES-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: Pacific Affairs has, over the years, celebrated and fostered a community of scholars and people active in the life of Asia and the Pacific. It has published scholarly articles of contemporary significance on Asia and the Pacific since 1928. Its initial incarnation from 1926 to 1928 was as a newsletter for the Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR), but since May 1928, it has been published continuously as a quarterly under the same name. The IPR was a collaborative organization established in 1925 by leaders from several YMCA branches in the Asia Pacific, to “study the conditions of the Pacific people with a view to the improvement of their mutual relations.”
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信