搭建桥梁还是打破纽带?“一带一路”倡议与对外援助竞赛

IF 1.7 2区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Krishna Chaitanya Vadlamannati, Yuanxin Li, Samuel Brazys, Alexander Alexander Dukalskis
{"title":"搭建桥梁还是打破纽带?“一带一路”倡议与对外援助竞赛","authors":"Krishna Chaitanya Vadlamannati, Yuanxin Li, Samuel Brazys, Alexander Alexander Dukalskis","doi":"10.1093/fpa/orad015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract China’s renewed prominence is the most important development in international relations in the 21st century. Despite longstanding rhetoric of its own “peaceful rise”, China is increasingly viewed as a long-term strategic competitor, especially in the United States. Foreign aid is one arena where this competition may be playing out. While Western foreign aid principles have emphasized coordination and harmonization, the rise of China as a development partner has raised the specter of a return to competitive foreign aid practices. Most notably, China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), has received a wary reception by those who view it primarily as a geostrategic effort, but our knowledge of responses to the BRI is often anecdotal and fragmentary. To remedy this, we test if the BRI is inducing a competitive foreign aid response by evaluating if countries involved in this initiative are more likely to receive US support for loan packages from the major, Western, multilateral development banks (MDBs). Using an instrumental variable approach, covering 7,850 project/loan packages in 10 MDBs from 162 countries during 2013–2018 period, we find that the United States was more likely to vote for MDB packages to countries that have signed on to the BRI, but predominantly when the actual amount of Chinese aid flowing to those countries is still low, suggesting the United States is competing for “hedging” countries.","PeriodicalId":46954,"journal":{"name":"Foreign Policy Analysis","volume":"104 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Building Bridges or Breaking Bonds? The Belt and Road Initiative and Foreign Aid Competition\",\"authors\":\"Krishna Chaitanya Vadlamannati, Yuanxin Li, Samuel Brazys, Alexander Alexander Dukalskis\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/fpa/orad015\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract China’s renewed prominence is the most important development in international relations in the 21st century. Despite longstanding rhetoric of its own “peaceful rise”, China is increasingly viewed as a long-term strategic competitor, especially in the United States. Foreign aid is one arena where this competition may be playing out. While Western foreign aid principles have emphasized coordination and harmonization, the rise of China as a development partner has raised the specter of a return to competitive foreign aid practices. Most notably, China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), has received a wary reception by those who view it primarily as a geostrategic effort, but our knowledge of responses to the BRI is often anecdotal and fragmentary. To remedy this, we test if the BRI is inducing a competitive foreign aid response by evaluating if countries involved in this initiative are more likely to receive US support for loan packages from the major, Western, multilateral development banks (MDBs). Using an instrumental variable approach, covering 7,850 project/loan packages in 10 MDBs from 162 countries during 2013–2018 period, we find that the United States was more likely to vote for MDB packages to countries that have signed on to the BRI, but predominantly when the actual amount of Chinese aid flowing to those countries is still low, suggesting the United States is competing for “hedging” countries.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46954,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Foreign Policy Analysis\",\"volume\":\"104 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Foreign Policy Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orad015\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foreign Policy Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orad015","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

中国重新崛起是21世纪国际关系中最重要的发展。尽管长期以来一直宣称自己“和平崛起”,但中国越来越被视为一个长期的战略竞争对手,尤其是在美国。外援是这场竞争可能上演的一个舞台。虽然西方的对外援助原则强调协调与统一,但中国作为发展伙伴的崛起引发了对竞争性对外援助做法回归的担忧。最值得注意的是,中国的“一带一路”倡议(BRI)受到了那些将其主要视为地缘战略努力的人的谨慎对待,但我们对“一带一路”倡议的反应的了解往往是轶事和零碎的。为了解决这个问题,我们通过评估参与该倡议的国家是否更有可能获得美国对主要西方多边开发银行(mdb)贷款方案的支持,来测试“一带一路”倡议是否正在引发竞争性的外援反应。我们使用工具变量方法,研究了2013-2018年期间162个国家10个多边开发银行的7850个项目/贷款方案,发现美国更有可能投票支持已签署“一带一路”倡议的国家的多边开发银行方案,但主要是在中国向这些国家提供的实际援助金额仍然很低的情况下,这表明美国正在争夺“对冲”国家。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Building Bridges or Breaking Bonds? The Belt and Road Initiative and Foreign Aid Competition
Abstract China’s renewed prominence is the most important development in international relations in the 21st century. Despite longstanding rhetoric of its own “peaceful rise”, China is increasingly viewed as a long-term strategic competitor, especially in the United States. Foreign aid is one arena where this competition may be playing out. While Western foreign aid principles have emphasized coordination and harmonization, the rise of China as a development partner has raised the specter of a return to competitive foreign aid practices. Most notably, China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), has received a wary reception by those who view it primarily as a geostrategic effort, but our knowledge of responses to the BRI is often anecdotal and fragmentary. To remedy this, we test if the BRI is inducing a competitive foreign aid response by evaluating if countries involved in this initiative are more likely to receive US support for loan packages from the major, Western, multilateral development banks (MDBs). Using an instrumental variable approach, covering 7,850 project/loan packages in 10 MDBs from 162 countries during 2013–2018 period, we find that the United States was more likely to vote for MDB packages to countries that have signed on to the BRI, but predominantly when the actual amount of Chinese aid flowing to those countries is still low, suggesting the United States is competing for “hedging” countries.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Foreign Policy Analysis
Foreign Policy Analysis INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
9.10%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: Reflecting the diverse, comparative and multidisciplinary nature of the field, Foreign Policy Analysis provides an open forum for research publication that enhances the communication of concepts and ideas across theoretical, methodological, geographical and disciplinary boundaries. By emphasizing accessibility of content for scholars of all perspectives and approaches in the editorial and review process, Foreign Policy Analysis serves as a source for efforts at theoretical and methodological integration and deepening the conceptual debates throughout this rich and complex academic research tradition. Foreign policy analysis, as a field of study, is characterized by its actor-specific focus. The underlying, often implicit argument is that the source of international politics and change in international politics is human beings, acting individually or in groups. In the simplest terms, foreign policy analysis is the study of the process, effects, causes or outputs of foreign policy decision-making in either a comparative or case-specific manner.
×
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