Balancing versus bandwagoning : the strategic dilemma of Australia’s China policy

Recent research on power shift, or the change in relative power of states in an international structure, has focused on how states adapt to strategic difficulties. As a key change in international politics, scholars have long discussed how states react strategically to power shift. One school in int...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: YEUNG, Man Kwong
Format: Others
Language:en
Published: Digital Commons @ Lingnan University 2016
Online Access:https://commons.ln.edu.hk/pol_etd/17
https://commons.ln.edu.hk/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=pol_etd
id ndltd-ln.edu.hk-oai-commons.ln.edu.hk-pol_etd-1017
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-ln.edu.hk-oai-commons.ln.edu.hk-pol_etd-10172019-11-02T15:17:15Z Balancing versus bandwagoning : the strategic dilemma of Australia’s China policy YEUNG, Man Kwong Recent research on power shift, or the change in relative power of states in an international structure, has focused on how states adapt to strategic difficulties. As a key change in international politics, scholars have long discussed how states react strategically to power shift. One school in international studies, neorealism, emphasizes the prime importance of security affairs over other strategic concerns in an anarchic international structure. It explores states’ dilemma in choosing between balancing a more powerful state or bandwagoning with it. While this approach sheds important insights on the study of international politics, the parsimony of neorealism suffers from a lot of criticisms and challenges. Among these, argument on the multi-faced nature of a state’s strategic interests has gained the strongest traction. Power shift profoundly impacts the Asia-Pacific region. The rise of China, for example, draws concerns for changing distribution of power in the region and around the globe. Others regional states, especially secondary powers, have to redefine their strategies to adapt to the changing geopolitical landscape. However, strategic choices of these states are barely studied. Australia’s reaction to the power shift, for instance, challenges the neorealists’ “balancing versus bandwagoning” model. Australia’s search for her own regional position is filtered through its threat perception. Seeing ideological differences with a rising China, Australian politicians have continuously tried to engage China to gain profit while remaining skeptical about a more assertive China. This thesis challenges the balancing literature and investigates why hedging has been the strategic response used by Australia to deal with the power shift. This research analyzes and interprets Australia’s strategic dilemma with evidence collected from the Australian government, academics, and media. This thesis affirms the neorealists’ position on the predominance of self-help principle in international politics. However, it also tries to move further to argue that security is the principle that cannot be over-emphasized. Australia simultaneously maximizes her strategic interests, which include security interests and economic interests. Principally, Australia aims at maintaining her status quo position while concurrently balancing against a rising China and bandwagoning with China economically for profit-maximization. By managing the strategic risk posed by China and not turning the China problem into China threat, Australia cautiously decides on her strategic response to prevent a riskier situation. 2016-09-07T07:00:00Z text application/pdf https://commons.ln.edu.hk/pol_etd/17 https://commons.ln.edu.hk/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=pol_etd Theses & Dissertations en Digital Commons @ Lingnan University
collection NDLTD
language en
format Others
sources NDLTD
description Recent research on power shift, or the change in relative power of states in an international structure, has focused on how states adapt to strategic difficulties. As a key change in international politics, scholars have long discussed how states react strategically to power shift. One school in international studies, neorealism, emphasizes the prime importance of security affairs over other strategic concerns in an anarchic international structure. It explores states’ dilemma in choosing between balancing a more powerful state or bandwagoning with it. While this approach sheds important insights on the study of international politics, the parsimony of neorealism suffers from a lot of criticisms and challenges. Among these, argument on the multi-faced nature of a state’s strategic interests has gained the strongest traction. Power shift profoundly impacts the Asia-Pacific region. The rise of China, for example, draws concerns for changing distribution of power in the region and around the globe. Others regional states, especially secondary powers, have to redefine their strategies to adapt to the changing geopolitical landscape. However, strategic choices of these states are barely studied. Australia’s reaction to the power shift, for instance, challenges the neorealists’ “balancing versus bandwagoning” model. Australia’s search for her own regional position is filtered through its threat perception. Seeing ideological differences with a rising China, Australian politicians have continuously tried to engage China to gain profit while remaining skeptical about a more assertive China. This thesis challenges the balancing literature and investigates why hedging has been the strategic response used by Australia to deal with the power shift. This research analyzes and interprets Australia’s strategic dilemma with evidence collected from the Australian government, academics, and media. This thesis affirms the neorealists’ position on the predominance of self-help principle in international politics. However, it also tries to move further to argue that security is the principle that cannot be over-emphasized. Australia simultaneously maximizes her strategic interests, which include security interests and economic interests. Principally, Australia aims at maintaining her status quo position while concurrently balancing against a rising China and bandwagoning with China economically for profit-maximization. By managing the strategic risk posed by China and not turning the China problem into China threat, Australia cautiously decides on her strategic response to prevent a riskier situation.
author YEUNG, Man Kwong
spellingShingle YEUNG, Man Kwong
Balancing versus bandwagoning : the strategic dilemma of Australia’s China policy
author_facet YEUNG, Man Kwong
author_sort YEUNG, Man Kwong
title Balancing versus bandwagoning : the strategic dilemma of Australia’s China policy
title_short Balancing versus bandwagoning : the strategic dilemma of Australia’s China policy
title_full Balancing versus bandwagoning : the strategic dilemma of Australia’s China policy
title_fullStr Balancing versus bandwagoning : the strategic dilemma of Australia’s China policy
title_full_unstemmed Balancing versus bandwagoning : the strategic dilemma of Australia’s China policy
title_sort balancing versus bandwagoning : the strategic dilemma of australia’s china policy
publisher Digital Commons @ Lingnan University
publishDate 2016
url https://commons.ln.edu.hk/pol_etd/17
https://commons.ln.edu.hk/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=pol_etd
work_keys_str_mv AT yeungmankwong balancingversusbandwagoningthestrategicdilemmaofaustraliaschinapolicy
_version_ 1719285843908100096