This article was downloaded by: [National Institute for South China Sea Studies]
On: 13 May 2013, At: 18:37
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer Hou, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
New Political Economy
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
惠普鼠标/loi/cnpe20
Domestic Political Institutions,风衣打结
Diplomatic Style and Trade
Agreements: A Comparative Study of
China and Japan
Hidetaka Yoshimatsu a
孙德龙a Graduate School of Asia Pacific Studies, Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific
University, Japan
Published online: 09 Sep 2010.
复姓大全PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Domestic Political Institutions,Diplomatic Style and Trade Agreements:A Comparative Study of China and Japan HIDETAKA YOSHIMATSU Through an analysis of the formation of free trade agreements (FTAs),this article eks to examine the factors that caud the gap in Japan and China’s relationship with Southeast Asia to emerge and expand in the new millennium.In order to address this question,the article focus on China and Japan’s diplomatic styles and domestic political institutions and examines how the two elements influ-enced negotiations on the formation of FTAs,as well as the evolving perceptions that the Southeast Asian nations have of the two states.
The article argues that Japan and China posss different kinds of weakness in implementing feasible external policies –a lack of policy decisiveness for Japan and weak policy credi-bility for China –which have resulted from the operation of domestic political institutions.Given the differences,while China implemented pragmatic diplo-macy that helped improve its policy credibility,Japan’s bargaining diplomatic style did not rve to rectify its weak policy decisiveness.Such differences in their diplomatic approach have led to the differing influence of the two states on Southeast Asia.Keywords:policy decisiveness;policy credibility;diplomatic style;pragmatism;trade policy;free trade agreement (FTA);Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN);Southeast Asia Introduction Among the political and economic transformations that East Asia has experienced
since the late 1990s,‘China’s ascendancy and Japan’s decline’is one of the most prominent.In the 1990s and early 2000s Japan plunged into a decade-long reces-sion and,even after recovering,the country’s economic performance lacked dyna-mism and its political and diplomatic situations have been unstable.In contrast,China has achieved steady economic growth,becoming the centre of trade and investment in East Asia.Beijing has also incread its political prence in East
Hidetaka Yoshimatsu,Graduate School of Asia Pacific Studies,Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University,Japan.Email:yoshih@apu.ac.jp
ISSN 1356-3467print;ISSN 1469-9923online /10/030395-25#2010Taylor &Francis
DOI:10.1080/13563461003602238New Political Economy,Vol.15,No.3,September
2010
D o w n l o a d e d b y [N a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e f o r S o u t h C h i n a S e a S t u d i e s ] a t 18:37 13 M a y 2013
Asia by demonstrating a positive commitment to the creation and development of regional institutions.
Japan has maintained clo relationships with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)and its members for more than 30years and,along with the United States,has been Southe
ast Asia’s primary trading partner.More-over,Japan’s foreign direct investment (FDI)and official development assistance (ODA)have sustained rapid industrialisation in most Southeast Asian countries by assisting in the development of hard infrastructure and soft human resources.In the new millennium,however,Japan’s position in Southeast Asia has appeared to shift from ‘special’to ‘normal’as its relative position in the Southeast Asian economic sphere has declined and ASEAN has strengthened initiatives to t up clor political and economic linkages with other countries.
China’s diplomatic relationship with Southeast Asia had stagnated prior to it becoming an ASEAN ‘full dialogue partner’in 1996.Since then,China has dee-pened its linkages with Southeast Asia in both political and economic domains.China has established politically reliable relationships with Southeast Asian countries by taking accommodating positions in major diplomatic issues,includ-ing the South China Sea dispute.China and ASEAN have strengthened their econ-omic ties by forming a wide range of trade and industrial arrangements.In particular,bilateral trade linkages have expanded steadily through the formation of the ASEAN–China free trade area.
This article eks to address the question of what caud the gap in the relation-ships that Japan and China have nurtured with Southeast Asia to emerge and expand in the new millennium.It highlights the constraints impod by domestic political institutions in Japan and China and the relev
ant diplomatic styles adopted by the two states as factors that have influenced their relationships with Southeast Asian countries.The article argues that Japan and China have had different kinds of weakness in implementing feasible external policies –a lack of policy deci-siveness for Japan and weak policy credibility for China –which resulted from the operation of domestic political institutions.While China implemented pragmatic diplomacy that helped to improve its policy credibility,Japan’s bargaining diplo-matic style did not rve to rectify its weak policy decisiveness.Such differences in their diplomatic approaches led to their differing influence on Southeast Asia.The arguments are examined through a comparative analysis of the formal trade arrangements that the two countries have established with ASEAN.Before conducting an empirical analysis of the arrangements,the following ction considers an alternative theoretical explanation of the central question and prents an analytical framework.
Growing shift in China’s and Japan’s positions in Southeast Asia
什么花的蜂蜜最好In the new millennium,veral ASEAN leaders have emphasid the growing importance of the relationship between China and Southeast Asia.For instance,during the Commemorative Summit marking the 15th Anniversary of the ASEAN–China Dialogue in October 2006,the President of the Philippines,Gloria Arroyo,declared that ‘we in ASEAN believe that relations between China and ASE
AN have never been better or stronger.This is an important Hidetaka Yoshimatsu
396D o w n l o a d e d b y [N a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e f o r S o u t h C h i n a S e a S t u d i e s ] a t 18:37 13 M a y 2013
state of affairs that can only help the region and the world’.1While it may be poss-ible to regard such statements as political rhetoric to show an accommodating pos-ition towards China,ASEAN’s growing attachment to China is demonstrated by veral official documents.In the 2006–07edition of ASEAN’s annual report,China was referred to 102times,many more than other countries such as Japan
fps
(66)and India (55)(ASEAN Secretariat 2007).Furthermore,a variety of insti-tutional frameworks have been established by China and ASEAN.Within 10years (1997–2005)after the establishment of formal ASEAN–China Dialogue relations,27mechanisms for dialogue and cooperation were established.This is particularly noteworthy when compared with the Japan–ASEAN relationship,in which 33institutional mechanisms were formed in the 28years after the estab-lishment of diplomatic relationships in 1977(Wong 2007:398).Lastly,the growing position of China in public perceptions is indicated by the answers to certain survey questions.In respon to the question of ‘which country is
currently the most important partner for ASEAN countries’,30per cent of the respondents indicated China,followed by Japan (28per cent)and the US (23per cent).As for a question regarding the most important future partner,China was chon by 33per cent compared to 23per cent for Japan (Japane Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2008).The factors support the argument that China has become an increasingly important country for ASEAN members while Japan’s position has gradually declined.The central question that this article eks to investigate is how such changes in the relative positions of China and Japan in Southeast Asia can be explained theoretically.
刘文华书法
According to the neorealist perspective,the key factor for explaining the evolution in the relative position of China and Japan in Southeast Asia is a change in the regional distribution of power (Waltz 1979,1990).China’s growing material power has encouraged its neighbouring countries to the south to adopt a bandwagoning strategy to accommodate the rising power (Kang 2003).China’s political power and prence have certainly grown in East Asia.China has become the major promoter of East Asian cooperation by providing concrete proposals for the development of the ASEAN +3grouping as a feasible institution and it has also played a central role in developing other multilateral frameworks in Asia,such as the Six Party Talks and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO)(Chung 2008).Equally important is China’s growing economic power.China’s gro
ss domestic product (GDP)in 1990was US$390billion,only 12.9per cent of the corresponding figure for Japan (US$3,032billion)but by 2007China’s GDP had rin to US$3,280billion,74.9per cent of Japan’s (US$4,382billion)(Inter-national Monetary Fund 2008).China’s growing economic power was even more notable in the area of trade.The value of China’s trade in 1990was US$117billion,22.4per cent of Japan’s (US$523billion).In 2007,however,China’s trade value (US$2,186billion)surpasd that of Japan (US$1,336billion),account-ing for 7.7per cent of world trade (ASEAN–Japan Centre 2008:42).
Indeed,the neorealist perspective provides a plausible explanation for the motivation of small states,such as Southeast Asian countries,to adapt to a rising power in general.Political leaders in Southeast Asia recogni that their countries cannot avoid the growing influence of China and,accordingly,they must react realistically to China’s ascendancy by more positively taking
Diplomacy and Trade Agreements:China and Japan
397D o w n l o a d e d b y [N a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e f o r S o u t h C h i n a S e a S t u d i e s ] a t 18:37 13 M a y 2013
advantage of the fruits that such ascendancy bears.However,the limitations of such an approach are
revealed upon scrutiny of the past diplomatic style of ASEAN members.ASEAN,a collection of mostly small states with significant internal and external incurity,has shared two overwhelming strategic impera-tives:anti-hegemony and diversification (Goh 2009:167).The growth of China has prompted ASEAN members to adopt a strategy of balancing surrounding larger states against each other,rather than (or as well as)bandwagoning with one of them.The political leaders of ASEAN countries have strong incentives to deepen their political and economic linkages with other great powers,as a coun-terweight to the ri of China.On this basis,they have expected that Japan,a tra-ditional regional power,will maintain a substantial prence in Southeast Asia by strengthening its existing political and economic linkages with ASEAN.This means that changes in the regional distribution of power alone cannot sufficiently explain the change in China and Japan’s relative influence in Southeast Asia.This article examines the emerging gap in the positions of China and Japan in Southeast Asia in terms of domestic politics and diplomatic style.Since the 1990s,many scholars in comparative politics have explored the relationship that the con-figurations of political institutions such as presidentialism,parliamentarism,party systems and electoral systems have with policy stability and policy changes (Huber et al.1993;Haggard and McCubbins 2001).George Tbelis and others have focud on the number and roles of ‘veto players’in influencing policy stability and policy changes in various government institutions (Immergut 1991;Tbelis 1995,2002;B
核舟记原文onoli 2000).2The scholars have mainly directed their interest towards domestic public policy and policy stability in advanced democratic countries in the Western world.However,the veto player approach does have a wider validity for explaining the policy environment that affects a state’s external relations under various political institutions of non-Western countries.Among the scholars who have sought to extend the veto player approach,MacIntyre (1999,2001,2003)has examined the influence of different configurations in domestic political institutions on ‘policy decisiveness’and ‘policy credibility’(e also Cox and McCubbins 2001).
Policy decisiveness is concerned with a state’s capability to make and carry out decisions that are difficult but necessary in a timely manner (MacIntyre 1999:145).The configurations of political institutions influence how decisive a certain policy action is.For instance,states in which the electoral system produces weak or incoherent parties,and in which the structure of government produces fragmented authority among multiple decision-making bodies,are unlikely to adjust quickly to changing circumstances in the international arena (MacIntyre 2001:86).The number of veto players is one of the critical factors that can facilitate or impede timely decisions in the policy-making process.The institutional configurations that spread policy-making power between a number of veto players create less decisiveness in the policy-making process and policy outcomes.
Policy credibility is concerned with a state’s ability to commit to a given policy once it is promid,and the likelihood that policies will be implemented as originally intended without sudden policy reversals.The credibility of policy action is heavily dependent on domestic political institutions;the institutional configurations that check arbitrary or erratic policy changes create greater Hidetaka Yoshimatsu
398D o w n l o a d e d b y [N a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e f o r S o u t h C h i n a S e a S t u d i e s ] a t 18:37 13 M a y 2013
