Looking for Balance: China, the United States, and Power Balancing in East Asia (Studies in Asian Security)

Debate surrounding "China's rise," and the prospects of its possible challenge to America's preeminence, has focused on two questions : whether the United States should "contain" or "engage" China; and whether the rise of Chinese power has inclined other East Asian states to "balance" against Beijing by alignment with the United States or ramping up their military expenditures. By drawing on alternative theoretic approaches, most especially "balance-of-threat" theory, political economic theory, and theories of regime survival and economic interdependence, Steve Chan is able to create an explanation of regional developments that differs widely from the traditional "strategic vision" of national interest. He concludes that China's primary aim is not to match U.S. military might or the foreign policy influence that flows from that power, and that its neighbors are not balancing against its rising power because, in today's guns-versus-butter fiscal reality, balancing policies would entail forfeiting possible gains that can accrue from cooperation, economic growth, and the application of GDP to nonmilitary ends. Instead, most East Asian countries have collectively pivoted to a strategy of elite legitimacy and regime survival based on economic performance. Steve Chan is the author of China, the U.S., and the Power-Transition Theory: A Critique, and Enduring Rivalries in the Asia Pacific Debate surrounding “China's rise” and the prospects of its possible challenge to America's preeminence in international relations in East Asia has focused on two questions, rooted in power-balancing theory: whether the United States should “contain” or “engage” China; and whether the rise of Chinese power has inclined other East Asian states to “balance” against Beijing by alignment with the United States. By drawing on alternative theoretic approaches—most especially “balance-of-threat” theory, political economic theory, and theories surrounding regime survival in multilateral rather than bilateral contexts—the author of this book creates an explanation of what is in motion in the region that differs widely from the traditional “strategic vision” of national interest. He concludes that China's primary international relations aim is not to match U.S. military might or the foreign policy influence which flows from that power, and that its neighbors are not balancing against its rising power. This is because, in today's guns-versus-butter fiscal reality, balancing policies would entail forfeiting possible gains that can accrue from cooperation, economic growth, and the application of GDP to nonmilitary ends. Instead, most East Asian countries have collectively pivoted to a strategy of elite legitimacy and regime survival based on economic performance By drawing on alternative theoretic approaches - most especially 'balance-of-threat' theory, political economic theory, and theories surrounding regime survival in multilateral rather than bilateral contexts - the author of this book creates an explanation of what is in motion in East Asia that differs widely from the traditional 'strategic vision' of national interest. He concludes that China's primary international relations aim is not to match U.S. military might or the foreign policy influence which flows from that power, and that its neighbours are not balancing against its rising power By drawing on alternative theoretic approaches—most especially "balance-of-threat" theory, political economic theory, and theories surrounding regime survival in multilateral rather than bilateral contexts Steve Chan is able to create an explanation of what is in motion in the region that differs widely from the traditional "strategic vision" of national interest. Balance of power, power balance, and balancing Looking for balancing : the non-occurrence of the expected The political economy of defense and regime strategy Balance-of-power expectations versus credible commitment Growth, trust, and historical comparisons Preferences, intentions, and multilateralism.