What consensus? Geopolitics and policy paradigms in China and the United States

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

© 2015 The Royal Institute of International Affairs. The Washington Consensus is not what it was. A model of development associated with the Untied States, it has been diminished both by apparent failures, widespread criticism and by the recent economic crisis that had its origins in the US. Anglo-American capitalism has lost a good deal of its influence and attractiveness. As a consequence, alternative models of development have become more prominent, especially the so-called Beijing Consensus. The authors argue that at one level this evolving policy discourse and debate reflects a long-term structural change in the relative positions of China and the United States. However, it is far from clear that this transformation has gone far enough to underpin a significant ideational or policy challenge on China's part. On the contrary, the debate in China demonstrates that there is little appetite for, or expectation of, a major paradigm change in the near future.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)93-109
JournalINTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
Volume91
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Fingerprint

geopolitics
paradigm
China
paradigm change
social attraction
structural change
economic crisis
capitalist society
criticism
discourse

Cite this

@article{272c09ed09cb495889fad4cb5caea46e,
title = "What consensus? Geopolitics and policy paradigms in China and the United States",
abstract = "{\circledC} 2015 The Royal Institute of International Affairs. The Washington Consensus is not what it was. A model of development associated with the Untied States, it has been diminished both by apparent failures, widespread criticism and by the recent economic crisis that had its origins in the US. Anglo-American capitalism has lost a good deal of its influence and attractiveness. As a consequence, alternative models of development have become more prominent, especially the so-called Beijing Consensus. The authors argue that at one level this evolving policy discourse and debate reflects a long-term structural change in the relative positions of China and the United States. However, it is far from clear that this transformation has gone far enough to underpin a significant ideational or policy challenge on China's part. On the contrary, the debate in China demonstrates that there is little appetite for, or expectation of, a major paradigm change in the near future.",
author = "Mark Beeson and F. Li",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1111/1468-2346.12188",
language = "English",
volume = "91",
pages = "93--109",
journal = "INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS",
issn = "0020-5850",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

What consensus? Geopolitics and policy paradigms in China and the United States. / Beeson, Mark; Li, F.

In: INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, Vol. 91, No. 1, 2015, p. 93-109.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - What consensus? Geopolitics and policy paradigms in China and the United States

AU - Beeson, Mark

AU - Li, F.

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - © 2015 The Royal Institute of International Affairs. The Washington Consensus is not what it was. A model of development associated with the Untied States, it has been diminished both by apparent failures, widespread criticism and by the recent economic crisis that had its origins in the US. Anglo-American capitalism has lost a good deal of its influence and attractiveness. As a consequence, alternative models of development have become more prominent, especially the so-called Beijing Consensus. The authors argue that at one level this evolving policy discourse and debate reflects a long-term structural change in the relative positions of China and the United States. However, it is far from clear that this transformation has gone far enough to underpin a significant ideational or policy challenge on China's part. On the contrary, the debate in China demonstrates that there is little appetite for, or expectation of, a major paradigm change in the near future.

AB - © 2015 The Royal Institute of International Affairs. The Washington Consensus is not what it was. A model of development associated with the Untied States, it has been diminished both by apparent failures, widespread criticism and by the recent economic crisis that had its origins in the US. Anglo-American capitalism has lost a good deal of its influence and attractiveness. As a consequence, alternative models of development have become more prominent, especially the so-called Beijing Consensus. The authors argue that at one level this evolving policy discourse and debate reflects a long-term structural change in the relative positions of China and the United States. However, it is far from clear that this transformation has gone far enough to underpin a significant ideational or policy challenge on China's part. On the contrary, the debate in China demonstrates that there is little appetite for, or expectation of, a major paradigm change in the near future.

U2 - 10.1111/1468-2346.12188

DO - 10.1111/1468-2346.12188

M3 - Article

VL - 91

SP - 93

EP - 109

JO - INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

JF - INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

SN - 0020-5850

IS - 1

ER -