Abstract
Pushed by structural transformations of geopolitics and world economy, China had to adjust its policy toward the European Union (EU) continuously during the period of 2014–2019, in pace with the dramatic changes in the European political landscape and the European Union’s policy orientations. During this process, the role of Chinese foreign policy think tanks has become more prominent and complex. This article conducts a comparative case study of the central-level China Institute of International Studies (CIIS) and the provincial-level Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (SIIS), analyzing mechanisms of their influence over China’s EU policy. Based on a theoretical paradigm that interprets think tanks as the “central space” in a “field of power,” this article establishes an analytical framework regarding the policy influence of CIIS and SIIS as being determined by their differentiated positions within China’s foreign policy-making structure. It compares the flows of CIIS and SIIS publications on EU policy issues and the issuing of EU policy documents by the Chinese government, with a particular focus on the economic dimension of the relationship. It reveals patterns of synchronization and succession between think tank advice and official policy endorsements. Also, it analyzes the structural characteristics of meetings on EU policy sponsored by CIIS and SIIS, disclosing their varied connections with central and provincial policymakers, as well as other political actors. Generally speaking, the CIIS is in a more advantageous position than the SIIS. The findings also confirm the trend of a new round of centralization in China’s policy process.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The author's own analysis based on statistics of official records of the activities of these two think tanks.
Notes
The dominating top-down channel of commands in China’s political and policy process is likened to the pipe of a stove. This phenomenon was noticed in 1960s in the work of A. Doak Barnett. Relevant research has been continuously developed in the past several decades. Also, this perspective is brought into studies of Chinese think tanks. Most recent description of the “stove-piping” in Chinese think tank studies can be found in: Glaser (2012).
A new trend of centralization has been observed by many domestic and foreign observers, which means that the permanent cycle of centralization and decentralization in China’s state structure is probably re-shifting toward a higher degree of concentration of power, resources, and information at central level. There are two signs indicating this trend: (1) More traces of recentralization in the state administration of economy have been captured by media since the CCP’s 18th National Congress in 2012; (2) On 17 March 2018, the decision to expand and upgrade the “Central Small Leading Group for Foreign Affairs” into the “Central Foreign Affairs Commission” took effect as the “Plan for Deepening the Reform on the Institutions of the Party and the State” was passed by China’s National People’s Congress. Four previous “central small leading groups” will be upgraded and expanded into special “central commissions” that will be controlled by the CCP’s central politburo. Also, several new central ministries will be established, which will absorb and gather competences of some existing ministries, a situation similar to the time of reform of the “big ministry system” in 2007. This latest round of adjustment on central level party and state institutions may amass more resources and power upward into the central party apparatus and a few central ministries.
Over 53 interviews have been conducted since mid-2016, usually on the occasion when the author took part in some CIIS or SIIS-sponsored meeting. The author collected 43 pieces of CIIS online and paper publications, 61 pieces of SIIS online and paper publications, and files and records of 46 CIIS-sponsored meetings and 229 SIIS-sponsored meetings.
These policy documents are: The China-EU Joint Communiqué on climate change, issued on 30 June 2015; The Rica outline for China’s cooperation with Central and Eastern European Countries, issued on 6 November 2016; The list for the achievements of the 19th China-EU Leadership Summit, issued on 4 June 2017; The Joint Communiqué of the 20th China-EU Leadership Summit, issued on 6 July 2018; The document of China’s EU policy, issued on 18 December 2018; The Joint Communiqué of the 20th China-EU Leadership Summit, issued on 9 April 2019. All these documents can be found on the website of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, under https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/gjhdq_676201/gjhdqzz_681964/1206_679930/1207_679942/, accessed on 17 September 2019.
Nowadays, most universities and think tanks in China operate a regular system of transmitting materials of categories II and III of Table 2 to the central leadership. Some of these materials may be directly transferred to the office tables of top leaders.
Several SIIS experts interviewed by the author of this article strongly argued that SIIS is not a provincial level think tank, although it is located in Shanghai rather than Beijing. They maintained that by calling the SIIS a “provincial think tank” its prominent position in China’s foreign policy community is unfairly downgraded and its policy influence is seriously underestimated. They claimed that “the research capacity of SIIS is at the top level of the whole country and that it possesses ‘very direct channels’ of interaction with the top leadership in Beijing.” Later they admitted that for financing, the SIIS as a “Fully-Appropriated Non-Profit Institution” is completely dependent on the Shanghai Municipal Government, not the central government. Their rejection of the term “provincial level” reveals the crucial roles of central-level ministries and the top leadership in China’s foreign policy making and the rather peripheral position of provincial policymakers.
Interviews with experts of CIIS and SIIS confirm this point.
References
Abb P (2015) China’s foreign policy think tanks: institutional evolution and changing roles. J Contemp China 24(93):531–553
Abb P (2019) Leaders or ‘guides’ of public opinion? the media role of Chinese foreign policy experts. Mod China 47(3):320–349
Barnett AD (1967) Cadres, bureaucracy, and political power in Communist China. Columbia University Press, New York, p 30
Brodsgaard KE (ed) (2017a) Chinese politics as fragmented authoritarianism: earthquakes, energy and environment. London and New York, Routledge, p 35
Brodsgaard KE (ed) (2017b) Chinese politics as fragmented authoritarianism: earthquakes, energy and environment. London and New York: Routledge, p 11, pp 38–52
Glaser B (2012) Chinese Foreign Policy Research Institutes and the Practice of Influence. In: Rozman G (ed) China’s foreign policy: who makes it, and how is it made? Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp 88–124
Gurnburg N (2017) Rivisiting fragmented authoritarianism in China’s central energy administration. In: Brodsgaard KE (ed) Chinese politics as fragmented authoritarianism: earthquakes, energy and environment. Routledge, London and New York, pp 15–32
Harding H (1981) Organizing China: the problem of bureaucracy, 1949–1976. Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp 26–45
Heilmann S, Perry EJ (eds) (2011) Mao’s invisible hand: the political foundations of adaptive governance in China. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–30
Lieberthal KG, Lampton D (eds) (1992) Bureaucracy, Politics, and Decision Making in Post-Mao China. University of California Press, Berkeley, p 38
Lieberthal K, Oksenberg M (1988) Policy making in China: leaders, structures, and processes. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 5–14
Medvetz T (2012) Think tanks in America. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, p 39
Menegazzi S (2018) Rethinking think tanks in Contemporary China. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, pp 23–35
Mertha A (2009) ‘Fragmented authoritarianism 2.0’: political pluralization in the Chinese policy process. China Q 200:995–1012
Montinola G (1995) Federalism, Chinese style: the political basis for economic success in China. World Polit 48:50–81
Schurmann F (1973) Ideology and Organization in Communist China, 2nd edn. University of California Press, Berkeley
Segal G (1994) China changes shape: regionalism and foreign policy, Adelphi Papers 287. International Institute for Strategic Studies
Shambaugh D (2002) China’s International Relations Think Tanks: Evolving Structure and Process. China Q (171):575–596
Shue V (1988) The reach of the state: sketches of the Chinese body politic. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, p 123
Weil S (2017) Lobbying and foreign interests in Chinese politics. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, p 22, 47, 80
Xue L, Zhao J (2018) Truncated decision making and deliberative implementation: a time-based policy process model for transitional China. Policy Stud J 48(2):298–326
Xue L et al (2018) Embracing scientific decision making: the rise of think-tank policies in China. Pac Aff 91(1):49–71
Xufeng Z (2020) Think tanks in politically embedded knowledge regimes: does the ‘revolving door’ matter in China? Int Rev Adm Sci 86(2):295–315
Zhao Q (2012) Moving between the ‘inner circle’ and ‘outer circle’: the limited impact of think tanks on policy making in China. In: Rozman G (ed) China’s foreign policy: who makes it, and how is it made? Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp 125–152
Zheng Y (2007) De facto federalism in China: reforms and dynamics of central-local relations. World Scientific Publishing, Singapore, pp 3–6
Zhu X (2006) Social capital of Chinese policy elites: an analysis in the view of structuralism (in Chinese). Sociol Stud (4):86–116
Zhu X (2012) Expert participation in policy changes, (in Chinese). The Press of People’s University of China, Beijing
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This article is part of the output of two research projects: One is a research project of think tank studies supported by the Shanghai Municipal Office for the Planning of Philosophy and Social Sciences (the registration number is 2012FGJ001). The other one is a Sino-European joint research project on economic relations between China and the EU, which received funding from the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences (KNAW, project number 530-6CDP24).
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Xin, H. The influence of Chinese foreign policy think tanks on China’s EU policy: a comparative analysis of CIIS and SIIS. Asia Eur J 21, 173–208 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10308-023-00666-w
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10308-023-00666-w