Advertisement

Chinese Political Science Review

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 81–99 | Cite as

Public Perceptions of International Leadership in China and the United States

Original Article

Abstract

Many fear that with Trump taking the helm, the United States will scale back its international leadership role in global governance, leaving a void that is too big for any single country to fill. Others are hopeful that emerging powers such as China will be able to step in and provide international leadership to solve global governance challenges, from climate change to nuclear nonproliferation. In this study, we explore the Chinese and American publics’ perceptions and views on international leadership in the Trump era. Results from two parallel surveys conducted in China and the United States shed light on how ordinary citizens in these two countries conceptualize international leadership and how their views contrast with conventional wisdom and with each other. Given the increasingly larger role played by public opinion in the foreign policies of both democratic and authoritarian countries, the findings of this study will have important policy implications.

Keywords

International leadership Public opinion China United States Global governance 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided by University of British Columbia's Hampton Research Grant (Grant no. F14-01146).

References

  1. Acharya, Amitav. 2011. Can Asia lead? Power ambitions and global governance in the twenty-first century. International Affairs 87 (4): 851–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ambrosio, Thomas. 2012. The rise of the ‘China Model’ and ‘Beijing Consensus’: Evidence of authoritarian confusion? Contemporary Politics 18 (4): 381–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Angang, Hu. 2011. China in 2020: A new type of superpower. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  4. Arce, M. Daniel G. 2001. Leadership and the aggregation of international collective action. Oxford Economic Papers 53: 114–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beeson, Mark. 2013. Can China lead? Third World Quarterly 34 (2): 235–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berinsky, Adam J., Gregory A. Huber, and Gabriel S. Lenz. 2012. Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon. com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis 20 (3): 351–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brainard, Lael, and David Lipton. 2008. Can America still lead in the global economy?. Brookings Institution, Working Paper 26.Google Scholar
  8. Carson, Austin. 2016. Facing off and saving face: Covert intervention and escalation management in the Korean War. International Organization 70 (1): 103–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark, Ian. 2011. China and the United States: A succession of hegemonies? International Affairs 87 (1): 13–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clifford, Scott, and Jennifer Jerit. 2014. Is there a cost to convenience? An experimental comparison of data quality in laboratory and online studies. Journal of Experimental Political Science 1 (2): 120–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Destradi, Sandra. 2010. Regional powers and their strategies: Empire, hegemony and leadership. Review of International Studies 36: 903–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fearon, James. 1994. Domestic political audiences and the escalation of international disputes. American Political Science Review 88 (03): 577–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gallarotti, Giulio M. 2005. Hegemons of a lesser God: The Bank of France and monetary leadership under the classical gold standard. Review of International Political Economy 12 (4): 624–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gilpin, Robert. 1981. War and change in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Helms, Ludger. 2014. Global political leadership in the twenty-first century: Problems and prospects. Contemporary Politics 20 (3): 261–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huang, Haifeng. 2015. International Knowledge and Domestic Evaluations in a Changing Society: The Case of China. American Political Science Review 109 (03): 613–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huff, Connor, and Dustin Tingley. 2015. “Who are these people?” Evaluating the demographic characteristics and political preferences of MTurk survey respondents. Research & Politics 2 (3): 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ikenberry, G. John. 1996. The Future of International Leadership. Political Science Quarterly 111 (3): 385–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ikenberry, G. John, and Charles A. Kupchan. 1990. Socialization and Hegemonic Power. International Organization 44 (3): 283–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaarbo, Juliet. 2015. A Foreign Policy Analysis Perspective on the Domestic Politics Turn in IR. International Studies Review 17: 189–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Keefe, John. 2002. Anatomy of the EP-3 Incident. Alexandria: Center for Naval Analyses.Google Scholar
  22. Kellerman, Barbara. 2008. Followership: How followers are creating change and changing leaders. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  23. Krupnikov, Yanna, and Adam Seth Levine. 2014. Cross-sample comparisons and external validity. Journal of Experimental Political Science 1 (1): 59–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lake, David A. 1993. Leadership, Hegemony, and the International Economy: Naked Emperor or Tattered Monarch with Potential? International Studies Quarterly 37 (4): 459–489.Google Scholar
  25. Lantis, Jeffrey S. 2005. Leadership Matters: International Treaty Ratification in Canada and the United States. American Review of Canadian Studies 35 (3): 383–421.Google Scholar
  26. Layne, Christopher. 2012. This time it's real: the end of unipolarity and the Pax Americana. International Studies Quarterly 56 (1): 202–213.Google Scholar
  27. Li, Xiaojun, Weiyi Shi, and Boliang Zhu. 2017. The Face of Internet Recruitment: Evaluating the Labor Markets of Online Crowdsourcing Platforms in China. 21st Century China Center Research Paper No. 2017-04. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3002066. Accessed 11 Aug 2017.
  28. Li, Xiaojun, and Ka Zeng. 2017. Individual Preferences for FDI in Developing Countries: Experimental Evidence from China. Forthcoming in Journal of Experimental Political Science.Google Scholar
  29. Lucarelli, Sonia. 2014. The EU’s Leadership in the Global Governance: Perceptions from Others. In Communicating Europe in the Times of Crisis: External Perceptions of the European Union, ed. N. Chaban, and M. Holland. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  30. Lundestad, Geir. 2012. The rise and decline of the American “Empire”: Power and its limits in comparative perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McCormack, Tara. 2011. The domestic limits to American international leadership after Bush. International Politics 48: 188–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morello, Carol, and John Wagner. 2017. As the U.S. leaves Paris climate accord, some see shifts in global leadership. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/as-the-us-leaves-paris-climate-accord-some-see-shifts-in-global-leadership/2017/06/01/4c916554-4634-11e7-a196-a1bb629f64cb_story.html?utm_term=.e96ab9604c0a. Accessed 11 Aug 2017.
  33. Northouse, Peter G. 2010. Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  34. Nye, Joseph S. 2004. Soft power and American foreign policy. Political Science Quarterly 119 (2): 255–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schmidt, Vivien A. 2010. Taking ideas and discourse seriously: Explaining change through discursive institutionalism as the fourth ‘new institutionalism’. European Political Science Review 2 (1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schultz, Kenneth. 2001. Looking for Audience Costs. Journal of Conflict Resolution 45 (1): 32–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shirk, Susan L. 2007. China: Fragile Superpower. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Shirk, Susan L. 2014. The Domestic Context of Chinese Foreign Security Policies. In The Oxford Handbook of the International Relations of Asia, eds. S. Pekkanen, J. Ravenhill, and R. Foot, 391–410. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Steinberg, James, and Michael E. O’Hanlon. 2015. Strategic reassurance and resolve: US–China relations in the twenty-first century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Subramanian, Arvind. 2011. The inevitable superpower: Why China’s dominance is a sure thing. Foreign Affairs 90 (5): 66–78.Google Scholar
  41. Tai, Qiuqing, and Rory Truex. 2015. Public Opinion towards Return Migration: A Survey Experiment of Chinese Netizens. The China Quarterly 223: 770–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tallberg, Jonas. 2010. The Power of the Chair: formal Leadership in International Cooperation. International Studies Quarterly 54: 241–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tomz, Michael, Jessica Weeks, and Keren Yarhi-Milo. 2017. How and why does public opinion affect foreign policy in democracies. Working paper. Stanford University.Google Scholar
  44. Vu, Truong-Minh. 2017. International Leadership as a Process: the Case of China in Southeast Asia. Revista Brasileira de Politica Internacional 60 (1): 1–21.Google Scholar
  45. Weiner, Jarrod. 1995. Hegemonic’ leadership: Naked emperor or the worship of false Gods? European Journal of International Relations 1 (2): 219–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Weiss, Jessica C. 2014. Powerful patriots: Nationalist protest in China’s foreign relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yan, Xuetong. 2011. International leadership and norm evolution. The Chinese Journal of International Politics 4 (3): 233–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zakaria, Fareed. 2017. United States Resigned as Leader of the Free World. CNN. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/06/02/zakaria_united_states_resigned_as_leader_of_the_free_world_when_trump_left_paris_climate_agreement.html. Accessed 11 Aug 2017.

Copyright information

© Fudan University and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations