“Sellout” Ministries and Jingoes: China’s Bureaucratic Institutions and the Evolution of Contested National Role Conceptions in the South China Sea

Abstract

This article extends the role theory literature on domestic role contestation process by specifically examining bureaucracies as potential advocates of competing national role conceptions. While recent scholarship on domestic role contestation affirms the influence of party politics and cabinet dynamics on role enactment, bureaucracies remain underexplored as key actors despite the presence of a robust literature that supports their relevance in the foreign policymaking process. This article draws on expectations from both the role theory and bureaucratic politics literatures to explain how bureaucracies contest national roles and how such contestation may be resolved. The article tests these propositions through the study of China's inter-bureaucratic contestation over its appropriate role in the South China Sea territorial disputes between 1979 and 1992. The article concurrently advances role studies on China by integrating them with more recent arguments about domestic role contestation. Traditionally, role theorists interested in China have either black-boxed the state or only focused on elite-mass role contestation, while this article explores intra-elite role contestation. Evan Jones received his BA in International Relations from Oakland University's Honors College. He also studied Mandarin at Nanjing University. Some of his research interests include China's foreign policy, the South China Sea territorial disputes, leadership and decision-making, bureaucratic politics, and role theory. Author's Note: I would like to thank Cristian Cantir for his invaluable comments on earlier versions of this work. I also thank the anonymous reviewers for their useful feedback.

Roleplay, realpolitik and ‘great powerness’: the logical distinction between survival and social performance in grand strategy

“…States might play multiple roles, with certain ones salient at certain times, due to exogenous circumstances and/or intentional mobilization (Holsti, 1970: 277). Multiple roles sometimes co-exist smoothly, but might generate domestic contestation (Brummer and Thies, 2015; Cantir and Kaarbo, 2012; Jones, 2017) – and such agreed or contested role motives are themselves products of multiple competing pressures. 10 More powerful states may also seek certain roles while disregarding others (Holsti, 1970), highlighting a relationship between material wherewithal and social standing.…”

“… 40. Such role conceptions may be contested internally (Jones, 2017), but expansionist conceptions of ‘great-power’ performance are manifestly influential. …”

China—The Champion of the Developing World: A Study of China's new Development Model and its Role in Changing Global Economic Governance

“…A number of studies, such as Gottwald and Duggan (2011) and Shih (2012), have applied a role theory framework to the study of China in international relations. Studies, such as Jones (2017) and Bersick and Gottwald (2015), have focused on China's domestic role expectations, highlighting the role of elitist and bureaucratic institutions in creating China's leadership role in international politics. Others, such as Shih and Huang (2015), Kai and Walker (2015), and Duggan (2015), have focused on the external role expectations of significant others, such as the United States, the EU, and China's partners in the BRICS and Africa.…”

Two Visions of Greatness: Roleplay and Realpolitik in UK Strategic Posture

“…Voters may applaud the country performing an elevated international-political role, but disagree -among themselves and/or vis-à-vis elites -over what that role should be. 14 Different bureaucratic departments -defense versus overseas development, say -could disagree about their state's role and its discharge (Crowcroft and Hartley 2012;Jones 2017)…”

“…In realist international thought, states do not have societal "roles"; they simply have a hierarchy of interests -survival, security, independence, prosperity, and so forth -plus varying levels of power to pursue such interests (Morgenthau 1973:5-8). 5 Certainly, most states have role concerns (Holsti 1970) -the likes of Germany, Turkey, Brazil, and even China and the United States are all currently debating their "place" in world affairs (Gürzel 2014;Hicks 2015;Neves and Collins 2015;Steinmeier 2016;Jones 2017). Nonetheless, Britain's role-obsession seems symptomatic of particular circumstances: status anxiety, an elite/public self-conception characterized by international activism, a certain relationship to major allies, and substantial-yet-not-preeminent national capabilities.…”