Search

Despite having differing foreign policy objectives against the core Indo‐Pacific fundamentals, Prime Minister Modi is constructing a robust, proactive, and influential role of India in the Indo‐Pacific region without formally aligning with the United States or gesturing for any confrontational behavior against China. To unfold India's Indo‐Pacific positioning, this paper asks how India behaves between the United States and China in the Indo‐Pacific. The authors argue that to address this, Modi's Indo‐Pacific strategy revolves around Pragmatic Balancing between the United States and China in the Indo‐Pacific. The paper highlights Modi's Indo‐Pacific ambitions to explore this pragmatic balancing, keeping in view the US Indo‐Pacific strategy. To deal with the United States on the geostrategic front, ensuring maximum strategic autonomy and building India's maritime security order in the Indian Ocean region are Modi's crucial policy outlooks. On the other hand, to deal with China on the geo‐economics front, maintaining the maritime economy's flow, thereby preventing any confrontational behavior with China on multilateralism, is the critical component of Modi's Indo‐Pacific strategy. The evaluation demonstrates Modi's pragmatism by redefining India's balancing behavior with the United States and China to achieve the desired foreign policy outcomes, before presenting the article's final conclusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Focusing on the resilience of distinctive local consumption cultures, this paper challenges some of the more sweeping claims that have been advanced in the name of ‘globalization’. Thinking about a ‘globalizing’ rather than a fully ‘globalized’ world encourages us to examine the deeply contested nature of the concept and to explore the geographically uneven nature of recent economic, political and cultural transformations. This paper approaches globalization as a site of struggle rather than as an established fact, emphasizing the need for empirically grounded studies of the impact of ‘globalization’ on consumer cultures in different geographical contexts. The paper examines the way that producers have ‘customized’ their products for different markets (drawing on evidence from China and South Africa). It then reviews case study evidence from three contrasting consumption cultures: consumption and ‘public culture’ in India, ‘consumer nationalism’ in China, and ‘artful consumption’ in Russia. The paper concludes by identifying some current debates and outlining some directions for future research, including a re-emphasis on consumption and material culture; an exploration of consumption as social practice; the delineation of commodity-specific consumption cultures; and some reflections on the political, ethical and methodological issues that are being raised in contemporary consumption research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research collaboration is promoted by governments and research funders, but if the relative prevalence and merits of collaboration vary internationally then different national and disciplinary strategies may be needed to promote it. This study compares the team size and field normalized citation impact of research across all 27 Scopus broad fields in the 10 countries with the most journal articles indexed in Scopus 2008–2012. The results show that team size varies substantially by discipline and country, with Japan (4.2) having two‐thirds more authors per article than the United Kingdom (2.5). Solo authorship is rare in China (4%) but common in the United Kingdom (27%). While increasing team size associates with higher citation impact in almost all countries and fields, this association is much weaker in China than elsewhere. There are also field differences in the association between citation impact and collaboration. For example, larger team sizes in the Business, Management & Accounting category do not seem to associate with greater research impact, and for China and India, solo authorship associates with higher citation impact in this field. Overall, there are substantial international and field differences in the extent to which researchers collaborate and the extent to which collaboration associates with higher citation impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Family Process is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This analysis undertakes a preliminary conceptual assessment of the international agency of the EU, India and China in Central Asia. The contention is that the strategies advanced by Brussels, New Delhi and Beijing in the region reflect not only their desire to introduce a framework of predictability allowing them to make feasible calculations about future intentions, but also the increasing complexity of international life. The claim is that the external agency of the EU, India and China attests to the normative power of their foreign policies. However, the values and norms of the international agency of Brussels, New Delhi and Beijing reflect their distinct experiences and suggest their clashing interests. The article concludes with a brief appraisal of the prospective trends in the interactions between the EU, India and China in Central Asia and contends that it is the patterns of rivalry rather than cooperation that are likely to structure their global agency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]