Search

Within international relations theory, there is significant disagreement on the nature and significance of leaders' dispute outcome preferences. While many variants of realism assume that such preferences are relatively fixed and homogeneous, both the liberal and the constructivist schools view them as significant variables. This debate remains unresolved because, for the standard large-sample conflict data sets, there are no direct measures of leadership preferences over outcomes in given types of international disputes. Using a conflict bargaining experiment, we ask whether, after controlling for the effects of relative power and initial conditions, leadership preferences have a statistically significant impact. We use two different country samples--from China and the United States--to examine whether the impact of leadership preferences varies internationally. We find that realist-style preferences are a special rather than a general case, and that such differences have significant implications for understanding continuities and changes in Chinese and US foreign policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bilateral relations between China and the United States have evolved over the past two decades from the 'same bed, different dreams' of the 1990s when, despite different interests and perceptions, globalisation and multilateralism drew them closer, to the potential 'different beds, same nightmare' scenario where their economies draw further apart and their governments are locked in hegemonic rivalry. Drawing on Wendtian constructivism and cognitive psychology, this article proposes a systematic and dynamic theoretical framework and a review of the evolution of Sino–US relations to explain how and why the above changes happened. We subdivide Sino–US relations since the early 1990s into five periods that describe the United States' China strategy in four aspects and China's US strategy in three aspects. Our findings are that the United States' China strategy has changed dramatically while China's US strategy has remained relatively stable, and that Sino–US relations from the early 1990s to mid-2010 were characterised by cooperation borne of strategic compatibility, whereas those ensuing were characterised by competition due to strategic incompatibility. We argue that rivalry between the two countries stems from their fundamentally different ideas, namely, Chinese statist nationalism and American liberal hegemony, and that gaps in perception have exacerbated the differences. Simply put, their 'different dreams' have led to the 'same nightmare'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An appendix is presented concerning the Constructivist Psychology Network (CPN), a nonprofit organization largely comprised of psychologists in the U.S.

Our commentary focuses on juxtaposing the proposed science of intentional change with facts and concepts pertaining to the level of large populations or changes on a worldwide scale. Although we find a unified evolutionary theory promising, we think that long-term and large-scale, scientifically guided – that is, intentional – social change is not only impossible, but also undesirable. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]