The rapid proliferation of preferential trade agreements (PTAs) has prompted numerous studies on why states seek PTAs. However, very little research examines why states vary in choosing different forms of PTAs, while states’ decisions to enter bilateral or multilateral PTA affect the global, regional, and national political economies. This paper thus finds global patterns regarding which pairs of states are more likely to enter bilateral or multilateral PTAs. Based on a wide range of existing research, the paper begins with hypothesizing different effects of economic and political factors that give rise to these PTAs during the last two decades. The empirical analysis then tests these hypotheses. The result shows stark differences in pairs of states joining the two types of PTAs. Bilateral PTAs are more likely to develop between democratic states with a large market size and the World Trade Organization (WTO) membership. Multilateral PTAs tend to form between less democratic states with greater political affinity.

This paper, the first step of a project aiming at analysing the establishment of practices of resident participation and consultation in urban renewal in China, proposes a reflection upon these practices through a comparison with similar experiences in France. Identifying some convergences between the practices adopted in the two countries, the paper proposes to reflect upon such puzzling outcomes, provocatively questioning the classic distinction between authoritarian and democratic regimes. It suggests that our analyses and interpretations shall get rid of classical binary categorisations between regime types to embrace a comparative analysis of the policies and practices introduced in various local contexts, and reflect upon their underlying logics. In so doing, the paper engages with He and Warren's concept of ‘authoritarian deliberation’ as well as with the critiques expressed by a number of French scholars on concepts such as ‘participative democracy’ and ‘good governance’. Such a focus on the underlying logics rather than on regime types will show that the concept of ‘authoritarian deliberation’ does not only apply to authoritarian contexts. Rather, it represents a fruitful starting point to analyse and reflect upon instances of participation and deliberation in both democratic and authoritarian countries.

This paper compares Japanese and Chinese infrastructure development strategies in post-Soviet Central Asia (CA) by analyzing the similarities and differences in the approaches of the two Asian economic powers. This paper develops several arguments with respect to the Japanese and Chinese approaches to infrastructure development in CA. This paper argues that the discourse of mutually exclusive interests in China and Japan's development of various infrastructure-related projects in CA is empirically unproven. Most of the Chinese engagements emphasize the creation of energy and transportation infrastructure (construction), while Japan's main areas of focus are the maintenance, modernization, and rehabilitation of current infrastructure. Thus, this paper suggests that China positions itself as CA's leading economic partner, while Japan is CA's leading assistance provider. These two roles have different implications. Furthermore, the current infrastructure engagements of Japan (from assistance to partnership) and China (from exploitation to contribution to the region) in CA demonstrate both countries’ attempts to adjust and search for new opportunities.