¹ For other reviews of the study of Chinese foreign policy, see Harry Harding, “The Evolution of American Scholarship on Contemporary China,” in David L. Shambaugh, ed., The American Study of Contemporary China (New York: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming); Hunt, Michael H., “‘Normalizing’ the Field” (Paper presented at the Wilson Center Conference on “CCP External Relations,” Washington, D.C., June 1992)Google Scholar; David L. Shambaugh, Beautiful Imperialism: China Perceives America, 1972–1990, 16–35; Kim, Samuel S., “New Directions and Old Puzzles in Chinese Foreign Policy,” in Kim, Samuel S., ed., China and the World: New Directions in Chinese Foreign Relations, 2d ed. (Boulder, Colo.: West view Press, 1989)Google Scholar; Harding, Harry, “Change and Continuity in Chinese Foreign Policy,” Problems of Communism 32 (March-April 1983)Google Scholar; Zhi, Rong, “Two Views of Chinese Foreign Policy,” World Politics 34 (January 1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Yahuda, Michael, “Perspectives on China's Foreign Policy,” China Quarterly, no. 95 (September 1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ng-Quinn, Michael, The Analytic Study of Chinese Foreign Policy,” International Studies Quarterly 27 (June 1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pollack, Jonathan D., “Interpreting China's Foreign Policy,” Problems of Communism 29 (July–August 1980)Google Scholar; Wu, Friedrich W., “Explanatory Approaches to Chinese Foreign Policy: A Critique of the Western Literature,” Studies in Comparative Communism 13 (Spring 1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² Determining which scholarship to review is a somewhat subjective exercise. The criterion here is to examine studies at the more general political level, such as China's relations with some major international actors and over some key issues. Not considered, therefore, are studies of China's relations with “secondary” actors and of issues other than political strategic ones.

³ See Mancall, Mark, “The Persistence of Tradition in Chinese Foreign Policy,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 349 (September 1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fitzgerald, C. P., The Chinese View of Their Place in the World (London: Oxford University Press, 1964)Google Scholar; Geoffroy-Dechaume, Francois, China Looks at the World (London: Faber and Faber, 1967)Google Scholar; Ginsberg, Norton, “On the Chinese Perception of a World Order,” in Tsou, Tang, ed., China in Crisis, vol. 2 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968)Google Scholar; Fairbank, John K., ed., The Chinese World Order (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, “China's Foreign Policy in Historical Perspective,” Foreign Affairs 47 (April 1969)Google Scholar; Feuerwerker, Albert, “Chinese History and the Foreign Relations of Contemporary China,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 402 (July 1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cranmer-Byng, J., “The Chinese View of Their Place in the World: An Historical Perspective,” China Quarterly, no. 53 (January-March 1973).Google Scholar

⁴ Fairbank (fn. 3, 1969), 449.

⁵ For more contemporary works, see Shih, Chih-Yu, China's Just World: The Morality of Chinese Foreign Policy (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner, 1992)Google Scholar; idem, The Spirit of Chinese Foreign Policy: A Psychocultural View; uang-sheng, Liao K., Anti-Foreignism and Modernization in China, 1860–1980, 2d ed. (Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 1986)Google Scholar; Hunt, Michael H., “Chinese Foreign Relations in Historical Perspective,” in Harding, Harry, ed., China's Foreign Relations in the 1980s (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984), 1–42Google Scholar; Mancall, Mark, China at the Center: 300 Years of Foreign Policy (New York: Free Press, 1984)Google Scholar; Rossabi, Morris, China among Equals: The Middle Kingdom and Its Neighbors (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983).Google Scholar

⁶ See Schwartz, Benjamin I., Communism and China: Ideology in Flux (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, “China and the West in the 'Thought of Mao Tsetung,' ” in Ho, Ping-ti and Tsou, Tang, eds., China in Crisis, vol. 1, book 1 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968)Google Scholar; Hinton, Harold C., China's Turbulent Quest (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1972)Google Scholar; Gittings, John, The World and China, 1922–1972 (New York: Harper and Rowe, 1974)Google Scholar; idem, “The Statesman,” in Wilson, Dick, ed., Mao Tse-Tung in the Scales of History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977)Google Scholar; Oksenberg, Michel, “Mao's Policy Commitments, 1921–1976,” Problems of Communism 25 (November–December, 1976)Google Scholar; Pye, Lucian, “Mao Tse-Tung's Leadership Style,” Political Science Quarterly 91 (Summe 1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Meisner, Maurice, Mao's China: A History of the People's Republic (New York: Free Press, 1977)Google Scholar; O'Leary, Greg, The Shaping of Chinese Foreign Policy (New York: St. Martin' Press, 1980).Google Scholar

⁷ Tsou, Tang and Halperin, Morton, “Mao Tse-Tung's Revolutionary Strategy and Peking's International Behavior,” American Political Science Review 69 (March 1965)Google Scholar; Ness, Peter Van, Revolution and Chinese Foreign Policy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970)Google Scholar; Slyke, Lyman Van, Enemies and Friends (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1967)Google Scholar; Mozingo, David, Chinese Policy toward Indonesia, 1949–67 (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1972)Google Scholar; Armstrong, J. D., Revolutionary Diplomacy: Chinese Foreign Policy and the United Front Doctrine (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977).Google Scholar

⁸ For typical realist works, see Carr, E. H., The Twenty Years' Crisis, 1919–1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations (London: MacMillan, 1939)Google Scholar; Morgenthau, Hans J., Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 4th ed. (New York: Knopf, 1966)Google Scholar; Waltz, Kenneth, Theory of International Politics (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1979).Google Scholar

⁹ Whiting, , China Crosses the Yalu: The Decision to Enter the Korean War (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1960).Google Scholar

¹⁰ See also Zagoria, Donald, Vietnam Triangle (New York: Pegasus, 1967)Google Scholar; idem, “The Strategic Debate in Peking,” in Tsou (fn. 3); Ojha, I. C., Chinese Foreign Policy in an Age of Transition (Boston: Beacon, 1969)Google Scholar; Van Ness (fn. 7); Robinson, Thomas W., “The View from Peking: China's Policies towards the United States, the Soviet Union, and Japan,” Pacific Affairs 45 (Fall 1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Whiting, Allen S., “New Light on Mao: Quemoy 1958: Mao's Miscalculations,” China Quarterly, no. 62 (June 1975), 263–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pollack, Jonathan, “Perception and Action in Chinese Foreign Policy: The Quemoy Decision” (Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 1976)Google Scholar; Yahuda, Michael, China's Role in World Affairs (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1978)Google Scholar; Gurtov, Melvin and Hwang, Byong-moo, China under Threat: The Politics of Strategy and Diplomacy (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980).Google Scholar

¹¹ Whiting, Allen S., “The Use of Force in Foreign Policy by the People's Republic of China,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 402 (July 1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹² Whiting, Allen S., The Chinese Calculus of Deterrence (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1975).Google Scholar

¹³ Ibid, xiv–xx.

¹⁴ Ibid, ix.

¹⁵ See Griffith, Samuel B. II, The Chinese People's Liberation Army: From the Long March to the Hydrogen Bomb, 2d ed. (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1968)Google Scholar; Huck, Arthur, The Security of China: Chinese Approaches to the Problems of War and Strategy (London: Chatto and Windus for the Institute of Strategic Studies, 1971)Google Scholar; Whiting (fn. 11); Corr, Gerald H., The Chinese Red Army: Campaigns and Politics since 1949 (New York: Schocken Books, 1974)Google Scholar; Lewis, John Wilson, “China's Military Doctrines and Force Posture,” in Fingar, Thomas, ed., China's Quest for Independence: Policy Evolution in the 1970s (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1980).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Harding, Harry, “The Study of Chinese Politics: Toward a Third Generation of Scholarship,” World Politics 36 (January 1984), 289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁷ For a critique of realist theory, see Keohane, Robert O., “Theory of World Politics: Structural Realism and Beyond,” in Finifter, Ada W., ed., Political Science: The State of the Discipline (Washington, D.C.: American Political Science Association, 1983).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Waltz (fn. 8), 180.

¹⁹ Freedman, Lawrence, “The Triangle in Western Europe,” in Segal, Gerald, ed., The China Factor (London: Croom Helm, 1982), 105.Google Scholar

²⁰ Nogee has an excellent discussion on the concept of polarity, and he sees the inherent difficulty of measuring polarity and defining a system's structure. See Nogee, Joseph L., “Polarity: An Ambiguous Concept,” Orbis 18 (Winter 1975).Google Scholar

²¹ See, e.g., Kissinger, Henry, White House Years (Boston: Little, Brown, 1979)Google Scholar, esp. 837; Kim, Ilpyong, ed., The Strategic Triangle: China, the United States and the Soviet Union (New York: Paragon House, 1987)Google Scholar; Ellison, Herbert J., ed., The Sino-Soviet Conflict: A Global Perspective (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1982)Google Scholar; Segal, Gerald, The Great Power Triangle (London and Basingstoke: MacMillan Press, 1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Segal (fn. 19); Stuart, Douglas T. and Tow, William T., eds., China, the oviet Union, and the West: Strategic and Political Dimensions in the 1980s (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1982)Google Scholar; Talbott, Strobe, “The Strategic Dimension of the Sino-American Relationship: Enemy of Our Enemy, or True Friend?” in Solomon, Richard R., ed., The China Factor (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1981)Google Scholar; Dittmer, Lowell, “The Strategic Triangle: An Elementary Game-Theoretical Analysis,” World Politics 33 (July 1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lieberthal, Kenneth G., Sino-Soviet Conflict in the 1970s: Its Evolution and Implications for the Strategic Triangle (Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corporation, 1978)Google Scholar; Levine, Steven I., “China and the Superpowers,” Political Science Quarterly 90 (Winter 1975–76).Google Scholar

For some contemporary works, see Chen, Min, The Strategic Triangle and Regional Conflicts: Lessons from the Indochina Wars (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner, 1991)Google Scholar; Nelsen, Harvey W., Power and Insecurity: Beijing, Moscow, and Washington, 1949–1988 (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner, 1989).Google Scholar

²² A typical example of this argument is made by Nathan, Andrew, “A Factionalism Model for CCP Politics,” China Quarterly, no. 53 (January–March 1973).Google Scholar

²³ See Hunt (fn. 1), 12.

²⁴ Uri Ra'anan, “Peking's Foreign Policy 'Debate,' 1965–1966,” in Tsou (fn. 3); Whiting, Allen S., Chinese Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy in the 1970s (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Center for Chinese Studies, 1979)Google Scholar; Gurtov, Melvin and Harding, Harry Jr., The Purge of Luo Juich'ing: The Politics of Chinese Strategic Planning (Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corporation, Report R–548–PR, 1971)Google Scholar; Oksenberg, Michel and Goldstein, Steven, “The Chinese Political Spectrum,” Problems of Communism 23 (March-April 1974)Google Scholar; Zagoria (fn. 10); Yahuda, Michael, “Kremlinology and the Chinese Strategic Debate, 1965–66,” China Quarterly, no. 49 (January 1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gottlieb, Thomas, Chinese Foreign Policy Factionalism and the Origins of the Strategic Triangle (Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corporation, Report R-1902-NA, 1977)Google Scholar; Chan, Steve, “Rationality, Bureaucratic Politics and Belief System: Explaining the Chinese Policy Debate, 1964–66,” Journal of Peace Research 16 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Garver, John, “Chinese Foreign Policy in 1970: The Tilt toward the Soviet Union,” China Quarterly, no. 82 (June 1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, China's Decision for Rapprochement with the United States (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1982)Google Scholar; Lieberthal, Kenneth G., “The Foreign Policy Debate in Peking as Seen through Allegorical Articles, 1973–76,” China Quarterly, no. 71 (September 1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pollack, Jonathan D., The Sino-Soviet Rivalry and Chinese Security Debate (Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corporation, R-2907-AE, October 1982)Google Scholar; Ness, Peter Van, “Three Lines in Chinese Foreign Relations, 1950–1983: The Development Imperative,” in Dorothy Solinger, ed., Three Visions of Chinese Socialism (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1984).Google Scholar

²⁵ See Harry Harding, “The Domestic Policies of China's Global Posture, 1973–78,” in Fingar (fn. 15); Thomas Fingar, “Domestic Policy and the Quest for Independence,” in Fingar (fn. 15); Hamrin, Carol Lee, “China Reassesses the Superpowers,” Pacific Affairs 56 (Summer 1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, “Domestic Components and China's Evolving Three Worlds Theory,” in Harris, Lillian Craig and Worden, Robert L., eds., China and the Third World: Champion or Challenger (Dover, Mass.: Auburn House Publishing Company, 1986)Google Scholar; Shirk, Susan, “The Domestic Political Dimensions of China's Foreign Economic Relations,” in Kim, Samuel, ed., China and the World (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1984)Google Scholar; Solinger (fn. 24); Lieberthal, Kenneth, “Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy,” in Harding, Harry, ed., China's Foreign Relations in the 1980s (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984)Google Scholar; Ross, Robert, “FroLin Biao to Deng Xiaoping: Elite Instability and China's U.S. Policy,” China Quarterly, no. 118 (June 1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; David Bachman, “Domestic Sources of Chinese Foreign Policy,” in Kim (fn. 1); Quansheng, Zhao, “Domestic Factors of Chinese Foreign Policy: From Vertical to Horizontal Authoritarianism,” in Whiting, Allen S., ed., China's Foreign Relations, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 519 (January 1992).Google Scholar

²⁶ For a detailed critique of the factional model, see Hunt (fn. 1), 12–13.

²⁷ See Hunt, Michael H. and Westad, Odd Arne, “The Chinese Communist Party and International Affairs: A Field Report on New Historical Sources and Old Research Problems,” in China Quarterly, no. 120 (December 1989).Google Scholar

²⁸ See Shambaugh, David L., China's National Security Research Bureaucracy,” China Quarterly, no. 110 (June 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Shambaugh, David L. and Jisi, Wang, “Research on International Studies in the People's Republic of China,” PS 17 (Fall 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fan, Li, “The Question of Interests in the Chinese Policy Making Process,” China Quarterly, no. 109 (March 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Murray, Douglas, International Relations Research and Training in the People's Republic of China (Stanford, Calif.: Northeast Asia-United States Forum on International Policy, 1982).Google Scholar

²⁹ The notion that foreign policy should be highly controlled came from Zhou Enlai's watchword: “There are no trivial things in foreign affairs, and everything has to be reported to the higher level [Waishi wuxiaoshi, shishi yaoqingshi].” See also Jianwei, Wang and Zhimin, Lin, “Chinese Perceptions in the Post-Cold War Era,” Asian Survey 32 (October 1992), 904Google Scholar.

³⁰ Barnett, A. Doak, Cadres, Bureaucracy, and Political Power in Communist China (New York: Columbia University Press, 1967)Google Scholar.

³¹ Lieberthal, Kenneth G. and Oksenberg, Michel, Policy Matting in China: Leaders, Structures, and Processes (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988)Google Scholar.

³² For books about the Chinese military, see Joffe, Ellis, The Chinese Army after Mao (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987)Google Scholar; Lewis, John W. and Xue, Litai, China Builds the Bomb (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1988)Google Scholar; Ostrov, Benjamin C., Conquering Resources: The Growth and Decline of the PLA's Science and Technology Commission for National Defense (Armonk, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe, 1991)Google Scholar; Ryan, Mark A., Chinese Attitudes towards Nuclear Weapons: China and the United States during the Korean War (Armonk, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe, 1989)Google Scholar; Dellios, Rosita, Modern Chinese Defense Strategy (London: Macmillan, 1989)Google Scholar; Lin, Chong-Ping, China's Nuclear Weapons Strategy (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1988)Google Scholar; Gilks, Anne and Segal, Gerald, China and the Arms Trade (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1985)Google Scholar; Godwin, Paul H. B., ed., The Chinese Defense Establishment: Continuity and Change (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1983)Google Scholar; Dreyer, June T., China's Military Power in the 1980s (Washington, D.C.: China Council of the Asia Society, 1982)Google Scholar; Jencks, Harlan W., From Muskets to Missiles: Politics and Professionalism in the Chinese Army, 1945–1981 (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1982)Google Scholar; Nelson, Harvey, The Chinese Military System (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1980)Google Scholar.

For some major articles, see Garver, John W., “China's Push through the South China Sea: The Interaction of Bureaucratic and National Interests,” China Quarterly, no. 132 (December 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hyer, Eric, “China's Arms Merchants: Profits in Command,” China Quarterly, no. 132 (December 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Yu, Bin, “Sino-Russian Military Relations: Implications for Asian-Pacific Security,” Asian Survey 3 (March 1993)Google Scholar; Lewis, John and Di, Hua, “China's Ballistic Missile Programs: Technologies, Strategies, Goals,” International Security 17 (Fall 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Latham, Richard J. and Allen, Kenneth W., “Defense Reform in China: The PLA Air Force,” Problems of Communism 40 (May—June 1991)Google Scholar; Lewis, John W., Di, Hua, and Litai, Xue, “Beijing's Defense Establishment: Solving the Arms-Export Enigma,” International Security 15 (Spring 1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Paul H. B. Godwin, “Soldiers and Statesmen in Conflict: Chinese Defense and Foreign Policies in the 1980s,” in Kim (fn. 1); Lewis, John W. and Xue, Litai, “Strategic Weapons and Chinese Power: The Formative Years,” China Quarterly, no. 112 (December 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Godwin, Paul H. B., “Changing Concepts of Doctrine, Strategy and Operations in the Chinese People's Liberation Army, 1979–1987,” China Quarterly, no. 112 (December 1987)Google Scholar.

³³ The current interest in how Chinese scholars view the world is also a reaction to the traditional and Marxist ideology approaches of the earlier generations of scholars. While all argue that images matter, the traditional approach argues that those images are based onChinese traditional and imperial thinking; the Marxist/ideology school holds that the relevant images come from ideology; the current scholarly focus on images is more complex and certainly incorporates those perceptions that come from day-to-day political reporting and analysis.

³⁴ Some of the major works are Shambaugh (fn. 1); idem, “China's America Watchers,” Problems of Communism 37 (May-August 1988)Google Scholar; idem, “Anti-Americanism in China,” Annals, AAPSS 497 (May 1988)Google Scholar; Rozman, Gilbert, The Chinese Debate about Soviet Socialism, 1978–1985 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, “China's Soviet Watchers in the 1980s: A New Era in Scholarship,” World Politics 37 (July 1985)Google Scholar; Whiting, China Eyes Japan; Hunt, Michael H. et al., “Mutual Images in U.S.-China Relations,” Wilson Paper, no. 32 (June 1988)Google Scholar; Garrett, Banning and Glaser, Bonnie, “Chinese Estimates of the U.S.-Soviet Balance of Power,” Wilson Paper, no. 33 (July 1988)Google Scholar; Kapur, Harish, ed., As China Sees the World: Perceptions of Chinese Scholars (London: Frances Pinter Publishers, 1987)Google Scholar; Yahuda, Michae, ed., New Directions in the Social Sciences and Humanities in China (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Vertzberger, Yaacov, Misperceptions in Foreign Policymafyng: The SinoIndian Conflict, 1959–1962 (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1984)Google Scholar.

³⁵ With few exceptions, such as the pioneering work by Haas, Ernst and Whiting, Allen S., Dynamics of International Relations (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956)Google Scholar.

³⁶ Boulding, Kenneth E., The Image (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Jervis, Robert, Perception and Misperception in International Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976)Google Scholar.

³⁷ See Kim (fn. 1), 1.

³⁸ Whiting noticed that Hu's Japan policy was not the only reason that he was removed. But the Japan factor did contribute to the outcome. See Whiting (fn. 34), 150–53, 184.

³⁹ See Shambaugh (fn. 28).

⁴⁰ See Shambaugh (fn. 1), 41.

⁴¹ Shambaugh (fn. 1), 41, 283.

⁴² See book review article by Pye, Lucian W., China Quarterly, no. 129 (March 1992), 229–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴³ This is the impression I gained when working in the cis. See also Wang and Lin (fn. 29), 904.

⁴⁴ For similar argument, see Zhao (fn. 25), 170–71.

⁴⁵ See Shambaugh (fn. 1), 42–84. Ideology should be denned as a more complex belief system. See George, Alexander L., “Ideology and International Relations: A Conceptual Analysis,” Jerusalem Journal of International Relations 9, no. 1 (1987)Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ See Harding, Harry, A Fragile Relationship: The United States and China since 1972 (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1991), 9–16Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ See Ross, Robert S., “China Learns to Compromise: Change in U.S.-China Relations, 1982–1984,” China Quarterly, no. 128 (December 1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁸ See Harding (fn. 46), 207–9, 330; Steven I. Levine, “Sino-American Relations: Renormalization and Beyond,” in Kim (fn. 1), 94–95.

⁴⁹ See Harding (fn. 46), 18–19, 359.

⁵⁰ Jervis (fn. 36).

⁵¹ For domestic determinants of U.S. foreign policy, see Hartz, Louis, The Liberal Tradition in America: An Interpretation of American Political Thought since the Revolution (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1955), esp. chaps. 1, 11Google Scholar.

⁵² Harding (fn. 46), 361.

⁵³ See Goldstein, Jonathan, Israel, Jerry, and Conroy, Hilary, eds., American Views China: American Images of China Then and Now (Bethlehem, Pa.: Lehigh University Press, 1991)Google Scholar. It is quite a surprise to see that the articles on the post-1949 period in this edited volume focus only on Americans' “worst” or “best” perceptions of China.

⁵⁴ This is my impression from working and dealing with many Foreign Ministry staff on various occasions. For understandable reasons, they must remain anonymous.

⁵⁵ For a recent, detailed assessment of the subject, see Harding, Harry, “Supporting International Studies in China” (Unpublished paper, Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., May 22, 1992)Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ The reason for this backwardness is multifaceted: political, ideological, institutional, and so on. At a deeper, cultural level, however, Chinese scholars tend to see the ultimate goal of scholarship not as creating knowledge for its own sake but rather as contributing to the wisdom and effectiveness of national policy-making. See Harding (fn. 55), 26.

⁵⁷ See Report of CSPSIS Teaching Project (1991–92), in Political Science and International Studies (The Chinese Scholars of Political Science and International Studies, April 1992), 6–12.

⁵⁸ Remark made by Song Xinning, deputy chair, Department of International Politics, Renmin University, at the Seventh Annual Conference of the Chinese Scholars of Political Science and International Studies, Oneonta, N.Y., August 1, 1992.

⁵⁹ Whiting and Shambaugh do touch on the issue but only in general terms. See Whiting (fn. 34), 188; Shambaugh (fn. 1, 1991), 284–85.

⁶⁰ According to interviews with several leading foreign policy specialists, who prefer to remain anonymous.

⁶¹ See Barnett, , The Maying of Foreign Policy in China (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1985), 71–73, 101Google Scholar.

⁶² cis is officially a ministerial-level institution.

⁶³ See Shambaugh (fn. 1, 1991), 12.

⁶⁴ Some of the other think tanks are the Center for Rural Development, the Center for Technological, Economic and Social Development, and the Center for Economic Laws.

⁶⁵ Shambaugh (fn. 1, 1991), 13, 287.

⁶⁶ The role of the cis in foreign policy making cannot be detailed here for political reasons. The author apologizes for the inconvenience.

⁶⁷ The current director of the cis is Li Luyie, China's former ambassador to the U.N. As a veteran diplomat, Li presumably has good working relations with the Foreign Ministry. But it is not clear that he is Huan Xiang's intellectual and political match.

⁶⁸ See Harding (fn. 46), 262.

⁶⁹ In the early 1980s the sus was supposed to be more regional-oriented, trying to meet the special needs of Shanghai within the context of China's overall opening to the outside world.

⁷⁰ For a typical “structural-functionalist” argument, see Almond, Gabriel A. and Powell, G. Bingham Jr., Comparative Politics Today: A World View, 5th ed. (New York: Harper Collins, 1992), 13Google Scholar.

⁷¹ David Easton pioneered the field in the 1950s with his “input-output” system theory. See Easton, , A System Analysis of Political Life (New York: John Wiley, 1965)Google Scholar.

⁷² See Kim (fn. 1), 6–11.

⁷³ Kim (fnn. 1,24).

⁷⁴ See Kim (fn. 1), 6–10.

⁷⁵ Shih (fn. 5, 1990), 190.

⁷⁶ For a detailed discussion, see Chilcote, Ronald H., Theories of Comparative Politics: The Search for a Paradigm (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1981), 60–61, 142, 153, 155Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ Shih (fn. 5, 1990), 33.

⁷⁸ Almond, Gabriel A. and Genco, Stephen J., “Clouds, Clocks, and the Study of Politics,” World Politics 29 (July 1977), 522CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁹ See Kim (fn. 1), 3.

⁸⁰ The theory of convergence applies mainly to the analysis of interactions between different political and economic systems. See Dittmer, Lowell, Sino-Soviet Normalization and Its International Implications, 1945–1990 (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1992), 15Google Scholar.

⁸¹ Ibid., 3.

⁸² See Dittmer (fn. 21).

⁸³ See Section II of this review.

⁸⁴ The concluding part of Dittmer's book, however, is overtaken by the rapid developments, especially in Russia.

⁸⁵ See Skocpol, Theda, “Bringing the State Back In,” in Items 36 (June 1982), 1–8Google Scholar.