IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gig/soaktu/v31y2012i3p105-132.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

China’s Potential for Economic Coercion in the South China Sea Disputes: A Comparative Study of the Philippines and Vietnam

Author

Listed:
  • Madhu Sudan Ravindran

Abstract

With tensions rising in the South China Sea, China’s use of its economic leverage over Southeast Asian countries has recently come into focus. With increasing economic and trade ties between China and Southeast Asia, the question being asked is whether China can successfully impose economic sanctions to gain policy concessions in the South China Sea disputes. This paper examines China’s relations with the Philippines and Vietnam and analyses the possibility of a successful economic sanction by China against these two countries in future disputes. The article concludes that Vietnam may be more vulnerable economically to Chinese sanctions than the Philippines. However, political factors would offset that vulnerability in the case of Vietnam and amplify it in the case of the Philippines, making the Philippines more likely to concede to modest political demands.

Suggested Citation

  • Madhu Sudan Ravindran, 2012. "China’s Potential for Economic Coercion in the South China Sea Disputes: A Comparative Study of the Philippines and Vietnam," Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, Institute of Asian Studies, GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies, Hamburg, vol. 31(3), pages 105-132.
    • Handle: RePEc:gig:soaktu:v:31:y:2012:i:3:p:105-132
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://journals.sub.uni-hamburg.de/giga/jsaa/article/view/572/570
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Drezner,Daniel W., 1999. "The Sanctions Paradox," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521644150, September.
    2. Drezner,Daniel W., 1999. "The Sanctions Paradox," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521643320, September.
    3. Lam, San Ling, 1990. "Economic sanctions and the success of foreign policy goals : A critical evaluation," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 239-248, September.
    4. Drezner, Daniel W., 2003. "The Hidden Hand of Economic Coercion," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 57(3), pages 643-659, July.
    5. Gary Clyde Hufbauer & Jeffrey J. Schott & Kimberly Ann Elliott, 2009. "Economic Sanctions Reconsidered, 3rd Edition softcover with CD," Peterson Institute Press: All Books, Peterson Institute for International Economics, number 4310, January.
    6. Lino Briguglio & Gordon Cordina & Nadia Farrugia & Stephanie Vella, 2009. "Economic Vulnerability and Resilience: Concepts and Measurements," Oxford Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(3), pages 229-247.
    7. Solomon Major, 2012. "Timing Is Everything: Economic Sanctions, Regime Type, and Domestic Instability," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(1), pages 79-110, January.
    8. Susan Hannah Allen, 2005. "The Determinants of Economic Sanctions Success and Failure," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(2), pages 117-138, March.
    9. Gary Clyde Hufbauer & Jeffrey J. Schott & Kimberly Ann Elliott, 2009. "Economic Sanctions Reconsidered, 3rd Edition (paper)," Peterson Institute Press: All Books, Peterson Institute for International Economics, number 4129, April.
    10. Shane Bonetti, 1998. "Distinguishing characteristics of degrees of success and failure in economic sanctions episodes," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(6), pages 805-813.
    11. Emilie M. Hafner-Burton & Alexander H. Montgomery, 2012. "War, Trade, and Distrust: Why Trade Agreements Don’t Always Keep the Peace," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(3), pages 257-278, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Teng Ma & Yuli Liu & Yuejing Ge, 2017. "A Comparative Study of Trade Relations and the Spatial-Temporal Evolution of Geo-Economy between China and Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-15, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. William Seitz & Alberto Zazzaro, 2020. "Sanctions and public opinion: The case of the Russia-Ukraine gas disputes," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 817-843, October.
    2. Valentin L. Krustev & T. Clifton Morgan, 2011. "Ending Economic Coercion: Domestic Politics and International Bargaining," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 28(4), pages 351-376, September.
    3. Haggard, Stephan & Noland, Marcus, 2016. "Hard Target: Sanctions, Inducements, and the Case of North Korea," MPRA Paper 105812, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Matthieu Crozet & Julian Hinz, 2020. "Friendly fire: the trade impact of the Russia sanctions and counter-sanctions," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 35(101), pages 97-146.
    5. Felbermayr, Gabriel & Kirilakha, Aleksandra & Syropoulos, Constantinos & Yalcin, Erdal & Yotov, Yoto V., 2020. "The global sanctions data base," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    6. Gabriel Felbermayr & Erdal Yalcin & Philipp Grübener, 2014. "Ökonomische Aspekte des Russlandkonfliktes: Ursachen, Kosten, Optionen," ifo Schnelldienst, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 67(14), pages 35-43, July.
    7. David Lektzian & Glen Biglaiser, 2014. "The effect of foreign direct investment on the use and success of US sanctions," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 31(1), pages 70-93, February.
    8. Joakim Gullstrand, 2020. "What goes around comes around: The effects of sanctions on Swedish firms in the wake of the Ukraine crisis," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(9), pages 2315-2342, September.
    9. Estrada, Mario Arturo Ruiz & Koutronas, Evangelos, 2022. "The impact of the Russian Aggression against Ukraine on the Russia-EU Trade," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 599-616.
    10. Demena, B.A. & Benalcazar Jativa, G. & Reta, A.S. & Kimararungu, P.B. & van Bergeijk, P.A.G., 2021. "Does research on economic sanctions suffer from publication bias?," ISS Working Papers - General Series 674, International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam (ISS), The Hague.
    11. Timothy M Peterson, 2020. "Reconsidering economic leverage and vulnerability: Trade ties, sanction threats, and the success of economic coercion," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 37(4), pages 409-429, July.
    12. Matthieu Crozet & Julian Hinz, 2016. "Collateral Damage: The impact of the Russia sanctions on sanctioning countries’ exports," Working Papers 2016-16, CEPII research center.
    13. Dreger, Christian & Kholodilin, Konstantin A. & Ulbricht, Dirk & Fidrmuc, Jarko, 2016. "Between the Hammer and the Anvil: The Impact of Economic Sanctions and Oil Prices on Russia’s Ruble," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 44(2), pages 295-308.
    14. Langlois Catherine C & Langlois Jean-Pierre P., 2010. "Costly Interference: A Game Theoretic Analysis of Sanctions," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 16(1), pages 1-34, June.
    15. Hinz, Julian, 2017. "The cost of sanctions: Estimating lost trade with gravity," Kiel Working Papers 2093, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    16. Daniel Verdier, 2009. "Sanctions as revelation regimes," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 13(3), pages 251-278, September.
    17. Jin Mun Jeong & Dursun Peksen, 2019. "Domestic Institutional Constraints, Veto Players, and Sanction Effectiveness," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 63(1), pages 194-217, January.
    18. Mirkina, Irina, 2018. "FDI and sanctions: An empirical analysis of short- and long-run effects," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 198-225.
    19. Denise Guthrie & Erick Duchesne, 2003. "(Mis)Selection Effects and Sovereignty Costs: An Alternative Measure of the Costs of Sanctions," University of Western Ontario, Economic Policy Research Institute Working Papers 20032, University of Western Ontario, Economic Policy Research Institute.
    20. Brzoska Michael, 2008. "Measuring the Effectiveness of Arms Embargoes," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 14(2), pages 1-34, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gig:soaktu:v:31:y:2012:i:3:p:105-132. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Marco Bünte or Howard Loewen (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dueiide.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.