IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/ach123/v9y2017i2p60.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Australia’s Engagement in the South China Sea under the Prospect Theory Approach and Implications for Australia-Vietnam Relations

Author

Listed:
  • Sang Huynh

Abstract

Prospect theory, first described in a 1979 paper by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, proves to be an effective tool to explain how people evaluate risk and make decisions in experimental settings. Due to remarkable insights for social sciences, prospect theory has gone beyond economics and provided insights for international relations. This paper aims at using prospect theory to illuminate the nature of Australia’s engagement in the South China Sea (SCS) and thereby clarify the essence of Australia-Vietnam cooperation. In terms of prospect theory approach, the author argues that there are three factors specifying Australia’s involvement in the SCS, including- (i) the rise of China in the SCS, (ii) Australia’s significant interests in the SCS, and (iii) Australia's proactive middle-power status. In light of certain common interests in the SCS, Australia and Vietnam have been sharing serious concerns about security and the risk of conflict in the SCS. From the year 2009 until now, both countries have actively enhanced diplomatic, political and military ties. Regarding Australia’s status and strategic interests in the SCS, the author asserts that Australia should make the SCS more secure by promoting contributions to accommodate its status in the Asia-Pacific region. The findings of this paper would provide helpful guidance for policymakers and leaders from Australia and Vietnam for a better understanding of the increasingly complicated security environment and how to (re-) create a more stable environment in this region.

Suggested Citation

  • Sang Huynh, 2017. "Australia’s Engagement in the South China Sea under the Prospect Theory Approach and Implications for Australia-Vietnam Relations," Asian Culture and History, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 9(2), pages 1-60, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibn:ach123:v:9:y:2017:i:2:p:60
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ach/article/download/68754/37897
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ach/article/view/68754
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Berejekian, Jeffrey, 1997. "The Gains Debate: Framing State Choice," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 91(4), pages 789-805, December.
    2. Nicholas C. Barberis, 2013. "Thirty Years of Prospect Theory in Economics: A Review and Assessment," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 173-196, Winter.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Jean Roisse Rodrigues Ferreira, 2022. "Decision-Making under Risk: Conditions Affecting the Risk Preferences of Politicians in Digitalization," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-12, March.
    2. Mark T. Kanazawa, 2019. "Transaction Costs in Water Transfers: The issue of local control," Working Papers 2019-01, Carleton College, Department of Economics.
    3. José F. Tudón M., 2019. "Perception, utility, and evolution," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 7(2), pages 191-208, December.
    4. Dertwinkel-Kalt, Markus & Köster, Mats, 2017. "Local thinking and skewness preferences," DICE Discussion Papers 248, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    5. Stephen Jarvis & Olivier Deschenes & Akshaya Jha, 2022. "The Private and External Costs of Germany’s Nuclear Phase-Out," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 20(3), pages 1311-1346.
    6. Shoshan, Vered & Hazan, Tamir & Plonsky, Ori, 2023. "BEAST-Net: Learning novel behavioral insights using a neural network adaptation of a behavioral model," OSF Preprints kaeny, Center for Open Science.
    7. Carolin Bock & Maximilian Schmidt, 2015. "Should I stay, or should I go? – How fund dynamics influence venture capital exit decisions," Review of Financial Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 68-82, November.
    8. Jascha-Alexander Koch & Michael Siering, 2019. "The recipe of successful crowdfunding campaigns," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 29(4), pages 661-679, December.
    9. Hong, Yan-Zhen & Su, Yi-Ju & Chang, Hung-Hao, 2023. "Analyzing the relationship between income and life satisfaction of Forest farm households - a behavioral economics approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    10. Karagözoğlu, Emin & Keskin, Kerim, 2024. "Consideration sets and reference points in a dynamic bargaining game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 381-403.
    11. Felici, Marco & Kenny, Geoff & Friz, Roberta, 2023. "Consumer savings behaviour at low and negative interest rates," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    12. Klein, Martin & Deissenroth, Marc, 2017. "When do households invest in solar photovoltaics? An application of prospect theory," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 270-278.
    13. Dominika Czyz & Karolina Safarzynska, 2023. "Catastrophic Damages and the Optimal Carbon Tax Under Loss Aversion," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 85(2), pages 303-340, June.
    14. Alex Imas & Sally Sadoff & Anya Samek, 2017. "Do People Anticipate Loss Aversion?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(5), pages 1271-1284, May.
    15. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    16. Carpentier, A. & Reboud, X., 2018. "Why farmers consider pesticides the ultimate in crop protection: economic and behavioral insights," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277528, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Bryce McLaughlin & Jann Spiess, 2022. "Algorithmic Assistance with Recommendation-Dependent Preferences," Papers 2208.07626, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    18. Mariya Burdina & Scott Hiller, 2021. "When Falling Just Short is a Good Thing: The Effect of Past Performance on Improvement," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 22(7), pages 777-798, October.
    19. Häckel, Björn & Pfosser, Stefan & Tränkler, Timm, 2017. "Explaining the energy efficiency gap - Expected Utility Theory versus Cumulative Prospect Theory," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 414-426.
    20. Carlo Barone & Katherin Barg & Mathieu Ichou, 2021. "Relative risk aversion models: How plausible are their assumptions?," Rationality and Society, , vol. 33(2), pages 143-175, May.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ibn:ach123:v:9:y:2017:i:2:p:60. 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: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.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.