IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/asseca/v2y2015i1p27-51.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sheikh Hasina Government’s India Policy: A Three-level Game?

Author

Listed:
  • Bhumitra Chakma

Abstract

This article seeks to analyze the sources of the Sheikh Hasina government’s India-positive foreign policy approach from theoretical and empirical standpoints. Theoretically, it engages three broad schools of thought and their competing claims about state foreign policy behaviour. These claims then are examined in the context of Bangladesh’s foreign policy towards India. It is argued here that three levels—individual, unit/national and external environment—need to be engaged together to understand the sources of the Sheikh Hasina government’s India policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Bhumitra Chakma, 2015. "Sheikh Hasina Government’s India Policy: A Three-level Game?," Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, , vol. 2(1), pages 27-51, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:asseca:v:2:y:2015:i:1:p:27-51
    DOI: 10.1177/2347797014565291
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2347797014565291
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2347797014565291?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wendt, Alexander, 1992. "Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(2), pages 391-425, April.
    2. Putnam, Robert D., 1988. "Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(3), pages 427-460, July.
    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. Remi Maier-Rigaud, 2008. "International Organizations as Corporate Actors: Agency and Emergence in Theories of International Relations," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2008_07, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    2. Akan Malici, 2005. "Discord and Collaboration between Allies," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 49(1), pages 90-119, February.
    3. Han, Xia & Lukoianove, Tatiana & Zhao, Shasha & Liu, Xiaohui, 2024. "International relations in international business research: A review and research agenda," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    4. Robert Pahre & Paul A. Papayoanou, 1997. "Using Game Theory to Link Domestic and International Politics," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 41(1), pages 4-11, February.
    5. Diana Panke & Gurur Polat & Franziska Hohlstein, 2021. "Satisfied or not? Exploring the interplay of individual, country and international organization characteristics for negotiation success," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 403-429, April.
    6. Lena Partzsch, 2017. "Powerful Individuals in a Globalized World," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 8(1), pages 5-13, February.
    7. Steininger, Lea & Hesse, Casimir, 2024. "Buying into new ideas: The ECB’s evolving justification of unlimited liquidity," Department of Economics Working Paper Series 357, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    8. Jacob Wood & Gohar Feroz Khan, 2015. "International trade negotiation analysis: network and semantic knowledge infrastructure," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(1), pages 537-556, October.
    9. Ethan B Kapstein, 2006. "Architects of stability? International cooperation among financial supervisors," BIS Working Papers 199, Bank for International Settlements.
    10. Balint, T. & Lamperti, F. & Mandel, A. & Napoletano, M. & Roventini, A. & Sapio, A., 2017. "Complexity and the Economics of Climate Change: A Survey and a Look Forward," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 252-265.
    11. Kari Irwin Otteburn, 2023. "All in favour? Indian business interests and the India-EU FTA," Asia Europe Journal, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 311-329, September.
    12. Harald Schoen, 2008. "Identity, Instrumental Self-Interest and Institutional Evaluations," European Union Politics, , vol. 9(1), pages 5-29, March.
    13. Simon Hug & Tobias Schulz, 2007. "Referendums in the EU’s constitution building process," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 177-218, June.
    14. Marcelo de Paiva Abreu, 2005. "The FTAA and the political economy of protection in Brazil and the US," Textos para discussão 494, Department of Economics PUC-Rio (Brazil).
    15. Sandberg, Kristin Ingstad & Andresen, Steinar & Bjune, Gunnar, 2010. "A new approach to global health institutions? A case study of new vaccine introduction and the formation of the GAVI Alliance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(7), pages 1349-1356, October.
    16. Paul Poast, 2013. "Issue linkage and international cooperation: An empirical investigation," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 30(3), pages 286-303, July.
    17. Heike Schroeder, 2010. "Agency in international climate negotiations: the case of indigenous peoples and avoided deforestation," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 317-332, December.
    18. Anna YAMCHUK, 2014. "The EU-UN cooperation for maintaining international peace and security," Eastern Journal of European Studies, Centre for European Studies, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, vol. 5, pages 113-129, June.
    19. Koichi Hamada & Asahi Noguchi, 2005. "The Role of Preconceived Ideas in Macroeconomic Policy: Japan's Experiences in the Two Deflationary Periods," Working Papers 908, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
    20. Schmidt, Susanne K. & Werle, Raymund, 1993. "Technical controversy in international standardization," MPIfG Discussion Paper 93/5, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.

    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:sae:asseca:v:2:y:2015:i:1:p:27-51. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.