IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/globco/qt3b86x9v6.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

In-Group Punishment in International Relations: U.S. Reactions to the Founding of China’s AIIB

Author

Listed:
  • Qian, Jing
  • Vreeland, James R
  • Zhao, Jianzhi J

Abstract

We examine, in the context of international relations, the hypothesis from social psychology that punishment for defiance is more likely for in-group than out-group members. The United States publicly opposed the founding of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and pressured countries not to join the Chinese-led institution. Nevertheless, 57 countries became founding members of this new development bank, which is viewed as a potential competitor of the U.S.-led World Bank. To test whether the United States punished in-group rather than out-group countries for their defiance, we consider a unique dataset on the voting behavior of the World Bank’s U.S. executive director on new project proposals. We find that the United States is more likely to oppose or abstain from supporting new projects only for AIIB founding members that are closer to the United States, with no punishment for the more distant founders. Considering that almost all proposals are approved regardless of U.S. support, the punishment appears merely gestural, making it even more surprising that the United States imposes it so judiciously. We suspect the action serves as a signal of discontent specifically direct toward in-group countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Qian, Jing & Vreeland, James R & Zhao, Jianzhi J, 2024. "In-Group Punishment in International Relations: U.S. Reactions to the Founding of China’s AIIB," Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, Working Paper Series qt3b86x9v6, Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, University of California.
    • Handle: RePEc:cdl:globco:qt3b86x9v6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/3b86x9v6.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Strand, Jonathan R. & Zappile, Tina M., 2015. "Always Vote for Principle, Though You May Vote Alone: Explaining United States Political Support for Multilateral Development Loans," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 224-239.
    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. Marco FRIGERIO & Daniela VANDONE, 2018. "Virtuous or Vicious? Development Banks in Europe," Departmental Working Papers 2018-07, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    2. Jonathan R. Strand & Kenneth J. Retzl, 2016. "Did Recent Voice Reforms Improve Good Governance within the World Bank?," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 47(3), pages 415-445, May.
    3. Erasmus Kersting & Christopher Kilby, 2021. "Do domestic politics shape U.S. influence in the World Bank?," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 29-58, January.
    4. Yooneui Kim & Youngwan Kim, 2021. "The autonomy of international organizations? The analysis of major powers’ influence over the World Bank’s aid policies," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 24(3), pages 224-240, September.

    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:cdl:globco:qt3b86x9v6. 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: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://escholarship.org/uc/igcc/ .

    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.