Search

Abstract: This paper is a comparative analysis of the telecommunications policy-making process in China and India. Adopting an institutionalist perspective and multi-streams framework, the paper analyzes the formal structures, rule-making procedures and interest groups involved in telecommunications policy-making in the two countries, in terms of their evolution over the last two decades. Though the two systems began this period with a somewhat similar ministerial-bureaucratic decision-making model, and faced similar problems of assimilating new interest groups and responding to international pressures, the paper finds that the decision systems in the two countries evolved in significantly different directions. China''s telecommunications decision-making is significantly affected by the macro level political rearrangement and is more likely to be non-incremental. On the other hand, confronted by an increasingly litigious environment and a more fractious interest group culture, India represents a somewhat classical textbook case of incremental policy making. Nevertheless, numerous challenges remain in both countries, including institutional capacity and excessive regulatory deference to political authority. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

This paper proposes to outline various theoretical approaches used to conceptualize peacekeeping operations (PKO) in International Relations Theory, and compare these general approaches with Indian and Chinese participation and practices. The analysis follows two main trajectories: 1) How is peacekeeping understood in Chinese and Indian conceptions of international relations? 2) How are peacekeeping operations operationalized and carried out? The article carries out a literature analysis additionally informed by a hundred interviews carried out by the authors with policymakers, academics and military in China and India in 2012. There are several core findings of the comparative analysis: While China and India tend to differ at the level of their contributions, there is a commonality of the broad theoretical underpinnings of their participation. Westphalian principles of sovereignty and non-interference remain at the core of engagement for both these actors. At the same time, as demonstrated by Indian support for the UNAMA missions and Chinese voting behavior on Libyan and Syrian missions at the UNSC, both countries have become more pragmatic in their foreign policy approach to peacekeeping as future "responsible powers." Chinese and Indian involvement in different types of missions which go beyond traditional peacekeeping thus point to a change in the international outlook and evolving foreign policy of both these countries, possibly in tandem with their rising global status and the need to utilize peacekeeping as a means of greater participation in the global governance system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]