Explore the vast range of titles available.

Kari Roberts and Saira Bano (editors), together with their book contributors, tackle a timely and pressing area of concern in The Ascendancy of Regional Powers in Contemporary United States (US)-China Relations. The work delves into the shifting dynamics of international politics, particularly the growing influence of regional powers within the framework of the US-China rivalry. Through a comprehensive analysis and compendium of works from esteemed experts in their respective fields, the book contemplates and explores how middle and emerging powers, such as India, Japan, Australia, and other key regional states and players are increasingly contesting the contours of global geopolitics. The book, thereby, challenges and calls for a revisit of the classically accepted ‘great power’ framework of international relations.

PurposeWhy do managers redesign global supply chains in a particular manner when faced with compounding geopolitical disruptions? In answering this research question, this study identifies a constrained system of reasoning (decision-making logic) employed by managers when they redesign their supply chains in situations of heightened uncertainty.Design/methodology/approachThe authors conducted 40 elite interviews with senior supply chain executives in 28 companies across nine industries from November 2019 to June 2020, when the UK was preparing to leave the European Union, the US–China trade war was escalating, and Covid-19 was spreading rapidly around the globe.FindingsWhen redesigning global supply chains, the authors find that managerial decision-making logic is constrained by three distinct environmental ecosystem conditions: (1) the perceived intensity of institutional pressures; (2) the relative mobility of suppliers and supply chain assets; and (3) the perceived severity of the potential disruption risk. Intense government pressure and persistent geopolitical risk tend to impact firms in the same industry, resulting in similar approaches to decision-making regarding supply chain design. However, where suppliers are relatively immobile and supply chain assets are relatively fixed, a dominant logic is consistently present.Originality/valueBuilding on an institutional logics perspective, this study finds that managerial decision-making under heightened uncertainty is not solely guided by institutional pressures but also by perceptions of the severity of risk related to potential supply chain disruption and the immobility of supply chain assets. These findings support the theoretical development of a novel construct that the authors term ‘supply chain logics’. Finally, this study provides a decision-making framework for Senior Executives competing in an increasingly complex and unstable business environment.

Instead of the dire predictions of a post-pandemic world characterized by increased global risks, decoupling of economies, shake-up of global value chains, and the retreat of globalization, this article proposes that the changes induced by heightened nationalism and protectionism will be marginal rather than fundamental in nature. These marginally higher risks can easily be handled and ameliorated by multinational enterprises through alternate cross-border business strategies and emerging technologies. Moreover, the paper gives reasons why the future world economy will need even more globalization.

Growing techno-geopolitical uncertainty affects international business in many ways, calling for more scholarly attention to its causes and multinational enterprise (MNE) responses. The United States CHIPS and Science Act epitomizes the country’s recent embrace of techno-nationalism in its economic rivalry with China, which has major implications for IB scholarship and management practice. The Act exhibits two features that fly against America’s traditional liberal policy stance of championing an open and rules-based multilateral system. First, its reliance on subsidies, export control, and investment screening signifies departure from free trade and from market-based industrial policies. Second, its use of guardrail provisions pursues the weaponization of global value chains for geopolitical and geo-economic purposes. We view the Act as a showcase of a paradigm shift from market-oriented liberalism to intervention-oriented techno-nationalism, heralding a new era of zero-sum thinking and geopolitical prioritization. By examining the broader trend of techno-nationalism, we explore the distinct features of the Act and analyze the geo-strategies that MNEs need to adopt in response to the resulting techno-geopolitical uncertainty. Our analysis highlights the paradigm shift in policymaking, identifies the root causes of this shift, and examines the potential pitfalls it may create. To navigate this uncertain landscape, we suggest four strategic responses for MNEs: geo-strategies, reconfiguration, resilience, and corporate diplomacy.

2021 ASHE/CIHE Award for Significant Research on International Higher EducationU.S. Power in International Higher Education explores how internationalization in higher education is not just an educational endeavor, but also a geopolitical one. By centering and making explicit the role of power, the book demonstrates the United States's advantage in international education as well as the changing geopolitical realities that will shape the field in the future. The chapter authors are leading critical scholars of international higher education, with diverse scholarly ties and professional experiences within the country and abroad. Taken together, the chapters provide broad trends as well as in-depth accounts about how power is evident across a range of key international activities. This book is intended for higher education scholars and practitioners with the aim of raising greater awareness on the unequal power dynamics in internationalization activities and for the purposes of promoting more just practices in higher education globally. 

This article challenges conventional economic‐based understandings of technological leadership, which often conflate technological leadership with innovation capability or leading status in the technology sector. Instead, it develops a relational and dynamic framework for understanding technological leadership from an IR perspective. It introduces a novel typology differentiating leadership from leading, and followership from imitation and purchase. Technological leadership is defined as the relational and dynamic process through which a state establishes and sustains influence by setting and enforcing rules, standards, and frameworks that guide innovation and collaboration within a technological ecosystem. The formation of technological leadership is a complex and dynamic process, involving interaction between leaders, followers, and the technological environment, shaped by leadership behaviors, followers’ choices, and technological context. This article applies the proposed framework to examine the US–China rivalry for global leadership in artificial intelligence. Through a systematic analysis of AI‐related policy documents from both nations spanning the period from 2016 to 2025, the study elucidates how these two major powers have formulated their respective AI leadership strategies and influenced the evolution of global AI governance. The analysis reveals that US leadership in AI is characterized by a dual‐focused approach that integrates technological advancement with value‐oriented governance, manifesting through three key dimensions: ethical governance frameworks, international collaborative initiatives, and strategic competitive measures. China’s leadership behavior, adhering to the principle of mutual benefit, manifests primarily through infrastructure development and standard‐setting, adopting a development‐centric approach. However, the formation of technological leadership is not solely determined by US and Chinese strategies but is equally influenced by the strategic choices of follower states. Consequently, the ultimate trajectory of the US–China rivalry in AI leadership will predominantly depend on both nations’ capacity to attract and maintain follower support.

This article employs security dilemma theory to probe the geopolitical implications of state intervention in the digital realm. Its central argument is that with cross-border data flows being conducive to subversive actions, governments have grown wary of rival states leveraging control over data flows to advance strategic objectives. Therefore, when a government tightens its domestic regulation over data flows, its actions could trigger a spiral of suspicions and countermeasures with other states. Such a security dilemma fosters the technology rivalry between China and the United States. As Beijing became sensitive to unrestricted flows of information and data, it set out to exert tighter control over data flows within and across Chinese borders. But Beijing’s move aggravated US perceptions of subversive threats, prompting Washington to try to drive Chinese entities out of the US-centric technology ecosystem. Not surprisingly, Washington’s actions signaled hostile intent to China, which in turn decided to build alternative digital infrastructures. Given that state intervention in the digital realm could exacerbate great power rivalry, Web 3.0 will likely perpetuate security dilemma dynamics by shifting the battlefield from corporate platforms to protocol layers, from data ownership to infrastructure sovereignty.

About one in six Asian Americans have fallen victim to anti-Asian racism during the COVID-19 pandemic [J. Lee, K. Ramakrishnan, aapidata.com/blog/discriminationsurvey-2022/]. By examining anti-Asian racism in the United States primarily as a domestic issue, most prior studies have overlooked the connections between shifting US-China relations and Americans’ prejudices against the Chinese in China and, by extension, East Asian Americans. This study investigates the patterns and perceptual bases of nationality-based prejudices against Chinese amid the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Our nationally representative online survey experiment reveals that Americans assess a hypothetical Chinese person in China as inferior in multiple social and psychological characteristics to an otherwise identical Japanese person in Japan or East Asian American. Furthermore, subjects who perceive China as more threatening to America’s national interests assess Chinese more negatively, especially in terms of trustworthiness and morality, suggesting that perceived China threats propel Americans’ negative stereotypes about Chinese. A contextual analysis further indicates that counties with a higher share of Trump voters in 2016 tend to perceive all East Asian–origin groups similarly as a racial outgroup. By contrast, residents in predominantly Democrat-voting counties tend to perceive Chinese in China more negatively relative to Asian Americans, despite broadly viewing East Asians more favorably. Overall, this study underscores the often-overlooked relationships between the prevailing anti-Asian sentiments in the United States and the US-China geopolitical tensions and America’s domestic political polarization.

This article analyses AUKUS through the theoretical lens of neo‐offensive realism, with its distinctive emphasis on the articulation between system‐level and unit‐level variables for understanding alliance formation and dynamics. In so doing, it examines both system‐level, geostrategic developments that pre‐dispose the AUKUS partners to collectively balance against China, and the unit‐level national politics of those countries, which differentially shape engagement with and enthusiasm for AUKUS. Empirically, the article charts systemic changes in relative economic and military power between China and the AUKUS partners, drawing on data from the World Bank and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. This is followed by an examination of those contradictory unit‐level forces that tend towards the consolidation of AUKUS, while simultaneously generating political opposition. Here official documents from the defence agencies of all three participants are examined. Finally, the article considers the future of AUKUS.