• Research
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie India logoCarnegie lettermark logo
AI
{
  "authors": [
    "Evan A. Feigenbaum"
  ],
  "type": "other",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "asia",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "AP",
  "programs": [
    "Asia"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "East Asia",
    "China"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Economy",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Other

China’s Power: Up for Debate

China has not necessarily been successful at leveraging its economic might to promote its interests.

Link Copied
By Evan A. Feigenbaum
Published on Nov 29, 2016

Source: Center for Strategic and International Studies

At the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ “China’s Power: Up for Debate” conference, Carnegie’s Evan Feigenbaum debated with SAIS’s David M. Lampton the question of whether China can successfully leverage its economic weight in support of its broader strategic interests. Feigenbaum was asked by the organizers to advocate for the “no” position. He acknowledged the undeniable increase in China’s economic weight over the past decade, adding that it is simply intuitive that more trade, more investment, and a bigger economy give any country greater leverage than less trade, less investment, and a smaller economy. But, he argued, that is not the end of the story of Chinese economic power overseas.

Feigenbaum noted several constraints on Beijing: First, he noted the collision between economic integration in Asia, which has enabled a larger Chinese role, and security fragmentation, with many countries reacting to Beijing with fear, suspicion, or counter-balancing actions. Specifically, Feigenbaum argued, there have been notable backlashes against China’s exercise of economic power, including a nationalist backlash (he cited land and labor protests in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan as examples) a security backlash (for instance, the prospective tightening of investment rules in Australia and the United States), and a backlash related to economic competition (he noted some examples from India). These, he concluded, place constraints on China’s ability to straightforwardly translate economic weight into political leverage.

Second, Feigenbaum pushed back against the notion that pan-Asian initiatives automatically demonstrate that China is “writing the rules” in Asia. Feigenbaum argued that other regional states, such as Japan, India, and Southeast Asian countries have long been involved in developing pan-Asian institutions, pacts, and bargains. China will not simply be dictating new rules to countries like Japan. Instead, he said, these will likely result from pan-Asian bargains.

Third, Feigenbaum addressed the concept of “connectivity” in Asia, a major focus of recent Chinese economic diplomacy. This, he said, did not start in 2013 with President Xi Jinping’s “One Belt, One Road” initiative, but has considerable history in Asia, involving choices and action by many countries, both on the demand side and as infrastructure, capital, and trade providers. In conclusion, Feigenbaum noted again that China’s economic weight is a fact but suggested that the strategic situation in Asia is vastly more complex than the current debate.

The debate was originally broadcast live by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

About the Author

Evan A. Feigenbaum

Vice President for Studies

Evan A. Feigenbaum is vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where he oversees work at its offices in Washington, New Delhi, and Singapore on a dynamic region encompassing both East Asia and South Asia. He served twice as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and advised two Secretaries of State and a former Treasury Secretary on Asia.

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    In Its Iran War Debate, Washington Has Lost the Plot in Asia

      Evan A. Feigenbaum

  • Commentary
    Beijing Doesn’t Think Like Washington—and the Iran Conflict Shows Why

      Evan A. Feigenbaum

Evan A. Feigenbaum
Vice President for Studies
Evan A. Feigenbaum
EconomyForeign PolicyEast AsiaChina

Carnegie India does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie India

  • Paper
    Threading the Needle: India’s Path Forward with China

    After the chill in ties between 2020 and 2024 that brought India–China relations to their lowest point in several decades, the two countries have engaged each other afresh. This paper argues that there are predominantly four imperatives guiding India’s approach to China, and they exist in an order of priority.

      Saheb Singh Chadha

  • Article
    Managing Divergence: India’s BRICS Presidency in 2026

    This piece argues that India’s central challenge is not managing a single flashpoint but resolving the underlying tension between expansion and institutional coherency of the BRICS grouping.

      Vrinda Sahai

  • Article
    India–Africa Strategic Partnership: Challenges, Potential, and Possible Pathways

    A partnership between India, a country of subcontinental size, and Africa, a continent of fifty-four countries, may seem asymmetric until one notes that both are home to nearly the same number of people—1.4 billion. This essay spells out the existing challenges to the partnership, its optimal potential, and the possible pathways to realize it over the next quarter-century.

      Rajiv Bhatia

  • Commentary
    Emerging From the “Zombie State” of Trade Agreements: The India-EU FTA

    The India–EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is shaping up to be one of the most consequential trade negotiations, both economically and strategically. But, what’s in the agreement, what’s missing, and what will determine its success in the years ahead

      Vrinda Sahai, Nicolas Köhler-Suzuki

  • Article
    India’s Press Note 3 Gamble: Opening the FDI Door to China

    On March 10, 2026, India’s Union Cabinet approved amendments to Press Note 3, a regulation that mandated government approval on all foreign direct investment (FDI) from countries sharing a land border with India. This amendment raises questions primarily about whether its stated benefits will materialize and if the risks have been adequately weighed. This piece will address the same.

      Konark Bhandari

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
Carnegie India logo, white
Unit C-4, 5, 6, EdenparkShaheed Jeet Singh MargNew Delhi – 110016, IndiaPhone: 011-40078687
  • Research
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.