The relationship between china and Siberia/Russian Far East: Economic cooperation and security conflicts
This paper analyzes the current relationship between China and Siberia/Russian Far East from the economic and political‐security perspectives. The relationship between China and Siberia/Russian Far East is that of cooperation and conflict. China gains natural resources and energy from Siberia/Russian Far East, while Siberia/Russian Far East secures consumer goods, food and labor to fill its shortage from China. The two regions are in an economically complementary relationship. However, they show differences in their interests in issues such as the Tuman River Development Project. If their economic cooperation could be called the “bright” side of their relationship, there exists the “dark” side of their relationship, which is the border dispute. The paper argues that as a way to reduce conflict and increase cooperation in Northeast Asia, a multilateral security/economic organization, tentatively called the “Organization for Security and Cooperation in Northeast Asia,” should soon be established.
Agency and fiscal dependence in central‐provincial relations in China
The incremental decentralization of economic and fiscal authority within the Chinese state has led to a debate over the extent to which the central government retains authoritative control over the provinces. Using detailed budgetary data, this paper argues that even though fiscal reforms may have given provincial governments independent sources of income, they remain dependent upon the center for budgetary subsidies and that without central subsidies provincial government would face serious budgetary shortfalls. This is true not only for provinces that receive more in central subsidies than they transfer to the center, but also for provinces that were net exporters of funds to the center prior to the 1994 fiscal reforms. Fiscal dependence is important because it gives the center a source of leverage that supplements the political leverage it gains from the nomenklatura system, allowing it to not only punish insubordinate provincial leaders as individuals, but to also punish recalcitrant provincial govern...
Strategy and Manipulation in Medieval Elections
There are many goals in developing electoral protocols, including a desire for a system which is transparent, in that it is clear what the rule or procedure to follow is; nonmanipulable, in that it is not in a person’s best interest to misrepresent their preferences; honest, in the sense that it elects the ‘right’ candidate; and not open to strategizing, i.e., bribery or collusion. However, these desiderata are in tension with each other: Often, transparent electoral procedures are the least strategy resistant, and many honest procedures encourage manipulation. Thus a balance between these different goals must be sought. In modern times, since the seminal result on vote manipulation, the Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem [5, 6], much attention has been devoted to developing voting rules where manipulation is never in the best interest of the voters [4] or which are computationally too complex for the average bounded agent to be able to manipulate [1]. This focus on computational aspects of electoral methods is one of the hallmarks of modern studies on voting. But pursuit of these goals is not restricted to modern times: Those participating in elections in the Middle Ages also sought transparency, non-manipulability, honesty, and strategyproofness in so far as these properties can be consistently expressed in a single procedure. However, given the lack of computational sophistication in the Middle Ages, alternate approaches were needed in order to promote honesty, discourage strategizing, etc. These approaches can be classified as either external (constraints introduced outside of the electoral procedure, such as incentives for coming to consensus quickly) or internal (constraints introduced within the electoral procedure, such as voting rules which cannot be manipulated without adverse effects, or which are too difficult for the average bounded agent to manipulate). Surveying examples of both approaches in the context of medieval ecclesiastical and secular elections provides an interesting comparison to modern electoral procedures. Elections in the Middle Ages were used for the same reasons that they are today: To select suitable candidate(s) for a particular office, duty, or obligation. However, it is important to note that the term electio was used in the Middle Ages in a broader sense than our modern ‘election’. Its primary sense was ‘selection’ or ‘choice’, and only secondarily ‘election’ in the modern sense. Thus, many records which purportedly discuss elections are not discussing elections of the type which interests us. We can identify four categories of medieval electoral processes: (1) Election by an external authority having no direct interest in the election; (2) Indirect election, where electors name other electors who then select or elect the officials; (3) Election by lot; and (4) Election by ballot. Elections of the first and third types are generally computationally uninteresting; the first type corresponds to dictatorial voting rules, and the third type collapses to probability theory. In general, interesting voting methods are found only in the fourth type, election by ballot, though they can also occur in indirect election.