China Policy Journal Volume 1, Number 2, Fall 2019 | Page 29

China Policy Journal
vantageous position than SIIS in terms
of its connections with the core of political
power and the direct sources of
foreign information. Particularly, it has
more frequent contacts with foreign
diplomats and policymakers than SIIS
has, a crucial advantage for a foreign
policy think tank. In general, CIIS may
possess more plentiful resources, information,
links and thus influence in China’s
“field of power” than SIIS during the
BRI policymaking. Nevertheless, SIIS
has its own unique resources and links,
particularly unique personal connections.
Mr. YANG Jiemian, the former
head of SIIS, is the younger brother of
Mr. YANG Jiechi, who is now member
of CCP’s central politburo and director
of the office of “Central Foreign Affairs
Commission,” the inner core of China’s
foreign policy decision making. This
personal link surely helps SIIS to maintain
an elevated position among China’s
foreign policy think tanks. Furthermore,
SIIS’s close personnel connections to the
government of Shanghai, 7 the financial
and trade center of mainland China,
may facilitate SIIS to obtain more financial
support and actual economic information
below the central level whenever
there is some momentum in “horizontal
fragmentation.”
A More Nuanced Picture of CIIS and
SIIS’s Connections with Four Subfields
of China’s “Field of Power”
Table 2 outlines a general picture of
CIIS and SIIS’s positions within the
political regime for BRI policymaking
and sketches their connections with
the political subfield of China’s “field of
power.” In order to more precisely explain
the mechanism of their influence
toward BRI policy through all the direct
and indirect channels, it is necessary to
draw a more nuanced picture of their
connections and interactions with all
the four subfields of the overall “field of
power.” Nevertheless, as CIIS and SIIS
organize a huge diversity of meetings
every month, a more specific classification
should be made on the types of
their meetings before a clear-cut analysis
is feasible. Table 3 does this work.
All the meetings of CIIS and SIIS are
divided into six types.
Table 3 gives a detailed comparison
over six major types of meetings
that CIIS and SIIS frequently hold.
From left to right, a roughly descending
sequence can be found in the degree
of formalness, the extensiveness
of representation, and the scale of these
six types. As for the directness and effectiveness
of these meetings’ policy
influence, it is difficult to generalize.
High-level forum is the most formal
and most extensively represented form
of meeting. Usually, its participants are
elites from all the four subfields of “field
of power.” However, it usually does not
concentrate on a specific and narrow
issue, so it may be less direct and effective
to transmit crucial and professional
information to top-level leadership. On
the other hand, when a political dignitary
with a very high status takes part in
a high-level forum as a keynote speak-
7 There is a “revolving door” mechanism between SIIS and Shanghai Municipal Government. Researchers
and executives of SIIS have opportunities to take on-the-job posts in foreign affairs-related
institutions of Shanghai Municipal Government for 1 or 2 years.
20