China Policy Journal Volume 1, Number 2, Fall 2019 | Page 32

Chinese Foreign Policy Think Tanks’ Policy Influence
CIIS-sponsored meetings joined by scholars of other Chinese
think tanks and universities as keynote speakers
Number 12 2 12 14 5
Participatory rate 100% 50% 80% 77.8% 45.5%
CIIS-sponsored meetings joined by media and press
professionals as discussants
Number 7 1 6 3 1 3
Participatory rate 58.3% 25% 40% 16.7% 9% 7.3%
CIISsponsored
meetings
joined by
foreigners
as keynote
speakers
From foreign embassies and consulates
stationed in China
From foreign policymaking institutions, who
visited China
From foreign think tanks and universities
Number 6 2 3 6 5 7
Participatory rate 50% 50% 20% 33.3% 45.5% 17.1%
Number 4 1 5 4 2 20
Participatory rate 33.3% 25% 33.3% 22.2% 18.2% 48.8%
Number 8 10 9 16
Participatory rate 66.7% 66.7% 50% 39%
Total
Total number of each type 12 4 15 18 11 41
% of this type to the total 86 CIIS meetings on BRI issues 14% 4.7% 17.4% 20.9% 12.8% 47.7%
a
Every meeting may have many participants from each category of those social and political groups identified on the left column of this table.
Besides, some meetings may indicate features of both the type of regular dialogue and some other type outlined in Table 3, so they may be categorized
into two types concurrently. This means that it is inevitable to make overlapped calculation on the numbers of meetings along different
lines of this table. Therefore, it makes no sense to vertically or horizontally total the numbers in this table. The numbers in bold in Table 4 and 5
indicate how closely CIIS and SIIS are connected to China’s central-level leaderships of foreign policy and foreign economic policy making, and
with China’s provincial policymakers handling foreign-related affairs, through their self-sponsored meetings.
23