Sino-Russian negotiation styles: A cross-cultural analysis of situated patterns
| Author | Tariq H Malik |
| DOI | 10.1177/2057891119887812 |
| Published date | 01 March 2021 |
| Date | 01 March 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Research articles |
Research article
Sino-Russian negotiation
styles: A cross-cultural
analysis of situated patterns
Tariq H Malik
Liaoning University, China
Abstract
China and Russia have transitioned from centralised economies to mixed markets, they have
developed institutions and economic sectors and they joined hands in the strategic part-
nership in economic and political paths through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Most
writers compare or contrast their political and economic powers and preferences vis-a-vis
Western cultures and countries; none assess the cultural and contextual styles between the
two partners. We build on this question to assess whether and how the two neighbours differ
in negotiation style rather than how their institutions shape their behaviour. Based on the
behavioural negotiation framework proposed in the early 1990s, we gathered evidence
through two surveys: one in Russia and the other in China. We received 988 responses from
China and 708 responses from Russia, which we analysed in correlational statistics. The
statistical analysis shows negative correlations for four styles of negotiation and positive
correlations for six styles of negotiation. We interpreted the negative correlation as diver-
gence between the two cultures and positive correlation as convergence between the two
cultures on those styles. The magnitude of the correlation further supports the competing
positions of the two cultures on the semantic spectrums. We offer theoretical and policy
suggestions at the end of the article. In concluding remarks, we draw attention to multiple
gaps which can be filled in future research.
Keywords
Belt and Road Initiative, convergence versus divergence, institutional theory, magnitude of
divergence-convergence, negative and positive correlations, negotiation style, Sino-Russian
strategic alliance
Corresponding author:
Tariq H Malik, International Centre for Organisation & Innovation Studies, Liaoning University, 301 Huanggu District,
Shenyang, Liaoning 110136, China.
Emails: t.h.malik@lnu.edu.cn; Tariq.a.Malik@gmail.com
Asian Journal of Comparative Politics
2021, Vol. 6(1) 3–24
ªThe Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/2057891119887812
journals.sagepub.com/home/acp
Introduction
With the rise of China on the global scene in socio-economic development, it has begun to
integrate its socio-economic interests with those of its neighbours. With these dynamics, Sino-
Russian relations have entered a new phase (Stronski and Ng, 2018), with redefined scope and
scale at the advent of the BRI (Belt And Road Initiatives). The recent official report on the BRI
contends that the project ai ms to enhance this developme nt in the internationalisati on across
regions and countries (BRI, 2019). Academic writers offer their versions on the aims, scale and
scope of the BRI project in the context of South-East Asia, Central Asia, Europe and beyond
(Benabdallah, 2019; Dunford and Liu, 2019; Herrero and Xu, 2017; Liu et al., 2018; Tekdal, 2018;
Vinokurov and Tsukarev, 2018; Zhang and Wu, 2017). Among these accounts, the role of the Sino-
Russian context for the BRI’s development and implications is prominent. Among central Asian
nations, Russia stands out as the most influential partner in this geopolitical visibility, relevance
and influence.
In the Sino-Russian interaction in the post-Soviet era (Likhacheva et al., 2015), the new
strategic alliance has forged new political and economic interests between the two countries
(Stronski and Ng, 2018). Both sides appeared to have negotiated their collaboration effectively
for the socio-economic developments between and with other regional partners (Callahan, 2016;
Sobol, 2018). Despite geographical and political proximities, the Sino-Russian historical paths and
institutions differ, implying potential challenges and opportunities. Some writers have emphasised
that the BRI has stronger implications in the Sino-Russian (among other central Asian) States
because of the routes to Europe and Africa (Vinokurov and Tsukarev, 2018). The cultural influence
on structures and actions is stronger for land routes than for maritime routes. The national cultural
differences and similarities may be reflected in negotiation styles. Empirical literature supports
that perceptions and actions of a nation follow national cultural paths. For instance, cross-cultural
studies indicate that preferences, positions and potential outcomes reflect the normative structures
at the macro level (Hofstede, 2001). Likewise, the contextualised behavioural processes reflect on
the micro contexts and situated stimuli and the decision structure (Salacuse, 1998). Empirically,
however, the above-cited debates cannot be readily applied to assessing Sino-Russian negotiations
and their implications.
In this study, we address this gap by exploring the Sino-Russian negotiation styles to understand
their proximities and differences in the negotiation patterns in the situated contexts. By situated
context, we mean the behaviour perspective of negotiation styles (Salacuse, 1998) rather than the
macro-structures of national cultures (Hofstede, 2001). The negotiation style perspective takes the
behavioural approach to negotiation in the context of micro-processes in situation-specific frames
and actions. This situation-specific perspective on negotiation invokes the context of the negotia-
tion process in the field (Adair et al., 2004; Brett et al., 1998). Salacuse (1998) proposes 10
negotiation styles based on the behavioural perspective, and defines negotiation as the ‘socially
transmitted behaviour patterns, norms, beliefs and values of a given community’ (Salacuse, 1998:
222). For instance, explorative versus exploitative situations influence cross-cultural negotiation
styles and outcomes (Malik and Yazar, 2016). This micro perspective on the stimuli-based decision
in the negotiations process counters the macro structural perspective.
We use the micro perspective to assess Sino-Russian negotiation style differences. The current
research offers mixed perspectives. Some research shows that the Russian negotiation style more
resembles that of Asian than Western cultures (Graham, 1993). For instance, before the early
1990s, Russia and China followed similar economic principles and systems (Miller, 2003). In the
4Asian Journal of Comparative Politics 6(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial