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 partnership 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 divergence 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.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.