Balancing against the China threat while trading with it: asymmetric power relations and Australia’s policy shifts in the Rudd government

Australia’s China policy has attracted significant scholarly attention because it combines hard balancing with the maintenance of extensive trade relations in response to China’s rise. Yet both the transformation of this policy and its underlying logic remain insufficiently understood. This article makes three contributions. First, it identifies the causal mechanism through which hedging ceased to provide an appropriate framework for interpreting Australia’s China policy, while also highlighting the limitations of balancing as a standalone explanation. Second, it advances a power-asymmetries perspective to explain why a middle power can maintain substantial trade relations with a perceived security threat while simultaneously pursuing hard balancing measures. Third, by examining Australia’s China policy from the post-Cold War period to the present, the study demonstrates that a power-asymmetries perspective provides a more convincing explanation for Australia’s post-2009 China policy. In doing so, the article contributes to ongoing debates on hedging, balancing, and middle powers’ responses to the rise of a great power.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The Pacific Review
Published
2026-11-06
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2026.2747333
Primary Topic
International Relations and Foreign Policy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
article

Balancing against the China threat while trading with it: asymmetric power relations and Australia’s policy shifts in the Rudd government

Lisha CHEN
The Pacific Review
International Relations and Foreign Policy
article

Balancing against the China threat while trading with it: asymmetric power relations and Australia’s policy shifts in the Rudd government

Lisha CHEN
article en

Abstract

Australia’s China policy has attracted significant scholarly attention because it combines hard balancing with the maintenance of extensive trade relations in response to China’s rise. Yet both the transformation of this policy and its underlying logic remain insufficiently understood. This article makes three contributions. First, it identifies the causal mechanism through which hedging ceased to provide an appropriate framework for interpreting Australia’s China policy, while also highlighting the limitations of balancing as a standalone explanation. Second, it advances a power-asymmetries perspective to explain why a middle power can maintain substantial trade relations with a perceived security threat while simultaneously pursuing hard balancing measures. Third, by examining Australia’s China policy from the post-Cold War period to the present, the study demonstrates that a power-asymmetries perspective provides a more convincing explanation for Australia’s post-2009 China policy. In doing so, the article contributes to ongoing debates on hedging, balancing, and middle powers’ responses to the rise of a great power.

The Pacific Review
Lingnan University (HK)
Peace, justice, and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
International Relations and Foreign Policy
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon