REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY does not mean that Chinese scholars have had no access to the literature re- lated to the general theories of globalization and the role of the state.Their access has been via translated works,such as Susan Strange's article,The Erosion of the State'(1997),and her book,The Retreat of the State (1996), and Martin Albrow's book,The Global Age (1996).Some foreign studies of the Chinese case also have been translated,such as Zheng Yongnian's book,Globalization and State Transformation in China(2004).The translated works have served as a window for Chinese scholars to observe how the relationship between globalization and the state is studied in the West. And yet,judging by how most of the literature examines the desirability and efficacy of China's response to globalization,there remains an inward focus in the scholarship,possibly driven by the imperatives to be relevant to on-going policy. Krenuef Second,the published articles and monographs we reviewed by and large follow a standard format.They begin with a description of global- S ization,go on to discuss the challenges China faces in a particular area, and end with policy recommendations.This mode of writing,called the 'challenge-response'mode(Wang,2006:364),has been a popular format in China's social science writing for the past 20 years.To put it bluntly,the work in this mode usually lacks sophistication and fails to be self-conscious about methodology and theory.Description is the general method,that is, first a description of the challenges of globalization and then a description of the policy recommendations (responses).This format lacks a theory component to link the 'challenge'to a 'response'.The result of the lack of uojoeif theory-building is lack of methodology,since there is no need to'prove'or 'test'anything.2 It is true that most PRC-based journal publishers limit ar- ticles to a range of 6,000-8,000 characters(or less),which seriously restricts rey ueyS] the space for theory development.But even monographs,in which space is not a constraint,follow this 'challenge-response'mode.Thus,this paucity in theory-building efforts cannot simply be explained by space constraints imposed by publishers.To be sure,there are a few exceptions.These in- clude the general theoretical discussion of globalization state issues in Yu papeojuMo Keping's edited book(2004b)on globalization and state sovereignty,which provides a good overview of the issue area.Xiong Wei's article(2008)on globalization and state autonomy provides a comprehensive review of related theories.However,the more general lack of theoretical debates and considerations stands out.Not only is there barely any native theory- building,but there is also a lack of innovation in using the existing theories imported from the West. Third,the literature on globalization and the Chinese state conceptual- izes globalization in a way very similar to what is discussed in the Western literature.Globalization is understood both as intensified economic,po- litical,social and cultural connections among specific countries,and as an expanding force to cover the globe.From the Chinese CPE side,the 1218REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY does not mean that Chinese scholars have had no access to the literature re￾lated to the general theories of globalization and the role of the state. Their access has been via translated works, such as Susan Strange’s article, ‘The Erosion of the State’ (1997), and her book, The Retreat of the State (1996), and Martin Albrow’s book, The Global Age (1996). Some foreign studies of the Chinese case also have been translated, such as Zheng Yongnian’s book, Globalization and State Transformation in China (2004). The translated works have served as a window for Chinese scholars to observe how the relationship between globalization and the state is studied in the West. And yet, judging by how most of the literature examines the desirability and efficacy of China’s response to globalization, there remains an inward focus in the scholarship, possibly driven by the imperatives to be relevant to on-going policy. Second, the published articles and monographs we reviewed by and large follow a standard format. They begin with a description of global￾ization, go on to discuss the challenges China faces in a particular area, and end with policy recommendations. This mode of writing, called the ‘challenge-response’ mode (Wang, 2006: 364), has been a popular format in China’s social science writing for the past 20 years. To put it bluntly, the work in this mode usually lacks sophistication and fails to be self-conscious about methodology and theory. Description is the general method, that is, first a description of the challenges of globalization and then a description of the policy recommendations (responses). This format lacks a theory component to link the ‘challenge’ to a ‘response’. The result of the lack of theory-building is lack of methodology, since there is no need to ‘prove’ or ‘test’ anything.2 It is true that most PRC-based journal publishers limit ar￾ticles to a range of 6,000–8,000 characters (or less), which seriously restricts the space for theory development. But even monographs, in which space is not a constraint, follow this ‘challenge-response’ mode. Thus, this paucity in theory-building efforts cannot simply be explained by space constraints imposed by publishers. To be sure, there are a few exceptions. These in￾clude the general theoretical discussion of globalization state issues in Yu Keping’s edited book (2004b) on globalization and state sovereignty, which provides a good overview of the issue area. Xiong Wei’s article (2008) on globalization and state autonomy provides a comprehensive review of related theories. However, the more general lack of theoretical debates and considerations stands out. Not only is there barely any native theory￾building, but there is also a lack of innovation in using the existing theories imported from the West. Third, the literature on globalization and the Chinese state conceptual￾izes globalization in a way very similar to what is discussed in the Western literature. Globalization is understood both as intensified economic, po￾litical, social and cultural connections among specific countries, and as an expanding force to cover the globe. From the Chinese CPE side, the 1218 Downloaded by [Shanghai Jiaotong University] at 04:55 07 January 2015