Geo-Economics: A Brief, Narrative Introduction
Concerning Future Works on Geo-Economics that employ sound Geo-Strategy
Geoeconomic Landscape, Soft Glow, Muted Tones, Strategic Presence, Complex, Interconnected.
"Geoeconomics analyzes economic strategies--notably commercial--, decided upon by states in a political setting aiming to protect their own economies or certain well-identified sectors of it, to help their national enterprises acquire technology or to capture certain segments of the world market relative to production or commercialization of a product. The possession or control of such a share confers to the entity–-state or national enterprise–-an element of power and international influence and helps to reinforce its economic and social potential." [3] [web archive]
~Pascal Lorot, French Economist & Geopolitical Analyst, Institut Choiseul, September 28 (2007); Translated from French, italics are contributor's words
“Everyone, it appears, now agrees that the methods of commerce are displacing military methods—with disposable capital in lieu of firepower, civilian innovation in lieu of military-technical advancement, and market penetration in lieu of garrisons and bases.”
~Edward Nicolae Luttwak, American author & Geo-Strategist, From geopolitics to geo-economics: logic of conflict, grammar of commerce, (1990, p. 17); in response to Francis Yoshihiro Fukuyama’s seminal essay ‘The end of history?’ (1989)
Prolegomena
You will find here the tentative introductory essay to a forthcoming Book (Inshallah/God Willing!) on Geo-Economics, hopefully completed by the Year's end. Until then, Dear Readers, I give you a sample of what you can expect!
In the Age of Multipolarity & Great Power Conflict, the notion of Geo-Economics being a separate pursuit from Geo-Politics has gained greater prominence. While both are subsets of Geo-Strategy, they have remained relatively close-knit for years.
Several historical reasons exist for this, but these fall outside the overall purview of this Introduction. What can be said, however, is that this divergence has come, & is here to stay. Geo-Economics is now at the forefront of Strategic considerations:
The myriad nations of the world, & especially its Great Powers, must take the overall subject matter seriously lest they wish to be outmaneuvered on the Global Stage, which is already beginning to occur presently.
Enjoy, Dear Readers!
& Remember, The DOOM cometh!
Introduction
Strategic Diplomacy, International Hub, Neon Lights, Dark Hues, Covert, Calculated.
Geo-Economics is viewed by many as the use of economic means to pursue Geo-Strategic objectives. While considered by some as strictly belonging to the world of 'power politics,' said objectives often go beyond merely the world of politics:
Its Theatres comprise the world of Global Trade, Investment, Lawfare, etc. While the traditional battlefield may be supplementary in such contests, it is generally absent as the critical decision-maker regarding matters of core importance.
Nations have (in recent years) increasingly taken part in such contests, whereby Economic Intervention in the Domestic Markets is far more common than before:
Sanctions, Export controls, subsidies, tariffs, etc., are utilized today with far less restraint than in the past, & this has been coupled with ancillary measures such as data fortification, investment screening, etc.
The common thread is one of Great Power Competition & Conflict exacerbating concerns for a wide gamut of security & sovereignty risks that are holdovers from the past few decades of Globalization & Economic Interdependence.
Western Economies & 'The Global North' in general have sacrificed resilience & antifragility to obtain greater Economic gravitas. However, said era has come to a decisive end, courtesy of the 'Rules Based International System' rapidly imploding:
The 'norms & rules' undergirding the Global Economy are increasingly challenged by the Economic Security concerns mentioned earlier.
Therefore, a new era is upon us all, where Economic connectivity & interdependence are things of the past, & Economic localization will be the path trodden by most of the Great Powers in their respective Spheres of Influence.
Seven key areas should be focused on to better flesh out Geo-Economics as a discrete discipline, whereby future Geo-Strategic concerns can be soundly addressed.
The rest of this Prefatory Essay will focus on said areas to outline what Future works on Geo-Economics should orient themselves around regarding the discipline's foundations. Without further adieu, said areas for qualitative focus are as follows:
1. Techno-Economic Dynamics
Power Shift, Economic Evolution, Dynamic Lighting, Strategic Realignment, Complex, Transformative.
The confluence of Technology & Economics (henceforth Techno-Economics) is where three primary focus areas exist, Dynamics, Kinetics & Statics.
We will begin with the extreme former:
China's peaceful rise has significantly shifted the Techno-Economic landscape. Over the past 3+ decades, the overall Economic gravitas has shifted Eastward, away from the Global North economies & toward the rest of the world, mainly Asian Economies.
According to Data from Statista:
In 2000, the combined GDP(PPP) of the Core BRICS nations amounted to a mere ~18% of Global GDP(PPP), while the G7 nations possessed a share of ~43%.
By 2023, these numbers had radically shifted, with the G7 nations possessing a share of ~30%, & the Core BRICS nations managing to secure ~32% of Global GDP(PPP).
Notwithstanding the sheer Economic gravitas procured by the Core BRICS nations in said quarter century, analysts have yet to formulate cogent accounts of the Dynamics behind said Techno-Economic Ascension; many are still stuck using faulty metrics.
Courtesy of significant differences existing in the domestic prices of goods & services for the Core BRICS nations compared to their G7 counterparts, the shifts above indicate that Raw Volumes of Techno-Economic exchange heavily favour the former.
As we enter the remaining 3/4ths of the 21st century, the rapid Economic Growth of the Core BRICS will further narrow various Techno-Economic edges Developed Nations have enjoyed in the post-WWII order:
World Shipping Volumes, a key marker for Global Trade Flows, are swinging decisively to favour the Core BRICS. This indicates a future where Innovation, Material, & Expertise will squarely tend Eastward, as opposed to the West.
Regarding trends in Global Intellectual Property, said Dynamics are already in motion with speed, as the Core BRICS (China, in particular) 'run away' with Patent filings per annum. Such domination is beginning to show itself in other related areas:
Chinese goods & services, per Harvard University's Atlas of Economic Complexity, have leapfrogged ahead in recent years, achieving an ECI score of #18 in 2021, compared to #46 in 1995.
The United States has dipped from #9 to #14 in that same timeframe.
Moving up the Value Stream in said manner indicates strides in the Techno-Economic sphere, whereby the Core BRICS are expected to produce & export goods & services of greater Complexity, thus progressing on indicators about Science & Innovation.
China has made significant progress in Artificial Intelligence, surpassing &/or equalizing with the United States & G7 cohort. Likewise, in Quantum Computing, China has leaped ahead, & all signs indicate further consolidation of said advantage.
Overall, BRICS+ will begin 2024 with several vital edges. When visualized, the data looks something like this. Note in particular how ~25% of Global Exports & ~43% of Oil Production are now secured by the Bloc, a decisive advantage over the G7 cohort.
These developments mean that the Core-BRICS (& likewise, BRICS+) will be at the forefront of Techno-Economics for the foreseeable future, with the Dynamics in exports, imports, value streams, manufacturing prowess, etc., moving in their favour.
Many nations, including traditional allies of the US, now trade more with China than with the US, indicating that the Techno-Economic Dynamics noted earlier are already playing against the US & the G7 cohort. Moving forward, then, amelioration is critical:
The United States, the Core Anglosphere, the G7 cohort, etc., must focus on Techno-Economic Dynamics to gain better know-how & understanding regarding how their decline & fall can best be ameliorated in the face of said headwinds of change.
Until then, wider Geo-Strategic Objectives will remain elusive for said actors on the international stage, & will continue to slip away rapidly.
2. Value Streams: Defense & Elasticity
Supply Chain Resilience, Logistic Hub, Neon Lights, Dark Hues, Adaptive, Secure.
Value Streams for energy, food, water & key technologies have shifted radically in recent years.
Crude Oil & Natural Gas, generally prime movers for Geo-Strategic confrontations over the past few decades, are now joined at the helm by sundry essentials.
As more nations act to stave off said antagonistic trends, concerns regarding overall access are at an all-time high. Mainly, essential goods & services are now in jeopardy of becoming outright inaccessible in an increasingly partitioned world:
The Russian Special Military Operation has demonstrated decisively that Europe today has become Geo-Strategically captive to its dependence on fossil fuel imports, & will (into the foreseeable Future) remain Geo-politically inept due to said neediness.
Likewise, the security of food prices (particularly grains, pulses & related dietary essentials) plays a decisive role in fomenting strife, revolution & conflict in much of the Global South. West Asia saw this happen first-hand in the late 2000s to early 2010s.
Due to the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, fears about a repeat of the scenario above flared up with supply crunches on the World grain market. With grain prices in jeopardy, a deal was struck between both parties, which later collapsed:
The Russians afterward enacted 'free grain' initiatives in multiple African states; however, the Value Stream for World grain remains at risk.
The pandemic highlighted to policymakers worldwide that most Global North nations (especially the G7) lack sufficient domestic manufacturing prowess, courtesy of over-dependence on 'just in time' supply chains that are 'globalized' for cost-efficiencies.
These Value Streams are long, diversified & expansive, owing to market trendlines toward the 'Global Village' model post-1991. Owing to the increased partitioning of the World Economy, said pursuit is now entirely defunct.
The implications of this for the Global North are exceedingly grave. Given the uneven distribution of Rare Earth minerals, future innovation, development, etc., of electronic, telecom & battery technologies will be significantly strained in most Western countries.
Infrastructure bottlenecks are back with a vengeance, as most European nations are coming to grips with the fact that transitioning away from Russian energy will remain elusive for much of the near future.
Meanwhile, the Great Powers (i.e., China, Russia, & The USA) are already in a New Arms Race, primarily focusing on tiny electronics, semiconductors, etc.
Global bifurcation has accelerated courtesy of said competition, meaning European woes will magnify:
'Complexified' Value Streams are giving way to localization & sovereignty, meaning simpler & truncated Value Streams lacking exposure to 'unfriendly states.' In tandem, policymakers are pursuing strategies for onshoring Domestic Industrial prowess.
Defensive measures will boost the Elasticity of Value Streams, making them more resilient to disruption. However, it will likewise mean shortfalls for the Europeans when shopping for cheap consumables (from China) & cheap energy (from Russia).
The trade-off for greater Defensiveness & Elasticity will be an overall loss of accessibility, convenience & collaboration on mutually beneficial win-win exchanges. As the focus on restriction & security increases, the World Order will likewise shift:
This devolution of international relations will exacerbate Great Power Conflict & Competition. Said devolution, in turn, will give way to Kinetic conflict (of various scales & scopes) shortly, which may yet escalate outright to Major Global Conflicts.
Thus, Moving forward, the optimal amount of Defensiveness & Elasticity will remain an Area of Study rife with sundry charged viewpoints. The ideal trade-off ratio needs to be clarified, & further work is required to ascertain this matter clearly.
Geo-Strategic imperatives need to be carefully weighed & considered by policymakers, & 'trial and error' will persist until a more precise picture emerges of what 'optimized' Value Streams look like in this era.
3. Partition & Divergence Economics
Economic Fragmentation, Decoupling Trend, Dimming Lights, Strategic Divergence, Complex, Fragmented.
Great Power Conflict & Competition means Partitioning & Divergence in the Economic realm.
Decoupling & Mutual Antipathy is the current State of Play between the West and the non-West, as the severance of Key exchange relations gets normalized:
The World's Major economies (namely, the USA & China) have already begun to carve up their own Spheres of Influence, & have turned increasingly 'inward' in recent years, owing to a general loss of trust:
Be it Industrial espionage, Techno-Economic conflict, Trade wars, Intellectual Property matters, etc., the two have essentially been at loggerheads with one another, with all signs indicating even further partitioning & divergence in Future.
The pandemic merely exacerbated said trends, as the scapegoating of China for the ordeal, coupled with increased unilateral actions (a la tariffs, sanctions, etc.), further destroyed the already fraying relationship. However, reality is a stubborn thing:
Techno-Economic Dynamics are such that decoupling of any significant sort would stringently impact both sides. However, the Western side would be bereft of crucial physical/material building blocks necessary to keep themselves afloat:
Telecom, semiconductors & batteries cannot be replenished & replaced solely from Western production since overall consumer demand in the Global North exceeds said diminished manufacturing prowess in much of the Western world.
In general, most Chinese manufacturing cannot be replaced, period. Thus, even though an overall import dependence is at play here, with Westerners wishing to divest from China, said endeavour is currently unfeasible.
Full-scale Partitioning & Divergence would mean an overall collapse in Techno-Economic standards in the West. The Core-BRICS (led by the Chinese) would likewise be impacted, but far less so, due to better industrial & manufacturing prowess.
Add into this equation the Russian Special Military Operation, & things become far bleaker for the West. Sanctions, investor pressure & boycotts have de facto cut off Western economies from Russian energy, metals, minerals, etc.:
These 'containment' measures will only exacerbate Western decline. The simple truth of the matter is that Russia is a giant when it comes to the world of mining & minerals. As before, the world simply 'cannot do without' Russian exports in said categories.
Such Partitioning & Divergence thus means a 'Cold War' style bifurcation, except this time, the 'shorter straw' is in the hands of Westerners. As to whether this can be continued long-term, the signs are not positive on said front:
Rising food, energy & related prices have already led to mass protests across the EU.
Populist anger of this variety will likely 'regime change' most incumbent EU governments, be it via the ballot box or other means.' A New 'Springtime of the Peoples' is here:
Therefore, we may see a partial reversion from current EU policies that seek to Partition & Diverge away from Russian energy & Chinese consumables, as the Popular Will presently is aghast at falling living standards.
Ultimately, the fork in the road is relatively straightforward. Either Westerners need to be convinced that 'falling living standards are the price we pay for Democracy & our Values,' or leadership needs to work to preserve current living standards:
If the former, then Partition & Divergence Economics can be pursued to their logical endpoint: a hollowed-out, deracinated West, where the Managerial elite 'fortify' democratic & social norms to their liking in some quasi-technocratic manner.
But if the latter, then full-scale Decoupling is DOA.
The reason is that Western societies can only maintain (or improve) their current living standards with Global South labour, goods & services. Thus, questions need to be asked about the whole notion of Partition & Divergence:
Namely, is such a Geo-Economic pursuit even viable?
4. Defensive Economics
Economic Security, Resilient Foundations, Illuminated Pathways, Strategic Protection, Robust, Reliable.
With the death of 'The Global Village,' International Relations has moved to an era of Great Power Competition & Conflict. The pandemic provided the initial impetus in said direction as shortfalls in the domestic industry for most nations came to the fore:
The second impetus (& far more jolting) was the Russian Special Military Operation. The fundamental relationship between the West & Russia was forever altered by said event, which (as noted earlier) resulted in Economic Partition & Divergence.
As Western nations 'reshape' relations with the Core BRICS (Russia & China, in particular), a more Defensive Economics is being pursued by Western leadership, who feel that the era of mutually beneficial Economic Exchange is now over:
As such, Economic Interconnectivity (as prevalent in the era of Globalization) is but a weakness that can be exploited to garner advantages in the Techno-Economic sphere. Thus, sovereignty & security may be jeopardized in the long run.
Throughout the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, Russia's energy & minerals (on the one hand) & Ukraine's grain (on the other) have failed to find themselves in the market in several instances, leading to severe disruptions to Global Value Streams.
Given the indispensability of both Russian & Ukrainian goods, the conflict has served as a stark reminder to the West that Interconnectivity is no longer optimal, as Great Power Conflict & Competition are now here to stay:
Defensive measures, whereby more sway & control is exercised on trade inflows & outflows, are now in fashion. Be it minerals, energy, data, Technology &/or services, a more Managerial style is being exercised by Western governments.
The objectives are to filter & restrict foreign money, localize core data, defend vital architectures & divest from foreign industry in favour of domestic alternatives.
Ipso facto said policies & trendlines indicate more foreign entanglements, namely via financial sanctions for foreign policy ends. This has not gone unchallenged, with the non-West developing a myriad of ways to sidestep said measures:
Developing Digital Currencies and alternatives to the SWIFT messaging system are both de-dollarization efforts of key focus that policymakers in the core BRICS are pursuing.
As these nations acquire better Techno-Economic prowess, such policies hold more sway & persuasive strength, especially in an era where Techno-Economic relations are severed with the West, & their domestic investor's worries, thus requiring amelioration.
Shortly, as Global Conflicts become more Kinetic, overall relations among the Great Powers (especially in the Techno-Economic sphere) will be reshaped drastically, with the Core BRICS & G7 cohorts increasingly Divergent on most matters.
Therefore, Defensive Economics & its pursuit merely exacerbates conflict. With an emphasis on financial sanctions & foreign entanglements overall, what begins as a rational pursuit of Economic National Security quickly devolves into something else:
Namely, Unrestricted Warfare, whereby the realm of Great Power Competition & Conflict rapidly moves to nodes of action away from the contours & balance of symmetry. This form of Asymmetric Warfare is already being waged worldwide.
Should they require sufficient sacrifice & merit, Geo-Strategic Objectives can no doubt warrant such 'Dangerous Games.' However, in the era of Weapons that have rapidly shrinking margins & overall costs, some additional pause is required:
Namely, is such 'Defense & Fortification' worth it when considering the Geo-Economic fallout garnered by the Asymmetric Warfare noted above? Moving from the Economic realm to the realm of Kinetic Warfare is quite a costly step:
The world we live in cannot survive such a contest by the Great Powers; today's weaponry is simply too powerful. As to whether Geo-Strategists are willing to go that far, given the increasingly troubled times we live in, time will tell!
5. Techno-Economic Kinetics
Tech Containment, Innovation Hub, Neon Lights, Dark Hues, Controlled, Secure.
Once seldom pursued in Techno-Economics, Kinetics is now commonplace with the return of Great Power Conflict & Competition. Unlike the Cold War era 'containment policies,' many such pursuits are highly interventionistic:
Klaus Schwab, Mr. 'Davos Man' himself noted years ago that the 'Fourth Industrial Revolution has arrived,' meaning Quantum Computing, The 'Internet of Things,' etc., are here to stay.
Ipso Facto, future prowess, be it in Techno-Economics, the military, etc., will depend on the speedy & sound acquisition of said tools. To garner an overall edge, interventionism is touted as the Kinetics of Choice to pursue said objectives.
Such a pursuit translates to industrial spying, lawfare, etc., in tandem with the exploitation of open educational exchange. The various Great Powers worldwide already employ Offensive Kinetics of this sort, China being one of them.
Defensive measures have likewise been developed to tackle said interventionism. These involve fortifying against foreign direct investment, increased counterespionage pursuits, added export controls, & greater intellectual property protections.
The G7 & OECD have already begun to deploy preliminary measures in this direction.
At this time, Western Leadership feels that such Kinetics can be pursued with piecemeal trade & investment ventures in Eurasia & beyond. However, the window & maneuverability to continue doing so is rapidly shrinking:
The pending bifurcation of the Globe courtesy of the 'Kinetics of piecemeal containment' will not work in the favour of Western regimes. Therefore, Cold War-style pursuits should be reconsidered, given the 'weak hand' currently held by the West:
The Core BRICS are increasingly cooperating on Techno-Economic matters, & the broader containment measures being pursued presently are simply 'overloaded' via the sheer scale & scope of cooperation now flowering among said nations.
Given said trends, broader systemic threats to the 'Rules Based International System' are imminent. The West's claim to global governance is in tatters, with no indication that it can be salvaged shortly without drastic measures:
This means Western leadership in all areas, whether Techno-Economic or elsewhere, is in jeopardy, for Western 'lectures' fall on increasingly deaf ears:
Be it on telling non-Westerners who they can or can't do business with or who they can or can't ink deals with on Technology & related areas, the legitimacy to do so has disappeared. What remains is 'the hammer' of military force & its subversive offshoots.
The danger then is quite apparent. Continually pursuing this path will mean the Western world increasingly becoming an outright Pariah in the international community. For the Zionist entity of 'Israel,' this has already happened with speed.
Lessons need to be gleaned from such a debacle. If Western leadership seeks broader containment, they will find themselves increasingly drawn toward the hammer of military force & its insurgent offshoots.
Meanwhile, if they wish for piecemeal containment instead, the fact is that such an approach will be destined to fail from the onset due to a wide variety of reasons. 'Containment,' thus, should not be the Kinetics of choice given said practical realities.
What else is on offer? Analysts have considered what alternatives are feasible for US leadership to pursue instead of containment. Here, for instance, is EC Ravenel's 1987 analysis on the subject, which focused on war avoidance & self-reliance instead.
Such a framework can be generalized to speak about the broader Western strategy toward the Global South today, albeit this abstention from International Affairs is less doable today, given the West's foreign entanglements overseas.
If so, the Geo-Strategic options left to pursue on the table may be unpalatable for most people.
6. Compulsive Economics
Economic Manipulation, Coercive Tactics, Dimly Lit Pathways, Strategic Influence, Complex, Impactful.
Compulsive Economics is the essential Machiavellian pursuit of our time. On occasion, Great powers reference 'International Law' to lend legitimacy to their forays into said Coercive ways, albeit nowadays, more murky waters are treaded more readily:
Sanctions & related coercive measures are the norm today (not the exception), as increased bifurcation continues to take hold between the West & the non-West.
International Law, meanwhile, is often used as post facto justification for said compulsion. Motives vary, but in general, a variety of goals are pursued by the Great Powers today, & a wide gamut of options is utilized whenever possible.
Mainly, instruments such as regime change, cutting aid, diplomatic cajoling, etc., are used to soften & lay the groundwork for further escalation. Compulsive Economics, thus, is an 'appetizer' for the main course, often more kinetic in nature.
Conventional warfare, which utilizes blockades, airstrikes, etc., is an act of aggression that generally follows in the wake of the earlier coercive measures.
Such escalation is increasingly fraught with peril, making Compulsive Economics a more viable & attractive option for the Great Powers of our era, primarily when it can be pursued using proxy actors (state & non-state) on their behalf.
In this arena, the Western Powers have thus far utilized two main modes of attack:
First, trade measures, whereby embargoes on imports & export controls are used to gain leverage & Second, financial measures whereby certain capital flow varieties are restricted or forbidden. The idea behind both is straightforward:
Namely, as the initiating party, establish some form of Asymmetric Dependence favouring them over the inflicted party. The measures exert leverage, which is, in turn, expected to play toward such an objective.
To achieve this, some degree of Economic Harm needs to be administered to the inflicted party, which is greater than what the initiating party suffers. Of course, this rarely happens, as has been made clear in recent years.
Alternative Markets exist for inflicted parties to move toward.
Likewise, supplies, capital & other essentials can be procured to varying degrees, especially now that Great Power Conflict & Competition has split the world into rival alliance systems & blocs.
While Compulsive Economics of this sort can be more precise (targeting specific industries, fields & commodities), only broader efforts can generate the requisite macroeconomic impacts that can force a decisive outcome.
Overseas companies & multinationals need to (at the bare minimum) recognize that when doing business in certain parts of the world, they may be targeted by said measures, given developments in the Global Geo-Economic Landscape.
Meanwhile, States (big & small) need to develop the requisite know-how & expertise to act with speed, force & decisiveness. Otherwise, the relevant markets, goods &/or services may be far too severely tarnished by a multi-pronged assault.
Big picture, Compulsive Economics & the general Machiavellianism imbued in such pursuits will only exacerbate more partition & divergence among the Great Powers in their respective Spheres of Influence.
Defence & Elasticity of Value Streams (briefly touched on earlier) will be the primary focus (courtesy of bifurcation), as Economic Interdependence is viewed with greater overall suspicion.
Therefore, future Geo-Economic works should examine the proper calibration regarding the optimal balance between compulsion (on the one hand) & cooperation (on the other).
Mathematically, some preliminary notions have been developed regarding what that may look & function like. Much work needs to be done in other related areas, especially regarding the morality behind such measures.
Such sentiments should be factored in overall in general policymaking.
7. Techno-Economic Statics
Tech Sovereignty, Localized Innovation, Illuminated Pathways, Strategic Independence, Empowered, Secure.
Techno-Economic Statics is the final area of focus, where the prime objective is to pursue Strategic Independence in the realms of the Physical Economy & Technological Prowess. Commercial innovation is critical to said efforts:
With States more interested in defending said innovation in light of Great Power Conflict & Competition, the repercussions will be numerous:
With the rise of Artificial General Intelligence, Big Data & related technologies, an emphasis is being placed on the fortification & security of said innovations & the associated areas of intellectual property, data & the components needed to build them.
However, they have now taken a life on their own, especially as governments understand the importance of such keystone technologies in pursuing more significant development & Geo-Strategic imperatives.
Western nations' sundry technocratic & managerial Elite are buttressed by Ethical & Moral considerations of their broader, populist citizenry, thereby constricting their more ambitious forays into said technologies (for now).
However, Predictive Programming of the masses via social media, films & other avenues (exhibit-A & exhibit-B) means that curation, tempering & overall swaying of said sentiment is feasible and can be made into concrete policy very soon.
In the East, meanwhile, they are embraced to varying degrees by the citizenry of said Civilizations, given disparate ethical frameworks.
Techno-Economic considerations are not just boxed into the realm of Sovereignty & Independence, as matters of internal security are also a critical area of focus. So are issues relating to the Defense & Elasticity of Value Streams (touched on briefly earlier).
Notably, as digitization becomes the norm, Western Elites have adopted more extraordinary measures against all forms of knowledge transfer & exchange to defend & fortify against attacks on trading secrets, intellectual property, etc.
This indicates a change in the broader Techno-Economic Zeitgeist, away from open collaboration & patent-centric innovation & toward the security of confidential state & commercial info.
Commercial players in this 'New Great Game' are critical focus areas, owing to their accrual of tremendous leverages via the usage of Big Data & Analytics for sundry purposes.
In the Future, developments in the private sector will likely intensify as state interest & tinkering rapidly increases.
The issue that arises with this is a tricky one. Namely, the impetus for innovation & Strategic Independence writ large would rapidly be undermined in such a scenario, where the 'breathing room' to innovate is stifled.
Managerialists & Technocrats will no doubt retort that concerns of this variety are unwarranted, that a 'Golden Mean' of surveillance & Predictive Programming (on the one hand) & innovation & sovereignty (on the other) can coexist without worry:
However, there are reasons to doubt such narratives, given contemporary developments. Techno-Economic Statics, therefore, will likely develop in much of the West with some core tensions at the onset:
On the one hand, the tension of the Technocratic, Managerial impulse to fortify & defend Value Streams, & on the other hand, the tension involving the energy of sovereignty & innovation will be especially pronounced in the coming years.
Many Western nations are in the preliminary stages of tensions boiling over. As populist farmers face off against the technocratic & managerial 'Elite' on the streets... it remains to be seen who comes out on top.
Conclusion
Global Transactions, Economic Chessboard, Ambient Lighting, Diverse Colors, Strategic, Dynamic.
The objective of this Prefatory essay was to make some broad generalizations regarding the current 'state of play' in the burgeoning field of Geo-Economics.
The task was to write up a 'Universal Prolegomena,' which can be utilized to give Readers a 'bird's eye view' & overall outline of what to expect in this field:
Should Future works be penned in Geo-Economics, this essay will remain relevant regarding 'what sub-fields one ought to focus upon!'
Ample highlighting of the Seven key areas was done, which can discretize Geo-Economics as a separate discipline which can voice out its own Geo-Strategic concerns, which in turn can be addressed by statesmen, policymakers & rulers.
As to Future works & directions of the overall field, we will cover that later in the book, whereby each of the Seven key areas that were touched upon (& given some cursory comments) will be addressed in grander scale & scope of detail.
These foundations of the field, which we touched upon here, & will expand & examine exhaustively in the coming work, are as follows:
Techno-Economic Dynamics
Value Streams: Defense & Elasticity
Partition & Divergence Economics
Defensive Economics
Techno-Economic Kinetics
Compulsive Economics
Techno-Economic Statics
Orienting oneself around these Seven key areas will be sufficient to gain a sound qualitative understanding of this burgeoning field.
That said, there is no substitute for mathematical acumen & policymaking know-how, which 'completes' understanding this field.
For the former, the Reader is encouraged to study Stochastic Analysis & related mathematical disciplines. For the latter, 'on-the-job training' is best, preferably as a consultant, advisor, etc., for a non-profit, think tank, etc.
Meanwhile, as we close this Introduction, you, Dear Reader, can now read the rest of the forthcoming work, where we break down the seven key areas mentioned earlier one by one (in-depth)!
Addendum
After much consideration, I, your friendly, neighbourhood DOOM-merchant, have decided to publish this introductory essay to my forthcoming book Sans a Paywall. The reasoning for doing so is relatively straightforward:
Given the relatively technical & minutiae-focused nature of the book, & after consulting with frens & associates, it seems best to gauge General Interest in the overall subject matter before 'pulling the trigger' on the larger project.
Thus, feel free, Dear Readers, to spread this introductory essay far & wide! Likewise, please pitch in some Dinars to assist with the Daily Smelting operations of the DOOM Furnace, especially if you want to watch this project come to life!
Many Thanks once more to all my Dear Readers, Old & New!
Wow, you finished all that?
Dear Reader, you deserve a Big Pat on the Back!
Very few can complete over 5,500 words in one or more sittings!
I, for one, am very impressed… Job Well Done!
Please pitch some Dinars to Assist with Smelting Operations at the DOOM Furnace!
Your support is vital for Smelting the DOOM; & keeping it HOT & FRESH off the Furnace!
If you enjoyed the read, I would greatly appreciate it if you subscribe to a Monthly/Yearly pledge to support my work so that I may continue Smelting DOOM for your displeasure!
Alternatively, you can tip here:
Thank You, Dear Reader(s), for all your support!
Also, while there is a geographical alignment of countries, there is also a capacity based stratification based on a particular governments ability to maintain a degree of strategic autonomy. Can a country defend its currency? Manage its debt? Secure its ports and transportation infrastructure? Protect against a color revolution? Manage its media and social media and communications? Protect its boarders? Access fuel, electricity, and other energy forms? These capacity based questions can inform what choices and what level of strategic autonomy a nation has in the era of renewed great power competition.
Great article, great perspective! The analytical structure of geo-economics as a subset of geo-politics is great, as are the seven domains of economic cooperation/competition/coercion/conflict. One thing I’m not clear on is where debt, devaluation, and lending fit into the framework, as well as the currency warfare.