In these contemporary times, state actions are now rendered by the emergence of ‘Geo Economics’. Implying the term coined by Clausewitz, “Logic of war in the grammar of commerce.”
Geo economic, a neologism term, relatively narrates the logic of conflict with the advances of commerce. There is no denial, Geo-economics has been a defining feature of the international system since the end of Cold War. The realm of commerce in the pre cold era was obscured either by the strategic priorities or strategic modalities.
So, Is the Geo-Economics an Alternative for Declining Role of Geo Politics?
In the global outlook, states lean towards geo-economical dimension plainly because of the rational justification that they are geographically defined units in order to surpass each other. The governing framework of today’s modern state is densely pronounced by conflictual preference, hence the logic of conflict. In the past, however, states have never opted to fight war on the grounds of commerce but defence.
In a comparative analysis, when logic of conflict dictates the necessity of cooperation with a common enemy, inversely, when logic of commerce dictates the ultimate necessity of competitiveness. Who would dominate? Since the former rule, the preservation of an alliance is almost always a primacy. Analogously, all the former commercial disputes among states such as United States & Western Europe or United States and Japan and even Soviet-Western were contained. When commercial disputes intensify to a point where it draws political leaders’ attention on two sides, the were stifled right away by paying of all the parties. In order to safeguard political relations and prevent the threat to strategic cooperation.
In the present times, while the significance of military threat and military alliance regresses, geo economic modalities are pursuing to dominate the state actions. Commercial disputes are contained solely by the dread of economic repercussions. Primarily, the action-reaction correctional events. Henceforward, they will no longer be curbed by political interruptions on both parties. Enthused by strategic imperative of conserving alliances cooperation against a shared enemy. Nonetheless, if the internal coherence has to be retained by a unifying threat, it is economic!
The World Is Receding to A New Age of Mercantilism?
Mercantilism aspired to maximize gold stocks, contrarily, geo-economics is to provide the best possible employment for largest proportion of the population. In past, commercial disputes when unfolded into political disputes they lead to miliary clashes additionally leading to war. Put differently, mercantilism was more of a subbed configuration. Inadequate and regulated by deep rooted possibility that the loser in the commercial competition would swap to grammar of war.
Geo-economics is emerging in a world where there is no superior modality. In the concurrent era, great powers have switched their focus from traditional warfare onto the nonconventional means of warfare. The elites of great powers have laid off the idea of traditional warfare as a practical solution for miliary confrontation among them. Considering, military conflicts between them are only hindering of the threats that are themselves most improbable. This recent conviction has caused the pivotal depreciation of military strength as a means of statecraft in relations of great powers.
In this new era of Geo-Economics, perhaps the approaches of mercantilism could always be dominated by the methods of war. Consequently, the instruments and the causes of a conflict must be economic. The commercial disputes lead to political confrontations as they are now with the decline of geopolitics, such political confrontations shall be fought with weapons of commerce. For instance, the greater or lesser restrictions of import, subsidization of exports, endowment of competitive infrastructure, funding of technological ventures and many more.
The role of geo-economics in the world scene is nonetheless, far smaller than that of geopolitics in world politics as whole. The proclivity of states to behave geo economically vary significantly even more than their proclivity to act geopolitically. In the view of the fact that some states will incline to maintain an individualistic behaviour by resisting to act geoeconomically. Burma and Switzerland for example that have been geopolitically inactive.
However, the desirable act of geoeconomics activism by state is already becoming a focal point of political debate and partisan controversy. One example is the democratic republican dispute on industrial policy in United States, France where the dominant elites that long insisted on a very ambitious degree of geopolitical activism (the availability of resources) are now shifting their emphasis on geoeconomic activism. Moreover, Japan & China are the champions of geo-economic trends.
Where proponents believe, by safeguarding domestic industries, mercantilist policies can reassure the progress of the local business and endorse the development of contemporary industries. Critics of mercantilism assert the strategies opted by protectionist can lead to inadequacies and market distortions, as they may defend incompetent industries from competition and dismay novelties. Moreover, policies by protectionist can head up to trade conflicts between nations, which can sabotage the global economic growth and stability.
In the new-fangled era of geo-economics, where states are contending for economic and political sway, it may be argued that mercantilism could be instrumental in advancing a state’s economic dividend and the ability to compete. Yet, it is crucial to offset these aspirations with the demand for global economic constancy and cooperation, which may entail not only a naccessible but also a much more collaborative tactic to international trade and investment.