By Mauricio Diagama Durán
Despite the development of communications, mass technologies and, in general, so-called globalization 4.0, the world still has major internal and international conflicts associated with natural resources and, therefore, with defined geographic spaces. Many of them are also violent, such as the ever-present struggle in the Middle East between Israel and its neighbors. And many others, which have resurfaced and were thought to have been overcome, as in the case of Ukraine versus Russia.
In the face of this tense and intense reality, but also in a context where many things have changed due to the global health crisis, several economic, political, social and business issues appear different, and others stand out as outstanding issues to be resolved.
And although many countries today have important centers of thought to help them seek answers quickly, there has also been a proliferation of publications, analysts and approaches to global interpretation, accompanied by different views of the relationship between spaces, countries, governments, power, resources, wealth, actors and interests. Thus, there is a larger universe of ideas, words, concepts and theories that sometimes make it difficult to see reality clearly.
For all these reasons, it has become important to improve the conceptual and methodological underpinnings of the various analytical tools available, particularly those associated with conflicts arising from phenomena related to physical spaces, which today appear different from how they were experienced a few years ago.
Today, one of the tools available to thinkers to provide such explanations to decision makers and strategists is geoeconomics, which needs further development to be considered a true science. And for now, with its short history, it is only a method, albeit one characterized by a myriad of approaches.
In this article, therefore, we will try to offer some ideas on how geoeconomic thinking has evolved to date, while a proposal on its nature and structure will be made in future texts.
First ideas
Virtually no one rejects the claim that geoeconomics emerged as a derivative of geopolitics, although at the same time few have dared to claim that this is how the many concerns about its scientific nature or practical approach arose.
And although today there are many approaches to its nature, and thus, whether it is a science or a method, whether it is an autonomous field of study or a multidisciplinary one, whether it is a discipline that seeks to explain or whether it is rather an area of practical work, it is also true that none is sufficiently clarifying to explain it fully.
Moreover, its close and deep relationship with economics, sociology, political science, geography and international relations, but also with geopolitics and geostrategy, further complicates its possible definition as a scientific discipline.
On the other hand, since its beginnings, geoeconomics has been used to explain and justify the expansionist aims of countries and enclaves of multinational corporations in territories hostile to their interests, then a perverse interpretation arose that disqualified it as a science, because according to that same view, geoeconomics itself promotes colonialist interests and the aggressive behavior of certain international actors, justifying the use of economic instruments, along with or without the use of force, for the development of their expansionist goals.
It should be remembered that at the beginning and during the 19th century, a period associated with the emergence of the nation-state and nationalist thought in Europe, new ideas were cultivated, especially in the social disciplines, such as those of classical economics of free market outward but protectionism inward, or those of the anthropology of nations, and in the exact sciences such as physical geography, which sought to respond to the need to give body and structure to the functioning of societies and states, with national identities and interests and, above all, very much marked by precise and concrete physical spaces.
That is why it is in this era, when geopolitics was born, with famous geographers, such as Ratzel and many others, saying that space is the most important thing in disputes between states. But the truth is that states were fighting for possession, domination and expansion of their spaces, seeking greater wealth, even though natural resources seemed almost always infinite.
Later, that is, well into the 20th century, people began to think that societies and humans were meant to domesticate and transform nature for the benefit of humans. Hence the expression that man did not come to contemplate the world but to transform it, which had such a boom in this period. Here space became vital, as natural resources, now raw materials necessary for the process of wealth creation, were no longer infinite and could only be found in precise and fixed locations. In other words, conflicts arose for those resources and spaces.
Thus, the phenomena that would occur during the period of the two world wars would also imply a change of perspective in the knowledge of space, natural resources and their possession, which led geography to be more closely related to social disciplines such as sociology, economics or history, and to have different perspectives, such as human, cultural, political, comparative geography, etc.
In this context, we will begin to talk about geoeconomics(1) , although only as an expression or word and not as a term or concept, much less as a scientific explanation(2).
The origin
The term geoeconomics began to take hold a few years later with the development of so-called natural resource economics – with authors such as Thomas H. Tietenberg (1988 – Environmental and Natural Resource Economics), and Alan Randall and Ricardo Calvet Pérez (1985 – Natural Resource Economics and Environmental Policy).
Later, in the 1990s, it will have some conceptual support with geographic economics thinkers such as Philip A. Neher (1990 – Natural Resource Economics: Conservation and Exploitation), Erhun Kula (1992 – Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment), Carlos Romero (1994 – Economics of Environmental and Natural Resources), Manuel Varela Lafuente (1995 – Introduction to Natural Resource Economics), Roxana Barrantes (1997 – Towards a New Gold: Economics of Natural Resources) or Conrad (1999 – Resource Economics).
But it would really grow as a concept when, in the same period, Nicolae Luttwak(3) gave meaning to the term, defining a theoretical framework and elevating it to the category of a scientific discipline. His basic idea was that rivalry between nations could be explained and dealt with by using economic means instead of instruments of war. And that this should always be done on the basis of spatial considerations, since that is where the natural resources, raw materials, production processes and markets in conflict, and thus the conflicts, are.
From then on, many analysts began to use it frequently.
Also in the same period, Pascal Lorot (4) tried to define it and concluded that it was the “analysis of state strategies and policies of an economic nature, especially commercial, aimed at protecting national economies, mastering key technologies, ensuring the existence of certain market segments, and above all, improving the production and marketing of products, elements of power or international projection of one’s national economy and society.”
For this author, geoeconomics would seek to help national enterprises increase their international power and influence, thus helping to strengthen the country’s economic and social potential.
Similarly, other thinkers would seek to give meaning and support to its foundations. Among others, analysts such as Philip A. Neher (1990), Erhun Kula (1992) and, of course, De Mateo and Souza (1993), for whom geo economics was based on the raison d’être of states and their choice between negotiating or fighting.
Mention can also be made of Romero (1994), Varela (1995) and O’Loughlin and Anselin (1996) who believed that economic competition and trading blocs were the raison d’être of geoeconomics.
Then we can mention Roxana Barrantes (1997) and Matthew Spark (1998), who considered geopolitics and geoeconomics similar, but with very subtle differences. And in 1999 Conrad and in 2000 Field and Martinez-Alier.
On the other hand, but already in Latin America, the father of Mexican economic geography, Angel Bassols(5) defined it as a discipline that was to study production and distribution within geographic regions. His practical premise was that a geoeconomic zone should have valuable natural resources for its economic growth.
Conceptual growth
With the arrival of the 21st century, it began to be strongly felt that societies and humanity had another purpose in relation to natural resources other than to use or exploit them, since nature was not only offered for human benefit, but also had its limits and was therefore finite. From this point on, it was affirmed that it was not only a matter of contemplating natural resources or studying them, but also of conserving, multiplying, improving, and exploiting them without destroying or disrupting them.
Here society, the state and countries began to adopt a different spatial vision, since, for example, spaces and many of their resources would now be understood as essential to all of humanity, as forests, oceans, moors, glaciers, among many others, would be seen as vital to their survival. Therefore, their possession and domination would be a source of power and thus conflict.
And at the same time, if such spaces are a source of wealth for those who own or dominate them, as they continue to be the raw material carriers for many products, as in the case of oil, coal, agricultural and animal foods, then every space is a generator of conflict.
It is then understood that in this century there is a change of perspective, which implies a shift in the spatial view of the human and social sciences, because now the environment, environmental ethics, ecology and all its approaches are developed from the defense of natural resources. Moreover, this gives a new impetus to geographic and spatial sciences and, of course, geoeconomics.
The development of this new understanding of geoeconomics has led to the appearance of new approaches and an innumerable number of new texts and viewpoints, all associated with the relationship between natural resources, space, the environment, economics and international power.
Examples include Hackett (2001 – Environmental and Natural Resources Economics: Theory, Policy, and the Sustainable Society) and Pere Riera (2005 – Manual de economía ambiental y de los recursos naturales) and later Cowen and Smith (2009).
Later, (Recce, 2010), he will state that “geoeconomics has been assumed by strategy scholars as a subdiscipline of geopolitics because it has been considered strictly devoted to the mere spatial location of natural riches and strategic enclaves over which geopolitics should exercise itself as a totalizing instance of leviathanic management of the preservation of social life.”(6)
In the same year, Blajove Babić, who has studied the birth, formation and development of geoeconomics, and Pajovic Slodoban, will focus on showing that in the 21st century there is a new formation of geoeconomics (7). They will assert that there is a European geoeconomic thought, albeit a national one, another of Russian origin, yet another American one, and a Latin American one.
Some of Pajovic’s statements will be as follows:
“French geoeconomics and, above all, Pascal Lorot, take the North American position, as they point out that military power is losing its primacy after the fall of the bipolar system. However, they insist that the “economic health” of a state is the key criterion for determining its international influence. Therefore, in the era of globalization, economic interests are superior even to the treatment of a state’s political interests.“
“French experts point out that geo economics studies the economic strategies of states and, in particular, the trade strategies adopted to secure a more favorable and stable position in a changing and highly competitive international economic-financial constellation. Accordingly, these can be said to be strategies aimed at defending the state’s economic interests. Among the state’s objectives is the primary need to capture parts of the world market to ensure the export of products and technologies. Unlike American geoeconomists, the French insist that the new scientific discipline has a global scope, as geoeconomic spaces are highly industrialized.”
As for the Italians, according to Pajovic himself, “there is a new state strategy aimed at ensuring a better positioning of the Italian state in an international context characterized by rivalries of various kinds.”
According to him, for Italian authors Paolo Savona and Carlo Jean, the new scientific discipline would actually be a redesign of the previous “Cold War” geopolitics that privileged military and security aspects. In other words, geopolitics was transformed into a geoeconomics that placed economic interest as a priority element of state strategy.
“It seems clear that Italian geo economists share the position of their American colleagues regarding the diminishing role of military power. Simplifying, one could conclude that the task of geoeconomics is the construction of a state strategy whose goal is to ensure better conditions of competitiveness and international insertion for national enterprises.”
Finally, for Pajovic, the Russians define geo economics as a scientific discipline and as part of a new science called globalism.
Thus, “the main goal of Russian geoeconomics is to study the new economic spaces that are direct products of globalization, that is, of the real and rational action of human beings at the beginning of the 21st century. These reflections focus on the expansion of the strategic and competitive power of the Russian state in the new international context that emerged after the process of dismemberment of the Soviet Union and its transformation into the Russian Federation.”(8)
And then Pajovic states that “it should be noted that Professor Blajove Babić also emphasizes the important contributions of Indian and Ukrainian geo economists.”
On the other hand, in 2015, the Khan Academy focused on studying the urgent need for raw materials in the world. In 2017, Black and Harris state that geoeconomics is concerned with analyzing the non-military actions of states, and Rojas in 2018 identifies it as war by other means. While Michael Wiggel in 2019 points to it as a strategic practice.
In Latin America, Alejandra Cerón, Henry Cancelado, Daniel Rojas, Diego Suarez, William Palomino, and Robert Barreto will identify it directly with new hemispheric security threats. Finally, in 2020, Jiménez will address its theoretical framework.
Different approaches
At present, and with the above premises, it is possible to distinguish at least nine different approaches to its conceptual nature.
First, there is one perspective that states that geoeconomics is the science that studies the spatial and economic issues of natural resources, that is, the material goods produced by nature and countries.
Another strand of thought states that it is a branch of geopolitics that analyzes the international system and the behavior of actors based on economic interests.
A third approach states that it is a discipline focused on the analysis of geographical, physical and political factors that influence the economy of a region and vice versa.
A fourth view states that geoeconomics is a subdivision or area of geopolitics, devoted to the study of how politics is affected by geographical issues. Or to examine how economic means or resources can help strengthen a nation’s position in the global context.
Another perspective holds that geoeconomics studies the impact of resources on international standing.
The sixth approach holds that geoeconomics is related to economic policies that enable countries to consolidate their power and project themselves internationally. In this case, a government may seek to exploit the infrastructure provided by the global economy to achieve certain policy objectives(9).
A seventh approach argues that it is a tool that helps nations make strategic decisions, as well as assess the consequences, risks and benefits affecting a nation’s economy and culture, based on geographic, political and physical factors.
Another current of thought states that geoeconomics is the transformation of war rivalries into economic clashes. In this case, countries mark their position and define their expansion policies through this discipline in a terrain that is more economic than militaristic(10).
Finally, there is a view that states that economics is a new scientific discipline dedicated to the study, analysis, interpretation and practical application of contextual knowledge of new discrepancies, economic/commercial and financial hegemonies, disputes and differences on a global scale (11).
Conclusions
Today there is no single view of the conceptual nature of geoeconomics, as there are many variations and approaches.
To say that it is a science is a bit hasty, and much more so, because its evolution from word to term, or from this to concept, and from this to field of study or discipline, has been too rapid, and much more so, if one considers it as the basis of a field of practical action based on scientific principles.
Rather, there are many ideas, concepts, and visions about geoeconomics, and therefore it will be important to improve its conceptual and methodological basis in order to improve the explanation of state or social problems associated with physical spaces, natural resources, countries, wealth, power, and, most importantly, conflicts between nations, which now appear different.
For now, geoeconomics is a good tool for analysis, although it requires much clarification, to be used in specific case studies.
Surely one day it will have an advanced and precise disciplinary status.
Author: Mauricio Diagama Durán (Professor of geopolitics, geoeconomics and international relations, consultant, researcher and lecturer internationally (Argentina, Mexico, Peru, Russia, Venezuela, among other countries) and nationally, on topics associated with geopolitics, international relations, public administration, educational administration, international affairs management and international business. Bogota, Colombia)
Bibliographical notes.
1- Geoeconomics was born in 1942, when George Renner (1900 – 1955) first used the term in his famous student text, Human Geography in the Air Age. However, its use did not become very popular, so the word did not even appear in the dictionaries of the Royal Spanish Academy or the Encyclopedia Britannica.
2-According to linguist Elvia María González (lecture The Meanings of Education. Medellín 2022, Universidad de Antioquia) first come words, then terms, then concepts, then clear and widely used concepts. Then comes the meaning of the terms and finally the scientific language.
3-Jewish-born strategist born in Romania-November 4, 1942-raised in Britain and then emigrated to the United States, where he became known as a consultant to multinational corporations, especially oil companies, and author of texts on strategic issues. His books include The Pentagon and the Art of War (1985), Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace (1987) and The Endangered American Dream (1993).
4-Economist and founder of the journal Geoéconomie.
5-Mexican professor (1925-2012).
6-https://revistas.unisucre.edu.co/index.php/rpg/article/view/140/147.POLÍTICA,
GEOECONOMICS, ECONOMICS AND CULTURE. “Influences in today’s world.” John Arturo Buelvas Parra
7-CESLA journal. 2010
8-Per Pajovic, Ernest Georgievich Kochetov is one of Russia’s leading geo economists.
9 -https://definicion.de/geoeconomia/
10-https://www.apd.es/geoeconomia-economia-mundial/
11-The new international rivalry would indeed force the state apparatus to define and strengthen its geoeconomic hegemony. In practice, the supremacy of geoeconomics over geopolitics appears imminent, such that the regionalization of the international system must be analyzed as a new phenomenon in international relations. This position is based on the belief that geopolitics is losing its importance due to the inevitable global geoeconomic reorganization in the form of the creation of geoeconomic systems (regions-economic blocs) that may also contain defensive or offensive geostrategic instruments and not only political or military in nature.