GEOECONOMIC SCIENTIFIC SCHOOLS OF RUSSIA, CHINA AND WESTERN COUNTRIES: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

GEOECONOMIC SCIENTIFIC SCHOOLS OF RUSSIA, CHINA AND WESTERN COUNTRIES: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Alina Chuvil

Student, Moscow Pedagogical State University

Russia, Moscow

Tatiana Karadje

Scientific supervisor, PhD, Professor, Moscow Pedagogical State University

Russia, Moscow

ABSTRACT

At the end of the XX century global confrontation of the world powers has reached a new level. Since the USSR crash the US has become the only leader in the world politics. The EU countries became their closest rivals. China's political power has increased over the past two decades therefore China became the main US rival. The modern international struggle has geoeconomical specifications. Now the most effective methods are trade, investment, resources and economic interdependence. All these are geoeconomic methods. Geoeconomic tools are also used in Russia, but had a lower result than in China and in the USA. The geoeconomic policy study of different countries involves the analysis of empirical data using scientific approaches adopted in a particular region. The scientific geo-economic schools of Russia, the West and China have many specific differences. Therefore, it is important to consider their theoretical research in order to understand geoeconomics is studied in a particular country. We performed a comparative analysis of three world scientific schools of geoeconomics in order to understand the specifics of each scientific school.

Keywords: geoeconomics, world geoeconomic scientific schools, economic interdependence, Russia, China, western countries.

Nowadays geoeconomics has a special meaning in world politics, therefore, geo-economic theories are developing in every modern state. Each scientific school has its own characteristics. This study examines the economic theories of Russia, China and Western countries. Western countries were the first to explore geo-economics and apply economic methods in politics. China has significantly increased its potential due to its geo-economic strategies. Geoeconomics is also actively developing in Russian science, but mostly in theoretical research. Each scientific school of geo-economics has features of the state policy of the country where it developed. Therefore, we consider it important to analyze the work of economists in these countries.

I. Russian scientific school of geoeconomics

The most prominent representatives of Russian researchers in the field of geo-economics are E. Kochetov, A. Nekless, P. Shchedrovitsky, V. Tsymbursky, as well as a Ukrainian specialist in the field of geopolitics and geo-economics V. Dergachev, whom we also attributed to the Russian school. Let's take a closer look at the theoretical models of each of the listed authors.

1. The theoretical model of A. I. Nekless is known as the "hexagonal construction of the global geo-economic universe"[2].  Geo-economics in this model is understood as a spatial arrangement of different types of economic activity and a new scheme of division of labor in the world community in the context of globalization and a new type of world order. The subjects of a new scale in geo-economics are: international organizations and international regulatory bodies and unions, such as the UN, the "Big six/eight", trans-state entities, system countries such as the USA, the European Union and the "Schengen State".
2. E. G. Kochetov's geo—economic model - "geo-economic atlas: syncretic model of the global world" or "political strategy for increasing the global competitiveness of the state" [1]. In E. Kochetov's model, such concepts as "geo-economic atlas", "internationalized reproductive cores", "system countries", "world income" appeared. The system countries and TNCs become subjects, the reproductive cores are objects, the geo-economic atlas is a kind of virtual space in which a global struggle is taking place, the purpose of which is the "distribution of world income". e. Kochetov also developed a scheme of foreign economic analysis and forecasting, built on the principles of a geo-economic approach to the study of subjects of global competition at the macro level.
3. In the concept of P. Shchedrovitsky, one can see a slightly different view of the relationship between geo-economics and geopolitics, as well as a different understanding of influential subjects of geo-economic struggle: these are no longer national economies and TNCs, but entire world economic diasporas and international economic enclaves. [3] The author does not represent his vision of the geo-economic division of the world, but presents a number of geo-economic tasks, the fulfillment of which could provide Russia, as a country-system and the core of the "Russian World", with more influence and control levers in the international arena.

II. Western Scientific School of Geoeconomics

1. Luttwakian and non-Luttwakian approaches. E. Luttwak used the term "geo-economics" in his article entitled "From Geopolitics to Geo-economics: the Logic of Conflict in the Grammar of Commerce" [6]. In the Western geo-economic tradition, it is customary to divide all theoretical approaches into "Lutvakian" and "non-Lutvakian", the main difference of which is the view of the relationship between geo-economics and geopolitics. Luttwakian approaches are based on the opinion that geo-economics has replaced geopolitics at the present stage of the development of global interaction. Non-Lutwakian approaches are based on the opinion that geopolitics has not gone away with the development of geo-economics, moreover, it still dominates geo-economics as a broader discipline and still determines global world politics.
2. The concepts of R. Blackville and J. Harris. Geo—economics, in the non-Lutwakian concept (Blackville, Harris, Troxel), is a strategy of states to achieve geopolitical goals by economic means [9]. States can develop geo-economic policy based on all possible interests: geopolitical, economic, security interests, etc. Among the tools by which states can exercise their interests, Blackville and Harris distinguish: 1 – trade policy; 2 – investment policy; 3 – economic and financial sanctions; 4 – financial and monetary policy; 5 – cybersecurity; 6 – energy; 7 – commodities [4].
3. Geo-economic model of the Swedish geo-economist Klaus Solberg Søilen. Søilen coined the term "Nareland", which should be interpreted as "the land of natural resources"[8]. He also cites signs of so-called "State-scale Organizations" (SSE - State Scale Entities). A "State-scale organization" is an entity with authority and the possibility of international interaction, acting in the national interest, the size and resources of which allow it to carry out "political" actions at the local, regional and global levels.

III. Chinese Scientific School of Geoeconomics

1. The geo–economic concept of V. Shufang and L. Yuli attributes two main features to this direction: 1 - geo-economic power depends on the development of the local economy, not the global one. 2- economic cooperation and competition between countries are the main form of interaction between states, and not any other. The core of the economy is the national interests of the state. Cooperation and control are the means of realizing the geo-economic interests of states, and the basis of geo-economic power is "regional economic collectivization". This tells us that the economic strength of the state in the Chinese sense is based on the joint and well-coordinated collective work of local economic entities that make up the economic potential of the whole country to fight in the international arena [7].
2. Chinese strategists Yu. Cao and Sh . Wang developed a model of "geo-economic interdependence" between countries. In this model, the state with its national interests (China) is the only subject of geo-economic strategies. Whereas international economic organizations and economic alliances act as means or instruments to achieve the geo-economic goals of the state. Researchers identify the economic interdependence of countries and international economic organizations as tools for the realization of the national interests of the state [5].

Conclusions of the comparative analysis

The comparison criteria for the analysis of the economic schools of Russia, China and Western countries were: 1 - the dependence of geo-economics and geopolitics; 2 - the subjects of geo-economic policy and the role of the state in geo-economics; 3 - the foundations of models of geo-economic world order.

The features of the Russian scientific school are: 1) Geo-economics is becoming a new geopolitics, because geo-economic strategies at this stage have completely eclipsed the "military methods" inherent in geopolitics and geostrategy (the Luttwakian approach). 2) The subjects of geo-economics are "system countries", TNCs, and even more global actors such as "world industrial diasporas", "large trans-regional associations" and "internationalized reproductive nuclei" (IRN). 3) The geo-economic structure is determined either according to the principle (1) of the economic and production specifics of the "raw South", "high-tech North Atlantic region" (Uncless); (2) according to the principle of civilizational division or the world-system approach "center-periphery".

The features of the Western school are: 1) Geo-economics, for the most part, is considered in the Western school through the "non-Lutwakian" approach. That is, geo-economics does not become a substitute for geopolitics, but is one of its constituent parts, "a method of achieving geopolitical goals with the help of economic instruments." 2) The subjects of geo-economic struggle are States with the status of "geo-economic powers", as well as "State-scale organizations" that can act on behalf of States and in their national interests. 3) The geo-economic structure of the world in the Western school is based on the principle of the availability of natural resources. A geo–economic power is one that possesses resources initially or controls them in foreign territories. This concept is close to geopolitics, only resources are now in the center, hence "Nareland", as the heritage of "Heartland" and "Rimland" - the land of natural resources.

The features of the Chinese school are: 1) The perception of geo-economics as a geopolitical tool. 2) State-centric approach in the formation of geo-economic strategies. That is, the subjects of geo-economics are not MEOS, not TNCs, not other supranational entities, namely the state with its national interests. Moreover, as we found out above, international organizations and alliances act as convenient tools for achieving geopolitical goals. 3) The basis of the geo-economic power of the state is internal economic prosperity, which is based on the principles of regional cooperation and collectivism of economic entities within the country.

References:

1. Кочетов Э.Г. Геоэкономика: предметное поле исследований // РАПН – Аспект ПРЕСС 2019. – с 341
2. Неклесса А.И. Геоэкономическая формула мироустройства // РАПН – Аспект ПРЕСС 2019. – с 326.
3. Щедровицкий П. Русский мир и транснациональное русское. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://archipelag.ru/agenda/povestka/2000-2003/rustrans/
4. Blackwill R.D., & Harris, J. M. War by Other Means: Geoeconomics and Statecraft. Harvard University Press. - 2017.
5. Cao Y. et al. Progress of research on impacts of economic approaches on geopolitical structure and spatial expression //Progress in Geography. – 2016. – Т. 3. – С. 265-275.
6. Luttwak E. N. “From Geopolitics to Geo-Economics: Logic of Conflict, Grammar of Commerce”. The National Interest, 1990. - 17-23.
7. Shufang W. et al. Review on geo-economy between China and ASEAN //Tropical Geography. – 2015. – Т. 35. – №. 5. – С. 730-738.
8. Søilen K. Geoeconomics. Bookboon. – 2012.
9. Troxell J.F. Geoeconomics. Military Review Book, Army University Press. – 2018.