After Geopolitics? From the Geopolitical Social to Geoeconomics

Abstract

This paper makes two central arguments. First, the popular language of geopolitics needs to be understood as historically emerging from and helping create a "geopolitical social", which both crosses and crafts traditional borders of internal and external to the national state. Second, we suggest that geoeconomic social forms are gradually supplanting this geopolitical social. After establishing the geopolitical social associated with traditional geopolitics, from Ratzel to Bismarck, we examine the erosion of geopolitical calculation and the rise of the geoeconomic. We trace emerging geoeconomic social forms in three domains: the reframing of territorial security to accommodate supranational flows; the recasting of social forms of security through the market; and the reframing of the state as geoeconomic agent. Neither an exercise in "critical geopolitics" nor an endorsement of Luttwakian style geoeconomics, this paper assumes no straightforward historical succession from geopolitical to geoeconomic logics, but argues that geoeconomics is nonetheless crucial to the spatial reconfiguration of contemporary political geography.

From biopolitics to bioeconomies: The ART of (re-)producing white futures in Mexico's surrogacy market

“…In contrast to Cowen and Smith (2009), who argue in their article ''From the Geopolitical Social to Geoeconomics'' that the geoeconomy recasts rather than replaces geopolitics, Rose claims that the age of state biopolitics is over. Drawing on the empirical case study of the Mexican surrogacy industry, this article sheds light on the manifold ways in which everyday practices in this new bioeconomy are entangled with state biopolitics.…”

Citizen Involvement in the Decision-Making Processes of Environmental and Spatial Planning, and it’s Influence on Public Participation: a Case Study of Lisbon

“…In it, work in physical and virtual networks (also called partnerships) that ensure the framework of the formats for participation in order to encourage dialogue on equal terms between several key players so as to reach decision-making based on consensus is predominant [11,40]. These networks live and grow from strategic relationships that complement, influence, and reinforce each other, allowing the educated, aware, and active citizen to take advantage of their existence and decipher the polymorphic nature of the territories in terms of the existing and/or the desired situations [12,41,42]. Collaborative practices were upheld by 94.8% of the sample, who felt that the decision-making process should always involve rulers and the ruled.…”

Trading Out of the Global Food Crisis? The World Trade Organization and the Geopolitics of Food Security

“…Meta-concepts such as geoeconomics are helpful for understanding changing relations between the geography of economy in the global agro-food system or approaches that situate transnational contests for control over global resources and governance institutions as interrelated processes. 33 This article employs the categorization of net-food exporting (NFEs) and net-food importing (NFIs) states for the purpose of analysing multidirectional power flows at the WTO. There is no consensus definition for these categories, nevertheless they offer a useful organizing frame to analyse the geopolitics of the global agro-food system, especially with regard to their value as a proxy for a state's relative vulnerability to food insecurity.…”