Geoeconomics in a Changing Global Order

Babić, Milan; Dixon, Adam D.; Liu, Imogen T.

doi:10.1007/978-3-031-01968-5_1

Cited by 31 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 76 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, we can expect further political and legal developments in market regulation and practices, including the diversification of supply and export markets and a reorientation of trade and capital flows from geopolitically "unfriendly" countries towards geopolitical allies. As a result, we can expect a growing regionalisation of the global economy, where future markets will likely be reshaped to mirror the geopolitical landscape-similar to the decades of the Cold War (Gowa, 1995) before the "end of history" was declared in the 1990s (Babić et al, 2022). Consequently, we can expect growing political and business efforts to increase the camp of geoeconomic allies by pursuing closer ties with the countries of the Global South.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Legitimisation of Foreign Direct Investment Screening Among Business Actors: The Danish Case

Nibe

2023

PaG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There has been a conspicuous shift in the European Union’s perception of economic interdependence and open markets, manifested in a mushrooming number of screening policies aimed at verifying foreign direct investments raising national security concerns. The introduction of these policies can be viewed as a market constraint that might negatively affect business operations, so it is puzzling that some European business actors did not actively resist their adoption, despite having wide lobbying opportunities in Europe. I explore this puzzle using the case of Denmark by drawing on theories of securitisation and preference formation under uncertainty. I argue that business actors established their policy preferences in the context of uncertainty and the gradual increase in security framing by the European and local political elites. Exposed to these increasing security discourses across different levels and networks, businesses adjusted their policy preferences, balancing between different identities. The flexibility inherent in a multilevel and evolving securitisation process led to the legitimisation of investment screening policies among interest groups and mitigated their resistance to the imposition of market constraints on security grounds.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Legitimisation of Foreign Direct Investment Screening Among Business Actors: The Danish Case

Nibe

2023

PaG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this context, the EU's Strategic Compass-despite its obsession with the notion of "resilience"-is insufficient on its own, if not subordinated to North American geopolitical preferences. In return, this also suggests that "more probably, and as usual, Europeans will wait for the US to tell them what to do, as it departs for the Pacific" (Witney, 2022; see also Babić et al, 2022).…”

Section: The Eu's Geopolitical Rolementioning

confidence: 99%

The War in Ukraine and the EU’s Geopolitical Role in Spanish Media Discourses

Quintanal,

Boulos,

Radeljić

2023

MaC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The EU’s ability to protect common interests and effectively address the challenges faced by its members relating to external threats is one of the most debated questions in the European landscape. Understandably, the war in Ukraine has had a major impact on discourses regarding the EU Common Security and Defense Policy, granting them more space and thus visibility in the media and public debates. Our study examines Spanish media discourses about the EU’s geopolitical role and, more specifically, to what extent such discourses foster or hamper European integration processes. To collect data and carry out this study, we selected six media outlets based on their ownership, ideological stance, consumption frequency, and impact on public opinion. Our sample includes 540 news items, collected between July 2021 and March 2022. Our discourse analysis benefits from, inter alia, a Foucauldian framework that focuses on the sayable, conservation, memory, reactivation, and appropriation. In addition, we also identify communicative strategies that are employed to promote different discourses, as well as possible policy alternatives, concerning the EU’s geopolitical role and future prospects.

show abstract

“…Following the global financial crisis and subsequent crises, the global and European political-economic landscape underwent significant changes. The dominance of neoliberal concepts seems to have waned, while protectionist and state-interventionist strategies are becoming more widespread (Babić et al, 2022;Roberts et al, 2019). The new state interventionism seeks to enhance control over transnational value chains that appear to be at risk: either because certain actors can weaponize them by restricting or preventing flows (Farrell & Newman, 2019) or because accidents or crises might disrupt or permanently damage established networks of commercial cooperation.…”

Section: The New State-interventionism In Eu Infrastructure Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Drivers and Limits of the Geoeconomic Turn in EU Infrastructure Policy

Abels,

Bieling

2024

PaG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, the EU has increasingly applied state-interventionist practices to initiate and implement infrastructure policy projects. This stands in stark contrast to a phase of liberalization of infrastructure networks and services accompanying European integration and fiscal consolidation and infrastructure decay during the euro crisis. This article argues that the new state interventionism is strongly driven by the changing global constellation of a “new triad competition” where the EU is increasingly competing over infrastructures with the US and China. As a consequence, EU infrastructure policy undergoes a geoeconomic turn that aims to control transnational value chains and related political-economic spaces. Drawing on concepts of critical geography and international political economy, the article outlines the core features of this geoeconomic design logic of infrastructures and contrasts it with complementary or competing ones. The article substantiates these arguments by analyzing EU decision-making on two cases of high-tech infrastructure in the fields of communication and energy: the federated data infrastructure Gaia-X and the Hydrogen Strategy. Both cases provide evidence for the geoeconomic turn in EU infrastructure policy. Yet, the analysis also highlights that the turn is at times supported but also hampered by a capitalist logic that is reflected in the positioning of European and non-European businesses, as well as the EU’s reliance on private action. Furthermore, it illustrates that an ecological and a social-integrative design logic to key infrastructures are largely subordinated. The conclusions reflect on the discrepancy between the EU’s geoeconomic agenda and its less far-reaching implementation.

show abstract

Geoeconomics in a Changing Global Order

Cited by 31 publications

References 76 publications

Legitimisation of Foreign Direct Investment Screening Among Business Actors: The Danish Case

Legitimisation of Foreign Direct Investment Screening Among Business Actors: The Danish Case

The War in Ukraine and the EU’s Geopolitical Role in Spanish Media Discourses

Drivers and Limits of the Geoeconomic Turn in EU Infrastructure Policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About