<scp>US</scp> Security Strategy and the Gains from Bilateral Trade

Bove, V. Michael; Elia, Leandro; Sekeris, Petros G.

doi:10.1111/roie.12141

Cited by 25 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This paper extends existing studies of the impact of geopolitical considerations for trade agreements, such as Martin, Mayer, and Thoenig (2012), Baldwin and Jaimovich (2012) and Vicard (2012) and Bove, Elia, and Sekeris (2014). Our focus differs in several respects.…”

mentioning

confidence: 77%

Mars or Mercury redux: The geopolitics of bilateral trade agreements

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International trade and international relations have always been joined at the hip. Governments negotiate trade agreements for economic reasons-they see them as enhancing the access of producers to foreign markets and giving them a leg up in international competition. But they are also drawn to trade agreements for political reasons. 1 They see the more extensive trade as fostering ties with geopolitical allies. 2 They see bilateral trade agreements as heightening their interdependence with and influence over those partners. Conversely, geopolitical alliances make international trade ties stronger. 3 1 The literature on the economic benefits of free trade agreements is vast and includes Viner (1950), Krugman (1991), Baldwin and Venables (1995) and Frankel et al. (1996). A short survey is Baier and Bergstrand (2006). 2 As Martin, Mayer and Thoening stress, the Liberal Peace argument, which posits that bilateral trade flows reduce the probability of a bilateral war by increasing the opportunity cost of conflicts, dates back to Kant (1795); see Martin

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 77%

Mars or Mercury redux: The geopolitics of bilateral trade agreements

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Being in a pivotal node in the global network of oil trade increases the dependence of world countries on strategic nodes; this mechanism encourages dependent states such as the US to provide central nodes with external military assistance. This can take the form of direct military transfers of major conventional weapons, or training to the military personnel of the recipient country or through the deployment of troops (Bove, Elia, and Sekeris 2014).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Centrality in Trade Networks and Investment in Security

Bove

Elia

Pelliccia

2016

Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The contemporary empirical literature on military spending has focused on institutional and conflict factors, and although has acknowledged the role of trade openness, it has not taken into account the position of a state in the trade network. Building on the concept of network centrality, we claim that the structure of trade networks affects the optimal investment in security, and that a country's level of military spending is a function of its strategic position in the global network of a critical commodity, such as oil. Our empirical results show that network centrality constrains military spending.

show abstract

“…There are at least four reasons that one can think of as to why the fundamental data issue associated with FDI flows requires further investigation. First, a parallel can be found in the international trade literature, for instance, where a number of studies emphasise the importance of excluding entrepot trade in order to empirically test standard trade theories or other hypotheses such as whether ‘trade follows the flag’ (Pollins, ; Bove et al., ), because inclusion of entrepot trade distorts understanding of actual trade flows…”

Section: Why Do Original Sources Of Fdi Flows Matter?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting Bilateral Foreign Direct Investment Inflows into BRIC Economies

Gopalan

Rajan

2016

Global Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tracking the origins of bilateral foreign direct investment (FDI) flows is required to understand de facto real linkages between countries, which remains an important area of research and policy concern. However, existing bilateral FDI data may fail to correctly identify the original sources of FDI flows because they are based on flow of funds rather than ultimate ownership. As a consequence, several offshore financing centers (OFCs) and tax havens emerge as top sources of FDI flows which provide a misleading picture of bilateral real linkages between countries. In this context, this paper proposes an alternative framework to overcome this problem by examining data on mergers and acquisitions (M&As), which offers a far more informative geographical breakdown of sources of FDI inflows. The paper reconciles bilateral FDI inflows data with M&A data for the BRIC economies covering Brazil, Russia, India and China, for the period 2001–12. Further, in light of the increasing M&A flows to BRICs, of equal policy importance is the issue of what kind of FDI should the BRICs attract. In this regard, the paper also sheds some light on the macroeconomic policy implications of the different kinds of FDI flows to the BRIC economies.

show abstract

US Security Strategy and the Gains from Bilateral Trade

Cited by 25 publications

References 63 publications

Mars or Mercury redux: The geopolitics of bilateral trade agreements

Mars or Mercury redux: The geopolitics of bilateral trade agreements

Centrality in Trade Networks and Investment in Security

Revisiting Bilateral Foreign Direct Investment Inflows into BRIC Economies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About