中美博弈下的经济权力空间动态性与异质性

doi:10.18306/dlkxjz.2021.05.009

Abstract

Abstract:

With the peaceful rising of China, the geopolitical relationship between China and the United States has entered the era of great game. Economic power is a key element in the Sino-US geopolitical game, but its spatial changes are rarely discussed. Based on the theory of asymmetric dependence and balance of power, this study constructed a fragility-sensitivity model of investment power and trade power, and dynamically revealed the patterns and trends of spatial changes of economic power of China and the United States. The research indicates that: 1) The economic power space of China and the United States has gradually evolved from US dominance in the world to a pattern where the eastern and western hemispheres are equally divided. 2) The area with spatially balanced power between China and the United States continues to shrink. The key areas of competition between the two countries have shifted from Asia, Africa, and Oceania to Europe and South America. 3) The changes in the space of economic power between China and the United States are diversified, which shows stable spatial viscosity and dynamic spatial oscillating coupling characteristics, forming stable areas, metastable areas, balanced areas, and bouncing areas. 4) The degree of international dependence of China and the United States on foreign investment and trade powers has significant spatial homogeneity and certain spatial heterogeneity. Both of them are dominated by double-high dependence and double-low dependence, forming various types such as investment-oriented dependence and trade-oriented dependence. 5) The Sino-US economic power balance zone shows obvious spatial difference, forming four types: peripheral isolation, energy endowment, economically developed, and strategic route. The strategic route regions are the focus of the political power game between the two countries.

Key words: economic power, spatial balance, spatial heterogeneity, China-US relationship

LAN Xue, LIU Chengliang, LUO Rongjing, RUAN Jiaqi, YE Qiuyu, WANG Jie. Spatiotemporal variations and types of the economic power zones of China and the United States[J].PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2021, 40(5): 825-838.

Figures/Tables 9

Tab.1

Static division of economic power space between two countries"

类型	A国经济权力区	B国经济权力区	A、B两国经济权力均势区
经济权力差异值	$E P A - B j, t$ <-50	$E P A - B j, t >$ 50	-50≤ $E P A - B j, t$ ≤50

Tab.1

Tab.2

Tab.3

Fig.1

Tab. 4

Fig.2

Tab.5

Tab.6

Fig.3

References 38

[1]	谢地, 张巩. 国际贸易和国家利益冲突:中美贸易战的多重博弈与中国的出路[J]. 政治经济学评论, 2019,10(4):129-149.
	[Xie Di, Zhang Gong. International trade and the conflict of national interests: Multiple games of Sino-US trade war and China's way out. China Review of Political Economy, 2019,10(4):129-149. ]
[2]	杨文龙, 杜德斌, 马亚华. 经济权力视角下中美战略均势的地理透视[J]. 地理研究, 2017,36(10):1901-1914. doi: 10.11821/dlyj201710007
	[Yang Wenlong, Du Debin, Ma Yahua. A geographical perspective on the Sino-U.S. strategic balance of economic power. Geographical Research, 2017,36(10):1901-1914. ]
[3]	胡志丁, 刘玉立, 李灿松, 等. 权力、地缘环境与地缘位势评价: 以中日钓鱼岛之争为例[J]. 热带地理, 2014,34(1):50-57.
	[Hu Zhiding, Liu Yuli, Li Cansong, et al. Power, geo-setting and evaluation method of geo-potential: A case study of the dispute over China and Japan on the Diaoyu Islands. Tropical Geography, 2014,34(1):50-57. ]
[4]	Oliver J. Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace[J]. Cooperation and Conflict, 2006,41(4):463-469. doi: 10.1177/0010836706069616
[5]	Couloumbis T A, Wolfe J H. Introduction to international relations: Power and justice[M]. Upper Saddle River, USA: Prentice-Hall, 1986.
[6]	黄琪轩. 大国经济成长模式及其国际政治后果: 海外贸易、国内市场与权力转移 [J]. 世界经济与政治, 2012(9): 107-130, 159-160.
	[Huang Qixuan. Economic development pattern of great powers and its international political consequence: Overseas trade, domestic market and power transition. World Economics and Politics, 2012(9): 107-130, 159-160. ]
[7]	杨光斌. 论意识形态的国家权力原理: 兼论中国国家权力的结构性问题[J]. 党政研究, 2017(5):5-14.
	[Yang Guangbin. On the principle of state power in ideology: Concurrently on the structural issues of state power in China. Studies on Party and Government, 2017(5):5-14. ]
[8]	王礼茂, 牟初夫, 陆大道. 地缘政治演变驱动力变化与地缘政治学研究新趋势[J]. 地理研究, 2016,35(1):3-13. doi: 10.11821/dlyj201601001
	[Wang Limao, Mou Chufu, Lu Dadao. Changes in driving forces of geopolitical evolution and the new trends in geopolitics studies. Geographical Research, 2016,35(1):3-13. ]
[9]	杨文龙, 杜德斌, 刘承良, 等. 中国地缘经济联系的时空演化特征及其内部机制[J]. 地理学报, 2016,71(6):956-969. doi: 10.11821/dlxb201606005
	[Yang Wenlong, Du Debin, Liu Chengliang, et al. Study on the spatial-temporal evolution and internal mechanism of geo-economic connections of China. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2016,71(6):956-969. ]
[10]	陈琪. 经济相互依存与制衡[J]. 世界经济与政治, 2002(9):11-16.
	[Chen Qi. Economic interdependence and equilibrium. World Economics and Politics, 2002(9):11-16. ]
[11]	Polachek S W. Conflict and trade[J]. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1980,24(1):55-78. doi: 10.1177/002200278002400103
[12]	Özyildirim S, Criss N B. Survival of rationalism between hostility and economic growth[J]. Journal of Peace Research, 2001,38(4):515-535. doi: 10.1177/0022343301038004007
[13]	张卫东, 许敏, 李华. 经济权力、经济权利与资源配置[J]. 学习与实践, 2018(9):5-12.
	[Zhang Weidong, Xu Min, Li Hua. Economic power, economic rights and resource allocation. Study and Practice, 2018(9):5-12. ]
[14]	张云雷权力、道德与永久和平: 汉斯·摩根索国际政治思想再阐释 [J]. 世界经济与政治, 2012(2): 22-37, 156-157.
	[Zhang Yunlei. Power, morality and permanent peace: A new interpretation of the international thought of Hans Morgenthau. World Economics and Politics, 156-157. ]
[15]	Acemoglu D. Politics and economics in weak and strong states[J]. Journal of Monetary Economics, 2005,52(7):1199-1226. doi: 10.1016/j.jmoneco.2005.05.001
[16]	张贵洪. 均势理论、均势体系与多极现实[J]. 浙江社会科学, 2002(2):71-76.
	[Zhang Guihong. Equilibrium theory, equilibrium system and multipolar reality. Zhejiang Social Sciences, 2002(2):71-76. ]
[17]	倪世雄. 均势与当代均势理论: 西方国际关系理论简介之五[J]. 国际展望, 1987(5):25-27.
	[Ni Shixiong. Balance of power and contemporary balance of power theory: A brief introduction to the theory of international relations in the West. World Outlook, 1987(5):25-27. ]
[18]	李智. 试论摩根索的均势理论及在当代的应用[J]. 东北亚论坛, 2000,9(1):85-88.
	[Li Zhi. On Morgenthau's equilibrium theory and its application in the contemporary. Northeast Asia Forum, 2000,9(1):85-88. ]
[19]	Morgenthau H J. Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace[M]. Washington D C, USA: Library of Congress, 1993: 98-100.
[20]	崔世委, 王勇. 美国“印太战略”与印度“东向政策”的互动研究: 基于“均势理论”的视角[J]. 东南亚纵横, 2019(3):61-69.
	[Cui Shiwei, Wang Yong. Research on the interaction between US' "Indo-Pacific Strategy" and India's "Look East Policy": Based on the perspective of equilibrium theory. Crossroads: Southeast Asian Studies, 2019(3):61-69. ]
[21]	宋周莺, 虞洋. “一带一路”沿线贸易便利化发展格局研究[J]. 地理科学进展, 2020,39(3):355-366. doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2020.03.001
	[Song Zhouying, Yu Yang. Development pattern of trade facilitation of the countries along the Belt and Road. Progress in Geography, 2020,39(3):355-366. ]
[22]	Mendez A, Alden C. China in Panama: From peripheral diplomacy to grand strategy[J]. Geopolitics, 2019. doi: 10.1080/14650045.2019.1657413. doi: 10.1080/14650045.2019.1657413
[23]	Qin Q, Cheng S K, Li F, et al. Approach to the geopolitical influences of great powers in Southeast Asia: Case studies of China and the US[J]. Chinese Geographical Science, 2019,29(2):341-351. doi: 10.1007/s11769-018-0998-7
[24]	Lim K F. On China's growing geo-economic influence and the evolution of variegated capitalism[J]. Geoforum, 2010,41:677-688. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2010.04.003
[25]	潘峰华, 赖志勇, 葛岳静. 经贸视角下中国周边地缘环境分析: 基于社会网络分析方法[J]. 地理研究, 2015,34(4):775-786. doi: 10.11821/dlyj201504015
	[Pan Fenghua, Lai Zhiyong, Ge Yuejing. The surrounding geopolitical environment of China: A social network analysis based on trade data. Geographical Research, 2015,34(4):775-786. ]
[26]	杜德斌, 段德忠, 杨文龙, 等. 中国经济权力空间格局演化研究: 基于国家间相互依存的敏感性与脆弱性分析[J]. 地理学报, 2016,71(10):1741-1751. doi: 10.11821/dlxb201610007
	[Du Debin, Duan Dezhong, Yang Wenlong, et al. Spatial evolution pattern of Chinese economic power based on the sensitivity and vulnerability of states interdependence. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2016,71(10):1741-1751. ]
[27]	列·基斯特尔斯基. 不同水平结构相互依赖的不对称性: 合作与剥削[J]. 余林, 译. 世界经济译丛, 1993(4):25-30.
	[Lj Kistelsky. The asymmetry of interdependence between different levels of structure: Cooperation and exploitation. Translated by Yu Lin. World Economic Translation, 1993(4):25-30. ]
[28]	Liang Y, Chen M X, Lu D D, et al. The spatial evolution of geoeconomic pattern among China and neighboring countries since the reform and opening-up[J]. Sustainability, 2019,11(7), doi: 10.3390/su11072168. doi: 10.3390/su11072168
[29]	Thompson H. China and the mortgaging of America: Economic interdependence and domestic politics[M]. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010: 51-72.
[30]	林珏, 谢汶莉. 中美非对称相互依赖与权力变迁的实证分析[J]. 世界经济研究, 2015(10):44-53, 128.
	[Lin Jue, Xie Wenli. Empirical analysis of the asymmetric interdependence and power changes between China and USA. World Economy Studies, 2015(10):44-53, 128. ]
[31]	马亚华, 冯春萍. 空间视角下的东亚权力分布: 一种基于引力模型的比较静态分析 [J]. 世界经济与政治, 2014(11): 121-134, 159-160.
	[Ma Yahua, Feng Chunping. On the economic power distribution in East Asia: A comparative static analysis based on gravity model. World Economics and Politics, 2014(11): 121-134, 159-160. ]
[32]	王鸿刚. 新阶段的中美战略博弈与中国对美战略[J]. 现代国际关系, 2019(3):7-19, 63.
	[Wang Honggang. New Sino-US strategic games and China's strategy. Contemporary International Relations, 2019(3):7-19, 63. ]
[33]	尹国君, 刘建江. 中美服务贸易国际竞争力比较研究[J]. 国际贸易问题, 2012(7):58-66.
	[Yin Guojun, Liu Jianjiang. The comparison of international competitiveness on service trade between China and USA:2000-2009. Journal of International Trade, 2012(7):58-66. ]
[34]	张杰. 中美科技创新战略竞争的博弈策略与共生逻辑[J]. 亚太经济, 2019(4):5-12, 149.
	[Zhang Jie. The game strategy and symbiosis logic of the strategic competition of science and technology innovation between China and the United States. TAsia-Pacific Economic Review, 2019(4):5-12, 149. ]
[35]	杜德斌, 段德忠, 夏启繁. 中美科技竞争力比较研究[J]. 世界地理研究, 2019,28(4):1-11.
	[Du Debin, Duan Dezhong, Xia Qifan. A comparative study of Sino-US science and technology competitiveness. World Regional Studies, 2019,28(4):1-11. ]
[36]	许佳琪, 梁滨, 刘承良, 等. 中美城际科技创新合作网络的空间演化[J]. 世界地理研究, 2019,28(4):12-23.
	[Xu Jiaqi, Liang Bin, Liu Chengliang, et al. Spatial evolution of Sino-US inter-city scientific and technological cooperation network. World Regional Studies, 2019,28(4):12-23. ]
[37]	张茉楠, 周念利. 中美数字贸易博弈及我国对策[J]. 宏观经济管理, 2019(7):13-19, 27.
	[Zhang Monan, Zhou Nianli. China-US digital trade competitions and China's countermeasures. Macroeconomic Management, 2019(7):13-19, 27. ]
[38]	褚鸿博. 从博弈论的角度分析贸易争端中中国的博弈策略[J]. 全国流通经济, 2019(27):36-37.
	[Chu Hongbo. An analysis of China's game strategies in trade disputes from the perspective of game theory. China Circulation Economy, 2019(27):36-37. ]

类型	无权力区	权力低能区	权力中能区	权力高能区	极度权力区
投资权力值	≤0	(0, 0.01]	(0.01, 0.1]	(0.1, 0.5]	>0.5
贸易权力值	≤0	(0, 0.05]	(0.05, 0.1]	(0.1, 0.5]	>0.5
经济权力值	≤0	(0, 0.05]	(0.05, 0.2]	(0.2,0 .5]	>0.5

指标		TD
		TD≤0	0<TD≤0.1		TD>0.1
		TD≤0	ED<0	ED>0	ED<0	ED>0
ID≤0		经济双重负相关	投资枯竭性依赖	贸易补偿性依赖	投资枯竭性依赖	贸易补偿性依赖
0<ID≤1	ED<0	贸易枯竭性依赖	经济双低依赖		贸易导向性依赖
0<ID≤1	ED>0	投资补偿性依赖	经济双低依赖		贸易导向性依赖
ID>1	ED<0	贸易枯竭性依赖	投资导向性依赖		经济双高依赖
ID>1	ED>0	投资补偿性依赖	投资导向性依赖		经济双高依赖

类型	内涵	分类标准	代表
美国经济权力恒稳区	区域内国家一定时间内均属于美国经济权力区,即为美国经济权力恒稳区	2005、2009、2013、2017年均属于美国经济权力区	加拿大、墨西哥、智利、日本、韩国
美国经济权力介稳区	区域内国家一定时间内属于美国经济权力区,少部分时间属于中美经济权力均势区或中国经济权力区,即为美国经济权力介稳区	2005、2009、2013、2017年中有3 a属于美国经济权力区	法国、英国、意大利、安哥拉、巴西、菲律宾、巴拿马
中美经济权力平衡区	区域内国家一定时间内均属于中美经济权力均势区,即为中美经济权力平衡区	2005、2009、2013、2017年均属于中美经济权力均势区	印度、叙利亚、乌克兰、以色列、瑞典、瑞士
中美经济权力跳动区	区域内国家一定时间内在美国经济权力区与中国经济权力区跳动,即为中美经济权力跳动区	2005、2009、2013、2017年中有2 a属于中国经济权力区, 2 a属于美国权力区	马来西亚、南非、沙特阿拉伯、新西兰、奥地利
中国经济权力介稳区	区域内国家一定时间内属于中国经济权力区,少部分时间属于中美经济权力均势区或美国经济权力区,即为中国经济权力介稳区	2005、2009、2013、2017年中有3 a属于中国经济权力区	印度尼西亚、肯尼亚、澳大利亚、俄罗斯、土耳其、伊朗
中国经济权力恒稳区	区域内国家一定时间内均属于中国经济权力区,即为中国经济权力恒稳区	2005、2009、2013、2017年均属于中国经济权力区	尼泊尔、赞比亚、缅甸、埃塞俄比亚

类型	内涵	代表国家
经济双负依赖型	中美对其经济权力区具有相对高的贸易和投资依赖性,表现出绝对的经济劣势	中国：挪威
经济双负依赖型	中美对其经济权力区具有相对高的贸易和投资依赖性,表现出绝对的经济劣势	美国：无
经济双低依赖型	这类国家在贸易和投资领域对双方的相对依赖度较低,中美在经济上处于劣势	中国：日本、加拿大等
经济双低依赖型	这类国家在贸易和投资领域对双方的相对依赖度较低,中美在经济上处于劣势	美国：蒙古、巴西等
经济双高依赖型	这类国家在贸易和投资领域对中美两国具有高度依赖性	中国：新西兰、肯尼亚等
经济双高依赖型	这类国家在贸易和投资领域对中美两国具有高度依赖性	美国：加拿大、新加坡等
投资枯竭性依赖型	这类国家对双方的经济依赖以贸易为主,投资依赖度很低	中国：法国、乌拉圭等
投资枯竭性依赖型	这类国家对双方的经济依赖以贸易为主,投资依赖度很低	美国：爱尔兰、乌拉圭等
投资补偿性依赖型	这类国家与中国(美国)的经济依存相对依赖于贸易,投资依赖度较低,与中美两国贸易量较大而投资额较低	中国：无
投资补偿性依赖型	这类国家与中国(美国)的经济依存相对依赖于贸易,投资依赖度较低,与中美两国贸易量较大而投资额较低	美国：无
投资导向性依赖型	中国(美国)在这些国家的投资权力高、贸易权力低,经济影响主要来源于投资	中国：尼泊尔、科威特等
投资导向性依赖型	中国(美国)在这些国家的投资权力高、贸易权力低,经济影响主要来源于投资	美国：日本、泰国等
贸易枯竭性依赖型	这类国家与中美两国的经济往来高度依赖于投资,贸易处于显著弱势地位	中国：无
贸易枯竭性依赖型	这类国家与中美两国的经济往来高度依赖于投资,贸易处于显著弱势地位	美国：无
贸易补偿性依赖型	中美对其具有较高的贸易和投资依赖,贸易的比较优势弥补投资方面的不利条件,使其在经济上处于显性比较优势	中国：蒙古、比利时等
贸易补偿性依赖型	中美对其具有较高的贸易和投资依赖,贸易的比较优势弥补投资方面的不利条件,使其在经济上处于显性比较优势	美国：纳米比亚、安哥拉等
贸易导向性依赖型	这类国家贸易高度依赖于中美,中美两国对这些国家具有较高的贸易权力和较低的投资权力	中国：韩国、越南等
贸易导向性依赖型	这类国家贸易高度依赖于中美,中美两国对这些国家具有较高的贸易权力和较低的投资权力	美国：巴拿马、以色列等

Spatiotemporal variations and types of the economic power zones of China and the United States

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Like

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 9

References 38

Related Articles 5

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 0

年份	国家	无权力区	权力低能区	权力中能区	权力高能区	极度权力区
2005	中国	16	105	20	8	11
2005	美国	4	71	45	29	11
2009	中国	8	86	42	16	8
2009	美国	1	72	55	20	12
2013	中国	4	74	63	12	7
2013	美国	8	69	46	25	12
2017	中国	17	41	58	33	11
2017	美国	7	76	50	20	7

[1]	ZHANG Jinping, LIN Dan, ZHOU Xiangli, YU Zhenxin, SONG Wei, CHENG Yeqing. Spatial difference of multidimensional poverty and its influencing factors in the rural areas of Hainan Province [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2020, 39(6): 1013-1023.
[2]	Jianglong CHEN, Pingxing LI, Jinlong GAO. Spatiotemporal patterns and influencing factors of carbon emissions in the Pan-Yangtze River Delta region, 11990-2014 [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2016, 35(12): 1472-1482.
[3]	YAN Xiaobing. Spatial non-stationarity of the factors affecting crime rate at province scale in China [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2013, 32(7): 1159-1166.
[4]	YU Linjun, Sun Danfeng, PENG Zhongren, ZHANG Jian. Spatial Heterogeneity Analysis of Household Residential Location Choice: A Case Study in Orange County, Florida, USA [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2012, 31(8): 1024-1031.
[5]	TONG Baoquan, A Rong. On the Decision-making of Mineral Resource Development Models in the Inner Mongolia Grazing Areas [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2012, 31(12): 1693-1699.