地理科学进展  2016 , 35 (3): 265-275 https://doi.org/10.18306/dlkxjz.2016.03.001

研究综述

经济途径对地缘政治格局的影响机制及其空间表现研究进展

曹原12, 葛岳静13, 王淑芳1, 胡志丁3

1. 北京师范大学地理学与遥感科学学院,北京 100875
2. School of Geography, University of Wisconsin-Madison,Madison 53706, USA
3. 中国西南地缘环境与边疆发展协同创新中心,昆明 650500

Progress of research on impacts of economic approaches on geopolitical structure and spatial expression

CAO Yuan12, GE Yuejing13, WANG Shufang1, HU Zhiding3

1. School of Geography, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
2. School of Geography, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison 53706, USA
3. Collaborative Innovation Center for Geopolitical Setting of Southwest China and Borderland Development, Yunnan Normal University, Kunming 650500, China

收稿日期: 2015-07-25

接受日期:  2015-12-25

网络出版日期:  2016-03-25

版权声明:  2016 地理科学进展 《地理科学进展》杂志 版权所有

基金资助:  国家自然科学基金项目(41171097,41401157)国家科技支撑计划项目(2012BAK12B03)国家公派研究生项目(201406040147)

作者简介:

作者简介:曹原(1988-),女,山东临沂人,博士研究生,主要研究方向为全球化与地缘环境,E-mail: rarerabbit@163.com

展开

摘要

随着中国崛起,世界主要大国将战略中心转移至亚洲并通过各种经济组织和经济联盟等经济途径重塑中国周边环境,由此导致中国周边地缘环境形势变得极其复杂。中国则通过共建“一带一路”、亚洲基础设施投资银行、金砖国家开发银行等经济途径化解。本文按照全球—区域—国家间的尺度,探讨了国际经济组织、经济联盟和国家间经济相互依赖等3种主要经济途径对地缘政治格局的影响机制及空间表现。结果表明:通过国家间经济依赖的不对称性改变各国权力大小,进而影响地缘格局中地缘体的权力分配,其空间表现主要为影响地区冲突和改变国家地缘空间影响范围。而国际经济组织和经济联盟则通过权力再平衡影响地缘政治格局,其空间表现主要为数量增长、交错分布和空间范围扩大。中国学者对如何通过经济途径增强地缘政治影响力、改善中国地缘环境的研究不够充分。中国作为崛起中的大国,应更为关注经济实力的增强对周边乃至世界地缘政治格局的影响。为此,应加强以下几个方面研究:①将经济相互依赖转化成为有效的地缘影响力;②利用国际经济组织和经济联盟拓展中国地缘政治空间;③“一带一路”空间走向及沿线国家;④多尺度经济途径影响效应分析;⑤运用定量模拟方法探求国家地缘影响力演变的影响因素以及驱动机制等,为中国的地缘战略提供理论支撑和研究实证。

关键词: 经济途径 ; 地缘政治格局 ; 经济相互依赖 ; 国际经济组织 ; 经济联盟

Abstract

With the rise of China's economic and political power, many large countries in the world shift their strategic focus on Asia and try to influence China's regional political economic environment through various economic organizations and unions, which result in a complicated environment for China's development. China responds to the situation through the creation of the "Belt and Road Initiative", Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, and BRICS Development Bank. In this article, we discuss the mechanism of influence of international economic organizations, economic unions, and national economic interdependence on geopolitical structure and their spatial expression at the global, regional, and national levels. The results show that: asymmetric economic interdependence can influence national power and power distribution in world geopolitical structure, with the spatial expression of regional conflicts and change of spatial scope of influence of countries. International economic organizations and unions can influence global and regional geopolitical structure by rebalancing power, with a spatial expression of growth of influence, mosaic distribution, and spatial expansion. Within China there has been little research on how China can enhance its geopolitical influence and improve the geopolitical environment by economic approaches. In the future, research should focus on how to transform economic interdependence into effective geopolitical influence; how to expand geopolitical space by using international economic organizations and unions; the "Belt and Road" strategy, especially with regard to the spatial trends and country situations in areas that the initiative involves; and research on multi-scale economic approaches and application of quantitative models to provide theoretical support and empirical evidence for the development of China's geopolitical strategy.

Keywords: economic approaches ; geopolitical structure ; economic interdependence ; international economic organizations ; economic unions

0

PDF (616KB) 元数据 多维度评价 相关文章 收藏文章

本文引用格式 导出 EndNote Ris Bibtex

曹原, 葛岳静, 王淑芳, 胡志丁. 经济途径对地缘政治格局的影响机制及其空间表现研究进展[J]. , 2016, 35(3): 265-275 https://doi.org/10.18306/dlkxjz.2016.03.001

CAO Yuan, GE Yuejing, WANG Shufang, HU Zhiding. Progress of research on impacts of economic approaches on geopolitical structure and spatial expression[J]. 地理科学进展, 2016, 35(3): 265-275 https://doi.org/10.18306/dlkxjz.2016.03.001

1 引言

随着中国经济的迅速发展,全球财富和战略资源加速东移,世界经济重心逐渐转向亚洲,全球权力格局出现新的分化和重组,地缘政治格局由冷战后美国主导的一超独霸逐渐向一超多强演变,国家与国家集团之间的地缘战略也在发生变化(陆大道等, 2013)。随着中国的崛起,美国加紧战略东移,实施“亚太再平衡”战略;欧盟从推动贸易出发,将战略重点从美国转移到亚洲(Dent, 1999);俄罗斯推行“亚洲新外交”,力图扩大在中国周边地区的影响力;再加上东海问题、南海问题、钓鱼岛问题及台湾问题等,中国周边地缘政治格局的形势极其复杂。2013年,习近平主席先后提出了共建“丝绸之路经济带”和“海上丝绸之路”的战略构想。中国也借此机遇,积极推动亚洲基础设施投资银行、金砖国家开发银行、中国—东盟命运共同体等重大合作倡议,希望通过经济手段来化解中国崛起过程中产生的地缘问题(吕彬, 2015)。

从经济角度来讲,世界政治格局变化实际上是国家权力和利益的再分配。在新地缘政治时期,经济利益成为国家地缘战略的主要参量(李正等, 2014),各个国家把提高经济地位和增强经济实力作为提升国际地位重要的战略目标,通过多元化的经济手段来确保国家独立与国家安全。在当前的整体环境下,经济途径已经成为了一国拓展利益空间乃至战略空间的重要手段(毛汉英, 2014),国家间任何经济往来、交流与合作,成立的各经济组织和经济战略都具有地理上的空间导向意义,能够化解或改变国际间的地缘格局。传统意义上的政治盟友会因为经济利益而产生矛盾(刘雪莲等, 2011),同样,政治理念不同的两方会因共同的经济利益达成妥协。随着国家间经贸往来和对外投资数额以及参与国数量的增加,各国各地区经济利益互相渗透,在经济上的相互依存逐渐加深,使经济途径成为处理外交事务的重要渠道。因此,在此背景下研究经济途径对地缘政治格局的影响具有重要的理论和现实意义。

由国家之间经贸往来和对外投资等经济联系而导致地缘政治格局发生变化的最直接的经济途径主要包括两个方面:一方面,国家通过加入国际经济组织或缔结经济联盟而改变地缘政治版图(Walt, 1987);另一方面,一国可以通过经济上的相互依赖改善与其他国家的地缘关系从而扩大地缘政治空间范围(Keohane et al, 1987)。经典地缘政治理论均从权力和空间两个视角来论述国家通过拓展其政治利益空间,不断与其他国家相抗衡的过程(胡志丁等, 2015)。近年来,学者们还广泛地从全球、区域及热点地区等多个尺度探讨了地缘政治格局问题(王在邦, 2008; Evans, 2011; 林利民, 2012)。本文将结合以上两个维度,从权力与空间两个视角和全球、区域、国家间三个尺度探讨上述两方面经济途径对地缘政治格局影响机制和空间表现,并从中国实际出发,提出加强相关研究的建议。

2 国际经济组织和经济联盟对地缘政治格局的影响

国际经济组织指的是国家之间在经济往来日渐密切的基础上,利用经济条约或经济协定的约束而建立起来的国际性经济机构。经济组织的目的是为了协调成员国之间的经济关系并推动、促进成员国之间的经济合作,致力于推进经济一体化进程。国际经济组织的涵义分为广义和狭义。广义的国际经济组织包括国家政府间的经济组织和非政府间的经济组织。狭义的国际经济组织仅指国家政府间的经济组织。国际经济组织的一个重要标志是由国家或代表国家的单位和组织组成。经济联盟指的是参与国在建立关税同盟的基础上,制定相同的经济政策,使货币在流通方面更加顺畅,最终实现同盟国之间商品和生产要素的自由流动,形成超国家的经济协调机构。对参与国来说,经济联盟内国家之间的合作更加深入和密切。

2.1 影响机制和途径

从权力视角来看,国际经济组织和经济联盟的建立都会使国家之间的权力发生再平衡(McGowan et al, 1975; He, 2008),进而对地缘政治格局产生影响。从全球层面来看,主权国家加入一个或多个经济组织或经济联盟,虽然降低了国家之间的经济交往成本(张胜军, 2004),但同时又受到不同经济组织或经济联盟的牵制,其地缘影响力势必会发生改变,并导致国家之间的权力格局发生变化。同时,自身实力较弱的国家可以通过缔结经济联盟的方式提高共同的国际地缘地位,获得与其他实力较强的国家以及组织或联盟对抗和平衡的资本(Papayoanou, 1997)。如东南亚国家联盟在1992年提出建立自由贸易区,通过推进贸易自由化提高合作水平和经济一体化建设,提升了东盟的整体实力,也使东盟各国国际地位迅速提升,增强了地缘影响力。

从经济组织和经济联盟内部层面来看,一方面,各成员国通过内部经济政策的调整而形成更紧密的经济联系(Oneal et al, 1999, 2003; Capannelli et al, 2010),这一过程会削弱经济联盟和经济组织中的国家之间的地理边界,使国家之间边界变模糊(Thomes, 2013),联盟或组织朝着超国家经济体(super-state)的方向发展(Murphy, 2013);另一方面,各成员国还通过牺牲或让渡本国的部分权利来寻求更加长远的利益(Krause et al, 1975)。这些权利包括国家之间建立共同市场所需让渡的权利以及别国干涉本国经济运行的权利,国家让渡经济权利的多寡使得某些国家拥有比其他国家更加丰富的权力来源。在这种境况下,占主导或优势地位的国家拥有更多的话语权,可以通过组织或联盟的约束力量向其他国家施加压力。因此,在经济组织和经济联盟内部,弱势国家的选择倾向在很大程度上影响了国家之间的地缘政治格局。有学者认为弱势国家为了增强自身的实力而选择与实力较强的一方结盟,以增加在处理经济事务中的话语权;另外一种观点则正好相反,认为该类国家会选择实力较弱的一方结盟,目的是为了维持组织或者联盟内部的权力平衡(Walt, 1985)。但有一点可以肯定的是,无论一国选择倾向如何,其目的都是为了增强自身实力以及可运用的国家权力,也势必会引起经济组织和经济联盟内部的地缘政治结构发生改变。

2.2 国际经济组织和经济联盟的空间发展

2.2.1 数量增多,空间上交错分布

全球化使地缘政治的互动更加密切,也进一步削弱了地区地缘政治的独立性(金灿荣, 2008)。经济全球化与一体化进程中,国家之间的经济联系和相互依赖逐渐加深,但主权国家因受到地理边界的限制,所以许多国家希望通过设立国际经济组织来克服国家行政边界的局限性,以此来协调国家之间的主张与政策,通过强化国家之间的经济联系与经济合作,促使国际经济关系能够超越国家之间的行政边界,共同发展经济(周启元, 1991)。因此,国际经济组织是国家间经济联系日益密切,经济生活日趋国际化、一体化的产物,是国际地缘经济格局发生变化的一个重要表现。自从1815年莱茵河沿岸国家成立了世界上最早的国际经济组织——莱茵河委员会以来,国际经济组织和经济联盟的数量逐渐增加。在世界范围内也逐渐发展形成若干经济集团、经济联盟和经济组织相互竞争的地缘格局(Sparke M, 2007)。根据英国《经济学人》2009年公布的数据,截至目前世界上已建立的区域或次区域的经济合作组织达109个,其中最著名的有亚太经济合作组织、欧洲联盟、北美自由贸易区、非洲自由贸易区、非洲联盟、东南亚国家联盟和海湾合作委员会等。无论是第二次世界大战刚结束时成立的国际货币基金组织,冷战时期的经济互助委员会,冷战后期成立的亚太经合组织,冷战结束后的欧洲联盟,还是2015年1月1日正式启动的欧亚经济联盟等,这些经济组织都对世界地缘政治格局产生了重要影响。

随着全球化的深入,各国为了满足不同的经济合作和空间发展需求,在世界范围内形成了由不同国家组成、区域范围各异的经济组织和经济联盟,并形成了在空间上交错重叠的地缘政治格局。如亚太经合组织(APEC),其空间范围内涵盖的东南亚国家联盟、东亚峰会、北美自由贸易区等组织,同时,与上海合作组织、金砖国家、拉美经济体系等都有交错。在国家层面,一个国家会根据其地理位置及战略平衡需要加入多个经济组织或经济联盟(Ganesan, 2000),参与更多的经济博弈。在经济组织与经济联盟空间上交错分布的同时,各国也通过经济组织或联盟有效地拓展本国地缘政治空间,并对其他地缘体的地缘政治空间进行挤压。例如中国通过“上海合作组织”进一步深化了与俄罗斯和中亚国家之间的关系,拓展了中国北部与西北部的地缘政治空间(张根海, 2012)。通过与东南亚国家成立中国—东盟自由贸易区拓展了中国在海上的地缘政治空间,但印、越、老、缅、柬、泰六国在2000年成立的湄公河—恒河流域合作组织,又在一定程度上挤压了中国与东盟国家进行合作的空间。

2.2.2 空间范围扩大

近年来,许多区域经济合作组织通过扩大影响力和规模,在空间上进行扩张,并努力推进市场、经济和社会一体化的进程(毛汉英, 2014)。具体表现就是越来越多的国家加入到各个国际或区域经济组织和联盟当中,通过经济组织或经济联盟促进本国的经济发展和竞争力提升,增强在国际上或区域内的话语权。如欧洲联盟自1952年成立以来经过5次扩张,从最初的6个成员国发展至现在的28个成员国,在空间范围扩大的同时对俄罗斯的地缘政治空间形成了挤压;东南亚国家联盟也从最初的5个国家发展至现在的10个国家,还在20世纪90年代初发起了一系列以东盟为中心的区域合作机制。同时,区域经济组织和联盟也在向世界范围内扩张,从发达国家之间的“北北合作”向发达国家和发展中国家之间的“南北合作”过渡。如APEC在1989年11月成立时只有12个成员,现在发展到21个成员,还有东盟秘书处、太平洋经济合作理事会和太平洋岛国论坛3个观察员。APEC的21个成员体,从空间分布来看,遍布东亚、北美、南美和大洋洲;就经济发展水平来看,既有发达国家,又有发展中国家。

3 国家间经济相互依赖对地缘政治格局的影响

地缘政治格局是国家间权力关系的交织,在经济方面,国家之间的贸易、投资等方面交流促使国家之间产生了相互依赖,这一过程中成本—收益的差异决定了国家间的经济相互依赖程度的不同(罗伯特·基欧汉等, 2002)。国家间经济相互依赖关系程度的差异能否转化为有效的国家权力、抑制还是促进国家间空间的冲突,对地缘政治格局将产生重要的影响。

3.1 权力视角下的经济相互依赖

国家间的经济相互依赖关系通过影响国家之间的权力关系来改变地缘政治格局。经济相互依赖如何转化成国家权力,在国际关系学领域有详细的解释。其中最著名的有现实主义和自由主义两个学派。现实主义派学者认为:国家之间的经济交流和往来产生的互利互惠往往是不对等的,不同的国家从经济联系和往来中的获益不同,如果切断经济联系和往来,各国所付出的代价有所不同,优势国对于这种变化的调整成本要小于劣势国(华尔兹, 2003),这种不对等的关系可以影响国家之间的权力关系(Cooper, 1968)。优势国通过挖掘和利用这种经济领域的优势,将其运用到政治领域去影响他国(Hirschman, 1980),改变国家之间的权力重心,影响区域的地缘格局。自由主义派学者Keohane(2005)进一步从敏感性和脆弱性的角度对经济相互依赖转化成国家权力的机制进行了分解(罗伯特·基欧汉等, 2002),其中敏感性强调一国感受外部地缘环境变化的灵敏程度,灵敏程度低的国家可能获得更多的权力;脆弱性强调外部环境发生变化后国家调整成本的高低,更倾向于表示国家硬实力,也可以在某种意义上代表着一国的权力大小(Kenneth, 2003)。

虽然上述两派学者观点有分歧,但前提假设是相同和确定的,即把一国的政治决策和行为看作是经济和政治互动的产物,而政治决策和行为都是理性的,其基本的争论点是建立在不平等的相互依赖能否直接转化成国家权力。受到批判地缘政治学理念的影响(Dodds, 2001; 胡志丁等, 2015),有学者对上述假设提出质疑,认为不平等的经济相互依赖不能直接转化成为国家权力,一国对他国依赖程度较低并不能使这个国家将这种优势直接转化成改变地缘关系的一个影响因素(Wagner, 1988)。其原因有二:一是在经济领域中,相互依赖所包含的是市场权力可以转化为效益,并且能够提高一国在处于风险时期的承受能力。在这种情况下,不平等的经济相互依赖有可能无法转化成为政治影响力;二是当处于弱势的一方在承受来自另一方可能由经济相互依赖的优势转化而成的政治优势所作出改变时,如果改变的成本大于接受优势国的经济制裁所承受的损失,那么弱势国宁可选择经济制裁也不会作出改变。在这种情况下,即使一国在与其他国家的经济联系中占有优势,但这种优势也并不足以转化成为政治影响力而改变地缘政治格局(Wagner, 1988)。

3.2 空间表现

国家间的经济相互依赖对地缘政治格局在空间上的影响主要有两种形式。一是由于国家之间的经济相互依赖关系引发的冲突而改变地缘政治格局;另一种是一国通过加强与其他国家在经济上的依赖程度来扩展其地缘政治空间。

3.2.1 区域冲突

20世纪80年代以来,世界范围内局部地区的战争和冲突从未停止过,虽然冲突没有扩大至全球量级,但仍对世界地缘政治格局产生了重要影响(毛汉英, 2014)。按照地缘政治学的基本观点,在国家关系中,为了谋求领土、资源等生存条件和生存空间的支配权与控制权,对抗一般是不可避免的(孔小惠, 2010; 陆大道等, 2013)。从经济角度来看,国与国之间在商品市场、资源供给、资金技术流向等多个方面形成了依赖、竞争或者合作的关系,这些关系存在着引发对抗和冲突的可能性(Barbieri, Schneider et al, 1999; 余万里, 2003; 邝艳湘, 2007)。

从经济相互依赖的角度来看(Stein, 2003),如果切断经济上相互依赖的国家之间的经济联系,各国都会产生一定的调整成本,国家之间为避免产生额外的成本而选择维持现状,而且依赖的程度越高,地缘政治格局也就越容易维持在和平稳定的状态 (Polachek, 1980)。当国家之间的相互依赖不对称时,外来的“渗透”损害了弱势国家的利益,当强国之间因有限的市场和资源而产生竞争时,国家之间经济上的联系非但不会促进和平,反而会引起更多国家间的冲突(Barbieri, Levy, 1999)。

国家间的经济相互依赖是否通过改变国家之间的联系而改变地缘政治格局,不能仅局限于静态分析。基于对未来期望值进行的动态分析,Copeland(1996)认为对未来贸易的预期水平才是真正决定国家间冲突还是和平的变量。当未来的收益大于可能的损失时,维持地缘政治格局现状的可能性越大;反之,打破现状的可能性越大,发生冲突并促使地缘空间格局再分配的可能性越大。此外,经济相互依赖能否引发冲突还取决于地缘体的类型以及当时的国际格局(鲍德温, 2001)。Hegre(2000)认为,相对于发展中国家之间的经济往来而言,发达国家之间的经济相互依赖可能更能够促进和平。也有研究表明,只有民主国家之间的相互依赖能够促进和平;民主与非民主国家、以及非民主国家之间的相互依赖会引发更加频繁的冲突(Gelpi et al, 2003)。还有研究表明,在贸易集团或国际组织内部国家之间的相互依赖才能促进和平,成员国与非成员国、或非成员国之间的经济联系则会导致更频繁的冲突(Mansfield et al, 2000)。

近年来,从经济相互依赖的视角对区域冲突的研究逐渐由国家层面转向“复合尺度下多主体的社会—空间中的经济往来”(Yeung, 2005),研究领域从单一的贸易转向其他经济领域,研究尺度从国家间的经济往来转向其他非政府层面,如跨国公司所带来的影响(Newman et al, 2011; 罗伯特·基欧汉等 2012),并运用多种定量模型进行分析(Grieco, 1988)。学者们通过引入经济变量,如GDP、价格弹性(Gasiorowski, 1986; Polachek et al, 1992)、经济增长率(Oneal et al, 1996)等,再结合其他诸如地理邻近性(Oneal et al, 1997)、政权类型(Barbieri, 1996, 1997)等非经济变量,利用回归分析(Gasiorowski, 1986; Mansfield, 1994)、概率统计(Domke, 1988)、逻辑回归分析(Barbieri, 1996, 2002; Oneal et al, 1996, 1997)等多种分析模型,通过相关性来评价国家之间维持和平或产生冲突的机制(表1)。但由于对变量的筛选和定义的不同以及数据样本的差异(邝艳湘, 2010),实证研究结果对于经济相互依赖能否引起冲突没有最终定论(余万里, 2003),也未能从空间角度得出国家间经济相互依赖对地缘政治格局变化的影响规律。

表1   国家间经济相互依赖与冲突/和平定量研究

Tab.1   Quantitative research about economic interdependence and conflicts between nations

模型类型文献贸易往来对和平/冲突的作用
预期收益模型Polachek, 1980促进和平
Copeland, 1996既能促进和平又能引发冲突
Polachek, 1997促进和平
Polachek et al, 1997促进和平
Polachek et al, 1999促进和平
Cai et al, 2013促进和平
合作博弈模型Grieco, 1990引发冲突
Snidal, 1991a, 1991b促进和平
Powell, 1991促进和平
Gowa, 1994无影响
非合作博弈模型Skaperdas et al, 1996两国博弈时促进和平,多国博弈时引发冲突
Morrow, 1997促进和平
Dorussen, 1997既能促进和平又能引发冲突,视情况而定
Dorussen, 1999取决于参与国家的数量
实证主义Gasiorowski, 1986既能促进和平又能引发冲突
Domke, 1988既能促进和平又能引发冲突
Polachek et al, 1992;
Polachek, 1992, 1997
引发冲突
Onealet al, 1996, 1997引发冲突
Barbieri, 1995, 1996, 1997引发冲突
Mansfield, 1994贸易往来促进和平,全方位经济开放引发冲突
社会网络分析法Maoz, 2009促进和平
合成模型Newman et al, 2011视市场范围与管理范围匹配程度和博弈情况而定

注:根据Barbieri, Schneider等(1999)及其他相关文献整理。

新窗口打开

3.2.2 地缘政治空间扩展

随着全球化的纵深发展以及各国经济联系的日益密切,国家利益的地理界限已经突破,地缘政治空间的扩张更多地通过经济途径来实现。利用经济途径拓展利益空间是运用经济联系(如投资和贸易等),通过增强经济上的依赖性来谋求在全球经济体系和区域经济体系层次上的优势地位。

从世界范围来看,运用国家间经济相互依赖这一经济途径拓展国家地缘政治空间主要有两大趋势。①以周边地区为基础,逐步向“大周边”以及世界范围内外溢和扩张(陈迎春, 2013);②各国加大了对“外新月形地区”的争夺。区位和自然环境在决定世界权力结构和国家利用经济途径拓展地缘空间的过程中发挥着重要作用(约翰斯顿, 2004),也是国家利用经济途径拓展地缘空间的重要决定因素,当前世界地缘政治空间的争夺已经从麦金德提出的“心脏地带”转向“外新月形地带”,如非洲地区。美、日、英、法、澳等国通过对外投资、联合开采矿产资源的方式展开对这一地区的争夺,中国也在近年来逐年增加对非洲的投资额度。将外商直接投资转化为自身的竞争力,充分利用市场和优化资源配置,增加非洲地区对外部的依赖性,从而达到拓展地缘政治空间的目的(张娟等, 2012)。

4 研究展望

国家和国家集团之间是由贸易和投资等经济活动联系在一起的,在经济交往的过程中往往会产生经济上的相互依赖,随着相互依赖的加深以及国家和国家集团对经济交往活动规模、范围以及市场规范等方面诉求的增强,经济联盟和经济组织应运而生;反过来,经济联盟和经济组织能促进国家之间的经济往来,进而加深国家之间的相互依赖。在此博弈和互动的过程中,伴随着地缘政治格局在空间上的改变(图1)。

图1   经济途径对地缘政治格局影响机制示意图

Fig.1   How economic approaches influence geopolitical structure

在经济途径如何影响地缘政治格局的研究中,学者们面临的最大挑战在于如何从理论的分析向定量评价转变,并选择有效的数据和具体的国家进行实证研究。在现有的研究成果中,多数集中在对经济途径影响机制的定性描述,只有少数研究将经济相互依赖的影响效用进行了定量化;同时在国家的选择上倾向于美国、日本、欧盟等发达国家和国家集团,而对弱国、小国如何利用经济相互依赖以及加入经济组织和联盟来增强自身的话语权研究较少。中国学者对于中国如何利用与其他国家之间的经济相互依赖关系,以及通过加入经济组织和经济联盟等经济途径来提高对地缘政治格局的影响力研究也很不够。

当前,中国已成为世界第二大经济体和世界第一货物贸易大国。中国经济的迅速崛起正在改变周边乃至世界的地缘政治格局,在全球战略东移(Mohan, 2013)的背景下,由中国崛起带来的世界权力中心转移和国际格局变动,对中国地缘战略研究提出了新的要求,也为地缘政治学的发展带来新的历史机遇(杜德斌等, 2015)。从中国经济发展与地缘环境的实际出发,未来需加强以下几个方面的研究:

第一,如何将经济相互依赖转化成为有效的地缘影响力,拓展中国的地缘政治空间。虽然近年来有学者根据国家之间的经济相互依赖关系定量测算了中国(Wang et al, 2015)、日本(胡志丁等, 2014)、美国(王淑芳等, 2015)等大国在中国周边热点地区的地缘影响力,但如何发挥这种存在于国家之间经济相互依赖中的地缘优势来增强中国对周边乃至世界的影响力尚未进行很好地阐述,而且研究范围只集中在几个大国,并没有发展成为具有普适性的理论体系和研究方法。因此,如何将经济优势转化成为政治领域中的影响力,并将这种影响力作为解决实际问题的助力应作为未来研究的方向之一。

第二,如何利用国际经济组织和经济联盟拓展中国地缘战略空间,满足中国和平崛起的需要。中国近年来积极倡导区域合作,如积极构建中国—东盟“10+1”、“10+3”等平台,加强与东盟国家的合作;通过金砖国家联盟加强与俄罗斯、巴西、印度、南非的战略合作;通过签订中韩、中澳自贸协定等经济协议加强与亚太地区主要国家的联系;特别是通过倡导成立亚洲基础设施投资银行和金砖国家开发银行,推动现有机构适应国际格局的演变。目前对这些举措的研究多从国际关系的角度进行,地理学者也应该与时俱进,将关注点聚焦全球地缘政治和地缘经济格局的变化,发挥地理学在空间及区域研究中的优势,加强对中国所倡导的区域合作以及经济组织的空间走向和参与国选择等方面的研究,为提高中国在国际社会中的战略地位提供决策支持。

第三,“一带一路”空间走向及沿线国家的相关研究。2013年,习近平主席相继提出建设“丝绸之路经济带”和“21世纪海上丝绸之路”的战略构想后,中国在陆海两个方向上建立起一系列的经济合作机制。包括“中俄蒙经济走廊”、“新亚欧大陆桥”、“中国—中亚经济走廊”、“中印孟缅经济走廊”、“中巴经济走廊”等由东到西、由北到南贯通亚洲大陆的陆上经济通道,以及从东向西贯通“太平洋—印度洋”的海上经济通道。“一带一路”战略在安全方面、尤其是发展空间上的重大拓展,其空间布局和走向打开了陆海两个方向通向欧洲、非洲和中亚、西亚、南亚、东南亚的经济大门,有助于更好地实现中国东西两翼战略的再平衡,拓展中国发展的地缘战略空间。在未来的研究中,应充分发挥地理学综合性、区域性及动态性的优势,加强“一带一路”区域内各国资源、环境、经济发展空间布局、空间差异及空间规划等方面的研究,推动“一带一路”沿线国家区域经济一体化进程。

第四,如何通过不同尺度的经济途径改善中国周边地缘环境。中国与周边国家在经济上均存在不同程度上的相互依赖,既有势均力敌也有差距悬殊。中国应结合与周边国家在发展上的历史脉络,根据与不同国家的经济相互依赖关系状况,以及近周边和大周边范围内经济组织和经济联盟参与国的状况,制定针对不同国家和区域的地缘战略,通过多尺度经济途径,改善提升中国周边的地缘环境。

第五,对主要国家和地区的实证研究。以中国大周边国家为例,采用定量模拟方法,探求国家地缘影响力的演变因素以及驱动机制,从地缘政治与地缘经济方面提供提供理论支撑和研究实证。在研究过程中,还应注意数据的真实性和准确性。例如,有些数据并非由官方网站提供,就可能影响研究的准确性以及研究结果的可靠程度;同时,部分研究中所选择的数据不能够很好地反映所研究的内容,如仅用一国的贸易数据就不能全面反映该国与其他国家的经济联系。因此,在未来研究中,应提高数据选择的准确度和精确度,力求全面、准确地反映研究内容,并得出真实可靠的研究结论。

第六,还应加强国际经济组织和联盟中国家主权让渡的研究,为中国争取利益最大化。在经济全球化浪潮中,为了推进贸易自由化和经济一体化,相互让渡部分主权已经成为各国常态,但让渡的主权应限制在经济和贸易领域,同时要有利于本国经济发展且让渡必须对等,否则将损害国家尊严和民族利益。作为一个发展中国家,中国经济的抗风险能力还比较弱。国际范围内发生了多次的金融风暴和经济危机表明,高度的开放市场往往伴随着更高的危机风险。中国在融入世界经济体系的进程中,应取长补短,有所为有所不为。通过自身实力的不断提高,改善地缘政治环境,使世界范围内的地缘政治格局朝向有利于中国方向发展。

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.


参考文献

[1] 鲍德温. 2001. 新现实主义和新自由主义[M]. 肖欢容, 译. 杭州: 浙江人民出版社.

[本文引用: 1]     

[Baldwin D A.2001. Neorealism and Neoliberalism[M]. Xiao H R, Trans. Hangzhou, China: Zhejiang People's Publishing House.]

[本文引用: 1]     

[2] 陈迎春. 2013.

论海外利益与中国的地缘经济空间

[J]. 发展研究, (3): 19-24.

https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1003-0670.2013.03.003      URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

全球化促使国家利益特别是经济利益越来越多地在国际层面上实现. 国际政治的重心也从传统的地缘政治转向地缘经济.地缘经济空间对国家维护和扩展海外利益的价值正在凸显.中国也需要确立地缘经济空间的观念和实现途径,以 维护海上运输线安全,保障海外市场的稳定,维护自己日增的海外利益.从当前和未来的发展需求而言,中国的地缘经济空间可以分为周边层次和大周边层次.不同 层次上的地缘经济空间,有着不同的国家利益诉求和实现途径.

[Chen Y C.2013.

Lun haiwai liyi yu Zhongguo de diyuan jingji kongjian

[J]. Development Research, (3): 19-24.]

https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1003-0670.2013.03.003      URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

全球化促使国家利益特别是经济利益越来越多地在国际层面上实现. 国际政治的重心也从传统的地缘政治转向地缘经济.地缘经济空间对国家维护和扩展海外利益的价值正在凸显.中国也需要确立地缘经济空间的观念和实现途径,以 维护海上运输线安全,保障海外市场的稳定,维护自己日增的海外利益.从当前和未来的发展需求而言,中国的地缘经济空间可以分为周边层次和大周边层次.不同 层次上的地缘经济空间,有着不同的国家利益诉求和实现途径.
[3] 杜德斌, 段德忠, 刘承良, . 2015.

1990年以来中国地理学之地缘政治学研究进展

[J]. 地理研究, 34(2): 199-212.

https://doi.org/10.11821/dlyj201502001      URL      Magsci      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

<p>地缘政治学脱胎于政治地理学,这种血缘关系决定了地理学在中国地缘政治研究和国家地缘战略的构建中的基础性作用。首先基于结构现实主义国际关系原理,运用地理学空间思维和现代组织行为学等理论,探讨了中国在崛起过程中修正地缘战略和树立地缘目标的重要性,认为和平崛起的中国需要地缘大思维,而地理学尤其是世界地理学,应首当其冲担当重任。在此基础上,系统梳理了中国地理学在地缘政治学领域的研究进展、主要成就以及存在的问题。研究表明:经过半个多世纪的发展,中国地理学的地缘政治学学科队伍不断壮大,学术成果精彩纷呈,并在重大领域有所突破。但其发展依然存在理论体系尚不完整、学科定位不清晰、优秀成果不足、过度依附西方思维等问题。鉴于此,提出了未来中国地理学在地缘政治学研究的主要努力方向。</p>

[Du D B, Duan D Z, Liu C L, et al.2015.

Progress of geopolitics of Chinese geography since 1990

[J]. Geographical Research, 34(2): 199-212.]

https://doi.org/10.11821/dlyj201502001      URL      Magsci      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

<p>地缘政治学脱胎于政治地理学,这种血缘关系决定了地理学在中国地缘政治研究和国家地缘战略的构建中的基础性作用。首先基于结构现实主义国际关系原理,运用地理学空间思维和现代组织行为学等理论,探讨了中国在崛起过程中修正地缘战略和树立地缘目标的重要性,认为和平崛起的中国需要地缘大思维,而地理学尤其是世界地理学,应首当其冲担当重任。在此基础上,系统梳理了中国地理学在地缘政治学领域的研究进展、主要成就以及存在的问题。研究表明:经过半个多世纪的发展,中国地理学的地缘政治学学科队伍不断壮大,学术成果精彩纷呈,并在重大领域有所突破。但其发展依然存在理论体系尚不完整、学科定位不清晰、优秀成果不足、过度依附西方思维等问题。鉴于此,提出了未来中国地理学在地缘政治学研究的主要努力方向。</p>
[4] 胡志丁, 刘玉立, 李灿松, . 2014.

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, 34(1): 50-57.

Magsci      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

<p>权力是国际政治的一个永恒话题,然而,国际关系学对权力的研究缺乏空间维度。考虑空间距离、地缘环境(由地理环境、地缘关系和地缘结构<span>3部分组成)等对权力的空间制约,权力在空间的不均衡分布就是地缘位势。据此理解,文章从权力的4个来源,即军事实力、经济实力、软实力和不平等相互依赖,并结合地理衰减原理构建了地缘位势评价方法。以中日钓鱼岛之争为例,定量评价了中日两国在钓鱼岛的地缘位势,结果表明:随着中国崛起,整体经济实力、军事实力和中日之间不平等相互依赖关系的转变,至2010年中国在钓鱼岛的地缘位势已经全面超越日本。这一评价结果既可以回应国人在钓鱼岛问题上的不同声音,同时也阐释了自2012年以来中国在钓鱼岛问题上积极的处理方式。</span></p>

[Hu Z D, Liu Y L, Li C S, et al.2014.

Power, geo-setting and evaluation method of geo-potential: A case study of the dispute over China and Japan on the Diaoyu islands

[J]. Tropical Geography, 34(1): 50-57.]

Magsci      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

<p>权力是国际政治的一个永恒话题,然而,国际关系学对权力的研究缺乏空间维度。考虑空间距离、地缘环境(由地理环境、地缘关系和地缘结构<span>3部分组成)等对权力的空间制约,权力在空间的不均衡分布就是地缘位势。据此理解,文章从权力的4个来源,即军事实力、经济实力、软实力和不平等相互依赖,并结合地理衰减原理构建了地缘位势评价方法。以中日钓鱼岛之争为例,定量评价了中日两国在钓鱼岛的地缘位势,结果表明:随着中国崛起,整体经济实力、军事实力和中日之间不平等相互依赖关系的转变,至2010年中国在钓鱼岛的地缘位势已经全面超越日本。这一评价结果既可以回应国人在钓鱼岛问题上的不同声音,同时也阐释了自2012年以来中国在钓鱼岛问题上积极的处理方式。</span></p>
[5] 胡志丁, 陆大道. 2015.

基于批判地缘政治学视角解读经典地缘政治理论

[J]. 地理学报, 70(6): 851-863.

https://doi.org/10.11821/dlxb201506001      URL      Magsci      [本文引用: 2]      摘要

<p>大国间的争霸与兴衰更替,无不受地缘法则的支配。地理学者应紧跟时代的步伐,准确把握国家利益之所在,抓住机遇为民族伟大复兴做出贡献。但是,缺乏对地缘政治学的历史和哲学的批判将不能准确理解和有效实践地缘政治理论。本文简要介绍了批判地缘政治学的发展,总结了批判地缘政治学的3个特点,据此对4个经典地缘政治理论进行了解读。为了简化解读过程,首先提出了一个解读4个经典地缘政治理论的分析框架;其次根据这个分析框架重点解读了麦金德的&#x0201c;历史的地理枢纽&#x0201d;;最后对4个经典地缘政治理论进行了批判性总结。通过批判性解读,得出经典地缘政治理论既有科学性一面,也有假说性和理念性的一面。经典地缘政治理论构建是基于国际地缘格局、国家利益空间分布、国家间空间冲突而构建的,并展现了理论建构者的身份,体现了地缘政治理论的历史性、社会性、情境性和地理知识&#x02014;权力结构。</p>

[Hu Z D, Lu D D.2015.

The re-interpretation of the classical geopolitical theories from a critical geopolitical perspective

[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 70(6): 851-863.]

https://doi.org/10.11821/dlxb201506001      URL      Magsci      [本文引用: 2]      摘要

<p>大国间的争霸与兴衰更替,无不受地缘法则的支配。地理学者应紧跟时代的步伐,准确把握国家利益之所在,抓住机遇为民族伟大复兴做出贡献。但是,缺乏对地缘政治学的历史和哲学的批判将不能准确理解和有效实践地缘政治理论。本文简要介绍了批判地缘政治学的发展,总结了批判地缘政治学的3个特点,据此对4个经典地缘政治理论进行了解读。为了简化解读过程,首先提出了一个解读4个经典地缘政治理论的分析框架;其次根据这个分析框架重点解读了麦金德的&#x0201c;历史的地理枢纽&#x0201d;;最后对4个经典地缘政治理论进行了批判性总结。通过批判性解读,得出经典地缘政治理论既有科学性一面,也有假说性和理念性的一面。经典地缘政治理论构建是基于国际地缘格局、国家利益空间分布、国家间空间冲突而构建的,并展现了理论建构者的身份,体现了地缘政治理论的历史性、社会性、情境性和地理知识&#x02014;权力结构。</p>
[6] 华尔兹. 2003. 国际政治理论[M]. 信强, 译. 上海: 上海人民出版社.

[本文引用: 1]     

[Walts K.2003. Theory of international politics[M]. Xin Q, Trans. Shanghai, China: Shanghai People's Publishing House.]

[本文引用: 1]     

[7] 金灿荣. 2008.

国际地缘政治格局变化及其对中国的影响

[J]. 现代国际关系, (5): 12-14.

URL      Magsci      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

政治寓于地理之中.拿破仑曾经说过:"只要了解了一国的地理,就能判断出一国的外交政策".尽管这样的说法不无夸张,但对于几乎所有国策家和国际战略研究者来说,地缘政治因素都是他们进行战略判断的基本出发点之一.要研究中国的战略处境和外交政策,东亚地缘政治局势无疑是最基本的判断出发点.然而东亚地缘政治局势在近代以来一贯缺乏真正的独立性,很大程度上受到欧亚大陆总体地缘政治格局的影响,并进一步推而广之受到全球地缘政治格局的影响.这里我将首先探讨在东亚地缘政治格局和周边地缘关系视角下中国地缘政治的总体特点,再分析更广大的欧亚大陆地缘政治和全球地缘政治变化,最后在此基础上总结中国总体地缘政治环境的最新变化,并提出相关对策.

[Jin C R.2008.

Changes in international geopolitics and their impacts on China

[J]. Contemporary International Relations, (5): 12-14.]

URL      Magsci      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

政治寓于地理之中.拿破仑曾经说过:"只要了解了一国的地理,就能判断出一国的外交政策".尽管这样的说法不无夸张,但对于几乎所有国策家和国际战略研究者来说,地缘政治因素都是他们进行战略判断的基本出发点之一.要研究中国的战略处境和外交政策,东亚地缘政治局势无疑是最基本的判断出发点.然而东亚地缘政治局势在近代以来一贯缺乏真正的独立性,很大程度上受到欧亚大陆总体地缘政治格局的影响,并进一步推而广之受到全球地缘政治格局的影响.这里我将首先探讨在东亚地缘政治格局和周边地缘关系视角下中国地缘政治的总体特点,再分析更广大的欧亚大陆地缘政治和全球地缘政治变化,最后在此基础上总结中国总体地缘政治环境的最新变化,并提出相关对策.
[8] 孔小惠. 2000.

地缘政治的涵义、主要理论及其影响国家安全战略的途径分析

[J]. 世界地理研究, 19(2): 19-26.

https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1004-9479.2010.02.003      URL      摘要

地缘政治具有多重涵义,本文概 括为地缘政治学理论、地缘政治要素和地缘政治活动三个方面。地缘政治学在发展过程中,形成了"海权论"、"陆权论"、"边缘地带论"和"空权论"等若干影 响国家安全战略的重要理论。在国家安全战略制定过程中,地缘政治产生着重要的影响。地缘政治理论塑造国家安全战略制定者的思维,地缘政治现实是国家制定对 外安全战略的重要依据,地缘政治活动构成国家安全战略的重要组成部份。

[Kong X H.2000.

Analyze on ways of geopolitics affecting a state's security strategy

[J]. World Regional Studies, 19(2): 19-26.]

https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1004-9479.2010.02.003      URL      摘要

地缘政治具有多重涵义,本文概 括为地缘政治学理论、地缘政治要素和地缘政治活动三个方面。地缘政治学在发展过程中,形成了"海权论"、"陆权论"、"边缘地带论"和"空权论"等若干影 响国家安全战略的重要理论。在国家安全战略制定过程中,地缘政治产生着重要的影响。地缘政治理论塑造国家安全战略制定者的思维,地缘政治现实是国家制定对 外安全战略的重要依据,地缘政治活动构成国家安全战略的重要组成部份。
[9] 邝艳湘. 2007.

和平还是冲突: 经济相互依赖的政治后果

[J]. 国际论坛, 9(3): 44-48.

URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

经济全球化和贸易自由化是当今 世界经济中两大不可逆转的潮流,各国进入经济上相互依赖的时代。经济上的相互依赖对国际政治究竟是福是祸,目前学术界的看法并不一致,基本上有四种观点 (1)经济上的相互依赖能减少冲突;(2)经济相互依赖会导致更频繁的冲突;(3)经济相互依赖可能减少冲突,也可能增加冲突,关键是取决于不同的情境和 条件;(4)经济相互依赖和冲突之间没有关系相关性。本文在综述这几种观点的基础上,对该领域未来的研究方向进行了展望。

[Kuang Y X.2007.

Peace or conflict: The political consequences of economic interdependence

[J]. International Forum, 9(3): 44-48.]

URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

经济全球化和贸易自由化是当今 世界经济中两大不可逆转的潮流,各国进入经济上相互依赖的时代。经济上的相互依赖对国际政治究竟是福是祸,目前学术界的看法并不一致,基本上有四种观点 (1)经济上的相互依赖能减少冲突;(2)经济相互依赖会导致更频繁的冲突;(3)经济相互依赖可能减少冲突,也可能增加冲突,关键是取决于不同的情境和 条件;(4)经济相互依赖和冲突之间没有关系相关性。本文在综述这几种观点的基础上,对该领域未来的研究方向进行了展望。
[10] 邝艳湘. 2010.

经济相互依赖、退出成本与国家间冲突升级: 基于动态博弈模型的理论分析

[J]. 世界经济与政治, (4): 123-138.

URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

经济相互依赖如何影响国家间的 政治关系是一个颇受争议的话题。基于马克.克里森兹的退出模型,作者构建了一个五阶段动态博弈模型,从动态视角考察经济相互依赖如何影响不同级别的冲突, 并着重对经济相互依赖如何抑制冲突升级的内在机制进行了理论研究,得出如下结论:随着经济相互依赖的加深,国家间发生低级别冲突的概率将会增加,但是低级 别冲突升级为战争的概率下降,即经济相互依赖有助于抑制冲突的升级。最后利用1949~2008年中美间政治经济关系的现实对理论分析的结论做了进一步的 说明。

[Kuang Y X.2010.

Economic interdependence, exit cost and conflict escalation: A theoretical analysis based on dynamic game model

[J]. World Economics and Politics, (4): 123-138.]

URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

经济相互依赖如何影响国家间的 政治关系是一个颇受争议的话题。基于马克.克里森兹的退出模型,作者构建了一个五阶段动态博弈模型,从动态视角考察经济相互依赖如何影响不同级别的冲突, 并着重对经济相互依赖如何抑制冲突升级的内在机制进行了理论研究,得出如下结论:随着经济相互依赖的加深,国家间发生低级别冲突的概率将会增加,但是低级 别冲突升级为战争的概率下降,即经济相互依赖有助于抑制冲突的升级。最后利用1949~2008年中美间政治经济关系的现实对理论分析的结论做了进一步的 说明。
[11] 李正, 陈才, 熊理然. 2014.

欧美地缘经济理论发展脉络及其内涵特征探析

[J]. 世界地理研究, 23(1): 10-18.

https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1004-9479.2014.01.002      URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

20世纪90年代初欧美地缘经济学一经诞生,就备受关注、讨论及 推崇,但在其性质及内涵的认识上则出现了诸多分歧,已影响到学科理论及实践的进一步发展。从地缘经济理论发生学角度,对欧美地缘经济学的实践背景、理论缘 起、发展流派等进行回顾与梳理,以辨析其性质及内涵特征。主要研究结论如下:(1)欧美地缘经济学具有深刻而丰富的理论渊源,世界范围内地缘经济合作实践 二度兴起,成为理论内涵的重要来源及宏观背景。多个相关或相近学科的研究成果,为其提供了理论准备,地缘政治学则是其直接理论来源;(2)随着地缘经济学 理论的地域扩散,形成了以美国、意大利和俄罗斯为中心的多个各具特色的理论学派。不同学科及其分支理论、观点与流派之间相互借鉴、交叉与融合,使其变得极 为庞博复杂;(3)地缘经济学已形成有别于地缘政治学的理论内涵及特征,不过总体上处于学科理论的初创阶段,其研究边界尚不清晰、核心理论有待建立、学科 体系有待完善。

[Li Z, Chen C, Xiong L R.2014.

An analysis on the theory origin and development vein of geo-economics abroad

[J]. World Regional Studies, 23(1): 10-18.]

https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1004-9479.2014.01.002      URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

20世纪90年代初欧美地缘经济学一经诞生,就备受关注、讨论及 推崇,但在其性质及内涵的认识上则出现了诸多分歧,已影响到学科理论及实践的进一步发展。从地缘经济理论发生学角度,对欧美地缘经济学的实践背景、理论缘 起、发展流派等进行回顾与梳理,以辨析其性质及内涵特征。主要研究结论如下:(1)欧美地缘经济学具有深刻而丰富的理论渊源,世界范围内地缘经济合作实践 二度兴起,成为理论内涵的重要来源及宏观背景。多个相关或相近学科的研究成果,为其提供了理论准备,地缘政治学则是其直接理论来源;(2)随着地缘经济学 理论的地域扩散,形成了以美国、意大利和俄罗斯为中心的多个各具特色的理论学派。不同学科及其分支理论、观点与流派之间相互借鉴、交叉与融合,使其变得极 为庞博复杂;(3)地缘经济学已形成有别于地缘政治学的理论内涵及特征,不过总体上处于学科理论的初创阶段,其研究边界尚不清晰、核心理论有待建立、学科 体系有待完善。
[12] 林利民. 2012.

未来5~10年亚太地缘政治变局与中国

[J]. 现代国际关系,(4): 8-15, 62.

URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

未来5-10年,中国将成长为 世界第一大经济体,中国周边的大亚太地区则将成长为全球地缘政治中心区,这两个"成长"已经引起亚太地缘政治格局激烈、复杂的调整。今后一个时期,大亚太 地区将出现两种截然对立的地缘政治"范式"之争,相关各国将不得不在两种对立范式之间进行艰难选择,其中第一种范式是"零和范式",即亚太各主要力量围绕 中美划线,形成集团对抗;第二种范式是和平合作范式,即亚太各国以和平合作为手段化解相互间的分歧、冲突,亚太一体化进程不断取得进展。这两种截然对立的 地缘政治范式及相关各国的地缘政治选择,必然要对中国的地缘战略环境及战略选择产生不同的影响。中国的亚太地缘战略应力避第一种范式,力争第二种范式,并 应积极引导亚太相关力量进行类似的选择。

[Lin L M.2012.

Weilai 5~10 nian Yatai diyuan zhengzhi bianju yu Zhongguo

[J]. Contemporary International Relations,(4): 8-15, 62.]

URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

未来5-10年,中国将成长为 世界第一大经济体,中国周边的大亚太地区则将成长为全球地缘政治中心区,这两个"成长"已经引起亚太地缘政治格局激烈、复杂的调整。今后一个时期,大亚太 地区将出现两种截然对立的地缘政治"范式"之争,相关各国将不得不在两种对立范式之间进行艰难选择,其中第一种范式是"零和范式",即亚太各主要力量围绕 中美划线,形成集团对抗;第二种范式是和平合作范式,即亚太各国以和平合作为手段化解相互间的分歧、冲突,亚太一体化进程不断取得进展。这两种截然对立的 地缘政治范式及相关各国的地缘政治选择,必然要对中国的地缘战略环境及战略选择产生不同的影响。中国的亚太地缘战略应力避第一种范式,力争第二种范式,并 应积极引导亚太相关力量进行类似的选择。
[13] 刘雪莲, 徐立恒. 2011.

当代地缘政治学研究的新视域与新动向

[J]. 山东社会科学, (1): 134-137.

URL      Magsci      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

以冲突为内核,以地理空间的控制与争夺为主旨,这便是传统地缘政治的精髓.经济全球化的蓬勃发展、科学技术的进步、国际经济交往的频繁使得传统的地理空间被超越,也使地缘政治学的发展受到挑战,许多人质疑地缘政治学本身存在的意义.现时代地缘政治研究依然是国际政治研究的重要领域,并被全球化的发展赋予了新的内涵和外延,全球化时代的地缘政治研究需要拓展新的研究视阈.其中,区域、非传统安全、经济与政治相结合、地缘空间的拓展等已成为当前地缘政治研究的新领域.

[Liu X L, Xu L H.2011.

The new sight and trend of contemporary geopolitics

[J]. Shandong Social Sciences, (1): 134-137.]

URL      Magsci      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

以冲突为内核,以地理空间的控制与争夺为主旨,这便是传统地缘政治的精髓.经济全球化的蓬勃发展、科学技术的进步、国际经济交往的频繁使得传统的地理空间被超越,也使地缘政治学的发展受到挑战,许多人质疑地缘政治学本身存在的意义.现时代地缘政治研究依然是国际政治研究的重要领域,并被全球化的发展赋予了新的内涵和外延,全球化时代的地缘政治研究需要拓展新的研究视阈.其中,区域、非传统安全、经济与政治相结合、地缘空间的拓展等已成为当前地缘政治研究的新领域.
[14] 陆大道, 杜德斌. 2013.

关于加强地缘政治地缘经济研究的思考

[J]. 地理学报, 68(6): 723-727.

URL      Magsci      [本文引用: 2]      摘要

大国间的争霸与兴衰更替,无疑不受地缘政治和地缘经济法则的支配。冷战结束以来,随着中国等新兴国家经济的迅速发展,国际权力结构正发生深刻重组,世界正在进入新的地缘政治、地缘经济大时代,中国和平发展亟需地缘政治学、地缘经济学的理论支撑。本文在总结世界地缘政治和地缘经济发展态势的基础上,从思想渊源上论述了地理学在地缘政治学和地缘经济学发展中的基础性作用,剖析了当前中国地理学在地缘政治地缘经济领域研究中的不足,进而提出了地理学界如何加强地缘政治地缘经济研究的几点建议。

[Lu D D, Du D B.2013.

Some thoughts on the strengthening of geopolitical and geo-economic studies

[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 68(6): 723-727.]

URL      Magsci      [本文引用: 2]      摘要

大国间的争霸与兴衰更替,无疑不受地缘政治和地缘经济法则的支配。冷战结束以来,随着中国等新兴国家经济的迅速发展,国际权力结构正发生深刻重组,世界正在进入新的地缘政治、地缘经济大时代,中国和平发展亟需地缘政治学、地缘经济学的理论支撑。本文在总结世界地缘政治和地缘经济发展态势的基础上,从思想渊源上论述了地理学在地缘政治学和地缘经济学发展中的基础性作用,剖析了当前中国地理学在地缘政治地缘经济领域研究中的不足,进而提出了地理学界如何加强地缘政治地缘经济研究的几点建议。
[15] 吕彬. 2015.

“一带一路”与中国的地缘政治战略

[J]. 科学·经济·社会, 33(1): 50-54.

URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

当前中国推行的“一带一路”战略有着新的时代内涵与意义,它是对传统地缘政治理论的一种发展与创新.“一带一路”战略不仅是中国外交战略的新体现,也是基于中国地缘环境的现实所作出的正确决断.同时,“一带一路”战略也面临着各种挑战.

[Lv B.2015.

"The Silk Road Economic Belt and the Marine Silk Road" and the geopolitical strategy of China

[J]. Science·Economy·Society, 33(1): 50-54.]

URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

当前中国推行的“一带一路”战略有着新的时代内涵与意义,它是对传统地缘政治理论的一种发展与创新.“一带一路”战略不仅是中国外交战略的新体现,也是基于中国地缘环境的现实所作出的正确决断.同时,“一带一路”战略也面临着各种挑战.
[16] 毛汉英. 2014.

中国周边地缘政治与地缘经济格局和对策

[J]. 地理科学进展, 33(3): 289-302.

https://doi.org/10.11820/dlkxjz.2014.03.001      URL      Magsci      [本文引用: 3]      摘要

在对19 世纪末和20 世纪西方代表性地缘政治与地缘经济理论进行重点介绍的基础上,分析了中国周边地缘政治与地缘经济的历史和现状特点,阐述了中国周边地缘政治与地缘经济的基本格局与发展态势,即:北部地缘政治关系紧密,地缘经济发展较快;西部地缘政治关系持续发展,地缘经济合作前景广阔;西南部为地缘政治破碎带,地缘经济极具潜力;南部地缘政治与地缘经济关系总体良好,但南海问题是不稳定因素;东部地缘政治热点问题敏感复杂,地缘经济结构相对稳定。最后提出了改善提升中国周边地缘政治关系与发展地缘经济的“北联、西进、南合、东拓”地缘战略及对策建议。

[Mao H Y.2014.

Geopolitical and geo-economic situation around and China's strategies

[J]. Progress in Geography, 33(3): 289-302.]

https://doi.org/10.11820/dlkxjz.2014.03.001      URL      Magsci      [本文引用: 3]      摘要

在对19 世纪末和20 世纪西方代表性地缘政治与地缘经济理论进行重点介绍的基础上,分析了中国周边地缘政治与地缘经济的历史和现状特点,阐述了中国周边地缘政治与地缘经济的基本格局与发展态势,即:北部地缘政治关系紧密,地缘经济发展较快;西部地缘政治关系持续发展,地缘经济合作前景广阔;西南部为地缘政治破碎带,地缘经济极具潜力;南部地缘政治与地缘经济关系总体良好,但南海问题是不稳定因素;东部地缘政治热点问题敏感复杂,地缘经济结构相对稳定。最后提出了改善提升中国周边地缘政治关系与发展地缘经济的“北联、西进、南合、东拓”地缘战略及对策建议。
[17] 罗伯特·基欧汉, 约瑟夫·奈. 2002. 权力与相互依赖[M]. 门洪华, 译. 北京: 北京大学出版社.

[本文引用: 2]     

[Keohane R O, Nye J S.2002. Power and interdependence[M]. Men H H, Trans. Beijing, China: Peking University Press.]

[本文引用: 2]     

[18] 王淑芳, 葛岳静, 刘玉立. 2015.

中美在南亚地缘影响力的时空演变及机制

[J]. 地理学报, 70(6): 864-878.

https://doi.org/10.11821/dlxb201506002      Magsci      [本文引用: 2]      摘要

<p>南亚是中美两国重要的地缘战略区,无论是对中国海上运输的安全和西部边疆的稳定,还是对美国实施&#x0201c;亚太再平衡&#x0201d;战略,都有着十分重要的作用。如何解析中美在南亚地缘影响力的变化及演变机制,是需要解决的关键科学问题。结合地理学、国际关系学和政治学研究视角,采用数学建模方法,构建国家地缘影响力的指标体系和模型,选取南亚为研究区域,探讨中美在南亚地缘影响力的时空演变,探寻地缘影响力演变的影响因素以及驱动机制。结果表明:① 近10年,中美在南亚的地缘影响力在小幅波动中呈逐年上升趋势。从增幅比率看,中国在南亚地缘影响力的增速要比美国快。② 国家地缘影响力演变是一个缓慢过程。2003-2012年间,中美在南亚国家和地区的地缘影响力变化幅度不大。③ 硬实力、软实力、相互依赖力和摩擦力是地缘影响力演变的主要影响因素。其中,硬实力和软实力是主导因素,起拉力作用;相互依赖力是辅助因素,起推力作用;而摩擦力是弱化因素,起反向力作用。④ 中美在南亚地缘影响力演变的驱动力包括地缘区位、地缘政治、地缘经济和地缘文化。地缘区位是国家地缘影响力演变的制约力,地缘政治是主导力,地缘经济是驱动力,地缘文化是辐射力。⑤ 国家硬实力不等于地缘影响力,国家硬实力强并不能代表其对外的地缘影响力就高,两者是非线性关系。硬实力虽起主导作用,但不能决定地缘影响力变化的强度和速度。</p>

[Wang S F, Ge Y J, Liu Y L.2015.

The spatio-temporal evolution and driving mechanism of geopolitical influence of China and the US in South Asia

[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 70(6): 864-878.]

https://doi.org/10.11821/dlxb201506002      Magsci      [本文引用: 2]      摘要

<p>南亚是中美两国重要的地缘战略区,无论是对中国海上运输的安全和西部边疆的稳定,还是对美国实施&#x0201c;亚太再平衡&#x0201d;战略,都有着十分重要的作用。如何解析中美在南亚地缘影响力的变化及演变机制,是需要解决的关键科学问题。结合地理学、国际关系学和政治学研究视角,采用数学建模方法,构建国家地缘影响力的指标体系和模型,选取南亚为研究区域,探讨中美在南亚地缘影响力的时空演变,探寻地缘影响力演变的影响因素以及驱动机制。结果表明:① 近10年,中美在南亚的地缘影响力在小幅波动中呈逐年上升趋势。从增幅比率看,中国在南亚地缘影响力的增速要比美国快。② 国家地缘影响力演变是一个缓慢过程。2003-2012年间,中美在南亚国家和地区的地缘影响力变化幅度不大。③ 硬实力、软实力、相互依赖力和摩擦力是地缘影响力演变的主要影响因素。其中,硬实力和软实力是主导因素,起拉力作用;相互依赖力是辅助因素,起推力作用;而摩擦力是弱化因素,起反向力作用。④ 中美在南亚地缘影响力演变的驱动力包括地缘区位、地缘政治、地缘经济和地缘文化。地缘区位是国家地缘影响力演变的制约力,地缘政治是主导力,地缘经济是驱动力,地缘文化是辐射力。⑤ 国家硬实力不等于地缘影响力,国家硬实力强并不能代表其对外的地缘影响力就高,两者是非线性关系。硬实力虽起主导作用,但不能决定地缘影响力变化的强度和速度。</p>
[19] 王在邦. 2008.

全球化进程与地缘政治格局的演变

[J]. 现代国际关系, (5): 1-2.

URL      Magsci      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

地缘政治属于国际政治范畴.任何政治行为和政治关系都具有时空规定性.政治的时间规定性形成政治史,政治的空间规定性形成地缘政治,政治的时空规定性形成地缘政治史.国际政治的核心内容是力量对比、权力结构及相互关系性质,以及相应的政治思潮.所以,分析地缘政治演变,需要关注地缘政治格局与性质演变的驱动因素.历史地看,市场经济全球化进程与地缘政治演变具有高度相关性.

[Wang Z B.2008.

Quanqiuhua jincheng yu diyuan zhengzhi geju de yanbian

[J]. Contemporary International Relations, (5): 1-2.]

URL      Magsci      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

地缘政治属于国际政治范畴.任何政治行为和政治关系都具有时空规定性.政治的时间规定性形成政治史,政治的空间规定性形成地缘政治,政治的时空规定性形成地缘政治史.国际政治的核心内容是力量对比、权力结构及相互关系性质,以及相应的政治思潮.所以,分析地缘政治演变,需要关注地缘政治格局与性质演变的驱动因素.历史地看,市场经济全球化进程与地缘政治演变具有高度相关性.
[20] 余万里. 2003.

相互依赖研究评述

[J]. 欧洲研究, (4): 51-61.

URL      [本文引用: 2]      摘要

本文旨在评述国际政治经济学关于相互依赖的理论和研究方法。文章指出,相互依赖的敏感性和脆 弱性导致了现实主义和自由主义在基本概念、相互依赖与权力的关系、相互依赖与和平的关系等问题上的分歧。文章概述了相互依赖研究的三种方法,预期收益模 型、博弈论和实证主义,指出了现有的相互依赖理论在方法上存在的缺陷和空白,并且提出了今后理论发展的方向。

[Yu W L.2003.

A study of interdependence

[J]. Chinese Journal of European Studies, (4): 51-61.]

URL      [本文引用: 2]      摘要

本文旨在评述国际政治经济学关于相互依赖的理论和研究方法。文章指出,相互依赖的敏感性和脆 弱性导致了现实主义和自由主义在基本概念、相互依赖与权力的关系、相互依赖与和平的关系等问题上的分歧。文章概述了相互依赖研究的三种方法,预期收益模 型、博弈论和实证主义,指出了现有的相互依赖理论在方法上存在的缺陷和空白,并且提出了今后理论发展的方向。
[21] 约翰斯顿R J. 2004. 人文地理学词典[M]. 柴彦威, 等, 译. 北京: 商务印书馆.

[本文引用: 1]     

[Johnston R J.2004. The dictionary of human geography[M]. Chai Y W, et al, trans. Beijing, China: The Commercial Press.]

[本文引用: 1]     

[22] 张根海. 2012.

“上海合作组织”区域合作机制: 一个新的视角

[J]. 学术论坛, 35(9): 53-57.

https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1004-4434.2012.09.013      URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

"上海合作组织"是21世纪国 际体系内建立的第一个新型区域合作组织,其成立不仅有深刻的国际政治背景,而且还具有重要的现实意义。从非传统安全视角看,"上海合作组织"的建立和发 展,维护了俄罗斯、中国以及中亚国家地缘政治稳定和国家安全,同时促进了各成员国在经济、政治、文化、外交以及军事等方面的合作,进一步深化了成员国相互 间的关系。然而,随着全球化进程的推进,霸权、多元、差异、冲突等非传统安全因素逐渐增多,对"上海合作组织"的构建和发展带来了新的挑战。因此,对"上 海合作组织"成员国来说,遵循合作、理解、团结、创新的运行机制,将势在必行。

[Zhang G H.2012.

"Shanghai hezuo zuzhi" quyu hezuo jizhi: Yige xinde shijiao

[J]. Academic Forum, 35(9): 53-57.]

https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1004-4434.2012.09.013      URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

"上海合作组织"是21世纪国 际体系内建立的第一个新型区域合作组织,其成立不仅有深刻的国际政治背景,而且还具有重要的现实意义。从非传统安全视角看,"上海合作组织"的建立和发 展,维护了俄罗斯、中国以及中亚国家地缘政治稳定和国家安全,同时促进了各成员国在经济、政治、文化、外交以及军事等方面的合作,进一步深化了成员国相互 间的关系。然而,随着全球化进程的推进,霸权、多元、差异、冲突等非传统安全因素逐渐增多,对"上海合作组织"的构建和发展带来了新的挑战。因此,对"上 海合作组织"成员国来说,遵循合作、理解、团结、创新的运行机制,将势在必行。
[23] 张娟, 刘钻石. 2012.

中国对非洲直接投资与资源寻求战略

[J]. 世界经济研究, (3): 75-80.

URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

虽然中国对非洲直接投资仅占中国对外直接投资总额的很小比重,但 是伴随着中国对能源和矿产的持续需求以及资源寻求战略的形成,非洲丰裕的自然资源提高了其对中国资本的吸引力。中国对非洲直接投资主要由国有企业推动。网 络理论认为,企业是嵌入在正式和非正式关系中的,而且企业通过对外投资来获取重要能力,从而提高竞争优势。本文通过基于承包工程的典型中非网络关系,解释 了中国在非洲的资源寻求型对外直接投资行为,认为国有企业的活动主要受到国家战略利益的驱动。

[Zhang J, Liu Z S.2012.

China's outward FDI in Africa and resource-seeking strategy

[J]. World Economy Study, (3): 75-80.]

URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

虽然中国对非洲直接投资仅占中国对外直接投资总额的很小比重,但 是伴随着中国对能源和矿产的持续需求以及资源寻求战略的形成,非洲丰裕的自然资源提高了其对中国资本的吸引力。中国对非洲直接投资主要由国有企业推动。网 络理论认为,企业是嵌入在正式和非正式关系中的,而且企业通过对外投资来获取重要能力,从而提高竞争优势。本文通过基于承包工程的典型中非网络关系,解释 了中国在非洲的资源寻求型对外直接投资行为,认为国有企业的活动主要受到国家战略利益的驱动。
[24] 张胜军. 2004.

全球化与国际组织的新角色

[J]. 国际论坛, 6(3): 14-19.

URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

战后以来 ,尽管联合国体系的治理卓有成效 ,对推动国际社会的稳定和发展做出了突出贡献 ,但随着全球化的来临 ,它们无论在理论上还是在实践中都遇到诸多矛盾和问题。国际组织如何在全球化进程中发挥更大作用 ,其面临的主要问题又是什么 ?本文从全球公民社会和全球治理的角度 ,分析评价了联合国体系的作用和缺陷 ,并对政府间国际组织在当前国际社会中的定位 ,特别是在全球化进程中的管理和协调作用进行了较为深入的分析。

[Zhang S J.2004.

Globalization and the new role of international organizations

[J]. International Forum, 6(3): 14-19.]

URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

战后以来 ,尽管联合国体系的治理卓有成效 ,对推动国际社会的稳定和发展做出了突出贡献 ,但随着全球化的来临 ,它们无论在理论上还是在实践中都遇到诸多矛盾和问题。国际组织如何在全球化进程中发挥更大作用 ,其面临的主要问题又是什么 ?本文从全球公民社会和全球治理的角度 ,分析评价了联合国体系的作用和缺陷 ,并对政府间国际组织在当前国际社会中的定位 ,特别是在全球化进程中的管理和协调作用进行了较为深入的分析。
[25] 周启元. 1991.

论国际经济组织的形成、性质和作用

[J]. 吉林大学社会科学学报, (1): 41-47.

URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

国际经济组织是当代国际经济关系的重要内容,它的迅速发展是战后世界经济发展中的一种新现象,它在国际经济关系中的作用日益增强。文章认为国际经济组织的 产生和发展是社会生产力和国际经济关系发展的结果;它是推动和发展国际经济关系和国际经济合作的重要形式;对世界经济的发展和调解国际经济关系起了重要作 用。并指出我国应充分重视国际经济组织的作用

[Zhou Q Y.1991.

Lun guoji jingji zuzhi de xingcheng, xingzhi he zuoyong

[J]. Jilin University Journal Social Sciences Edition, (1): 41-47.]

URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

国际经济组织是当代国际经济关系的重要内容,它的迅速发展是战后世界经济发展中的一种新现象,它在国际经济关系中的作用日益增强。文章认为国际经济组织的 产生和发展是社会生产力和国际经济关系发展的结果;它是推动和发展国际经济关系和国际经济合作的重要形式;对世界经济的发展和调解国际经济关系起了重要作 用。并指出我国应充分重视国际经济组织的作用
[26] Barbieri K.1995.

Economic interdependence and militarized interstate conflict, 1870-1985

[D]. Binghamton, NY: Department of Political Science, Binghamton University.

[27] Barbieri K.1996.

Economic interdependence: A path to peace or a source of interstate conflict

[J]. Journal of Peace Research, 33(1): 29-49.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343396033001003      URL      [本文引用: 2]      摘要

This article investigates the long-standing liberal hypothesis that trade ties facilitate interstate peace. Rather than assuming that trade will always promote peace, the author highlights the need to consider both the nature and context of economic linkages in assessing whether such ties are more likely to dampen or amplify interstate conflict. The study encompasses a diverse group of dyadic relationships for the period 1870-1938, 14,341 dyad years, and includes 270 militarized interstate disputes and 14 wars. After controlling for the potentially confounding influences of contiguity, regime type (joint democracy), relative capabilities, and alliance commitments, the author finds evidence that economic linkages have a dramatic influence on whether or not dyads engage in militarized disputes, but no influence on the occurrence of wars. Rather than inhibiting conflict, extensive economic interdependence increases the likelihood that dyads will engage in militarized interstate disputes. Peace through trade is most likely to arise among dyads composed of mutually dependent trading partners. Even then, the relationship between interdependence and conflict appears to be curvilinear, where low to moderate degrees of interdependence reduce the likelihood of dyadic disputes, and extensive economic linkages increase the probability of militarized disputes. Extreme interdependence, whether symmetrical or asymmetrical, has the greatest potential for increasing the likelihood of conflict.
[28] Barbieri K.1997.

Risky Business: The impact of trade linkages on interstate conflict, 1870-1985

[M]//Schneider G, Weitsman P A. Enforcing cooperation: "Risky" states and intergovernmental management of conflict. London, UK: Macmillan: 202-231.

[本文引用: 1]     

[29] Barbieri K.2002. The liberal illusion: Does trade promote peace[M]. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

[30] Barbieri K, Levy J S.1999.

Sleeping with the enemy: The impact of war on trade

[J]. Journal of Peace Research, 36(4): 463-479.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343399036004005      URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

Current debates over the question of whether economic interdependence promotes peace or contributes to international conflict are often framed in terms of the `paradigm wars' between liberal and realist theory. In spite of their differences, most liberal and realist theories of interdependence and conflict agree that trade and other forms of economic interchange between societies will cease or be substantially reduced once states are engaged in serious forms of conflict with each other, particularly after the outbreak of war. Liberal theories generally assume that political leaders are deterred from engaging in conflict when they anticipate that conflict will disrupt or eliminate trade or adversely affect the terms of trade, so the hypothesis that trade deters war rests on the assumption that war impedes trade. Realist theories suggest that the concern over relative gains will lead at least one of the belligerents to terminate trade in order to prevent its adversary from using the gains from trade to increase its relative military power. Contrary to these predictions, there are numerous historical examples of trade between adversaries that continues during wartime. Our aim here is to examine this phenomenon more systematically by conducting an empirical analysis of the short-term and long-term impact of war on trade for seven dyads in the period since 1870. Applying an interrupted time-series model, we find that in most cases war does not have a significant impact on trading relationships. Although war sometimes leads to a temporary decline in the level of dyadic trade, in most instances war has no permanent long-term effect on trading relationships and, in fact, trade often increases in the postwar period. This empirical anomaly in both liberal and realist theories of interdependence and conflict leads us to conclude that both theories need to be reformulated.
[31] Barbieri K, Schneider G.1999.

Globalization and peace: Assessing new directions in the study of trade and conflict

[J]. Journal of Peace Research, 36(4): 387-404.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343399036004001      URL      [本文引用: 2]      摘要

`Globalization' has largely superseded the term `economic interdependence' to describe the rapidly growing links between nations, economies, and societies. The effects that the internationalization of the world system has on social equality, the environment, and economic growth are, however, still largely disputed. In this article, we discuss the literature that covers another intensively debated issue and which attempts to assess the relationship between trade and interstate conflict. Although liberal economists maintain that economic interdependence exerts an unconditionally pacifying influence on interstate relations, we show that the most recent formal work expects that trade will have a negligible and, in the perspective of one important model at least, even an amplifying effect on conflict. Much empirical work, by contrast, supports the claim that the relationship between trade and conflict is direct and not mitigated by contextual factors. We review the different controversies on the link between economic interdependence and militarized disputes and outline some major challenges that have not yet been adequately dealt with in the scientific study of war and peace.
[32] Cai J, Ma Y, An L, et al.2013.

Conflict or cooperation: Political relationship and trade development between US and China

[J]. International Center for Business Research, 2: 25-37.

URL     

[33] Capannelli G, Lee J W, Petri P A.2010.

Economic interdependence in Asia: Developing indicators for regional integration and cooperation

[J]. The Singapore Economic Review, 55(1): 125-161.

https://doi.org/10.1142/S021759081000364X      URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

We develop indicators to measure the degree of economic integration and cooperation among East Asian economies and compare these with similar measures for other
[34] Cooper R N.1968.

The economics of interdependence

[J]. The International Executive, 10(4): 3-5.

URL      [本文引用: 1]     

[35] Copeland D C.1996.

Economic interdependence and war: A theory of trade expectations

[J]. International Security, 20(4): 5-41.

https://doi.org/10.2307/2539041      URL      摘要

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content: Dale C. Copeland Dale C. Copeland is Assistant Professor in the Department of Government and Foreign Affairs at the University of Virginia. For their helpful comments on previous drafts of this article, I would like to thank Robert Art, V. Natasha Copeland, Michael Desch, Angela Doll, John Duffield, Matthew Evangelista, Richard Falkenrath, James Fearon, Joseph Grieco, Atsushi Ishida, Irving Lachow, Alastair Iain Johnston, Andrew Kydd, Jack Levy, Lisa Martin, Michael Mastanduno, John Mearsheimer, Andrew Moravcsik, John Owen, Paul Papayoanou, Stephen Rhoads, Gideon Rose, Richard Rosecrance, Len Schoppa, Herman Schwartz, Randall Schweller, Jitsuo Tsuchiyama, David Waldner, and Stephen Walt. This article also benefited from presentations at the Program on International Politics, Economics, and Security at the University of Chicago; the University of Virginia Department of Government's faculty workshop; the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, September 1995; the Olin security workshop at the Center for International Affairs, Harvard University; and the Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University (under whose auspices it was written). All errors remain mine. Footnotes 1. For a summary of the causal variables in the two schools, see John J. Mearsheimer, "Back to the Future: Instability in Europe After the Cold War," International Security , Vol. 15, No. 1 (Summer 1990), pp. 5-56; Robert O. Keohane, "International Liberalism Reconsidered," in John Dunn, ed., The Economic Limits to Modern Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 165-194. 2. Four other subsidiary liberal arguments, employing intervening variables, are not sufficiently compelling to discuss here. The first suggests that high trade levels promote domestic prosperity, thereby lessening the internal problems that push leaders into war. The second argues that interdependence helps to foster increased understanding between peoples, which reduces the misunderstandings that lead to war. The third asserts that trade alters the domestic structure of states, heightening the influence of groups with a vested interest in peaceful trade. The final argument contends that trade has the "spill-over" effect of increasing political ties between trading partners, thus improving the prospects for long-term cooperation. For an critical analysis of these views, see Dale Copeland, "Economic Interdependence and the Outbreak of War," paper presented to University of Virginia Department of Government's faculty workshop, March 1995. 3. Richard Cobden, The Political Writings of Richard Cobden (London: T. Fischer Unwin, 1903), p. 225. 4. Norman Angell, The Great Illusion , 2d ed. (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1933), pp. 33, 59-60, 87-89. 5. Ibid. , pp. 59-62, 256. 6. Richard Rosecrance, The Rise of the Trading State: Commerce and Conquest in the Modern World (New York: Basic Books, 1986), pp. 13-14; 24-25 (emphasis added); see also Rosecrance, "War, Trade and Interdependence," in James N. Rosenau and Hylke Tromp, eds., Interdependence and Conflict in World Politics (Aldershot, U.K.: Avebury, 1989), pp. 48-57; Rosecrance, "A New Concert of Powers," Foreign Affairs , Vol. 71, No. 2 (Spring 1992), pp. 64-82. 7. A book often seen as a statement on the peace-inducing effects of interdependence obert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Power and Interdependence (Boston: Little, Brown, 1977) ctually contains no such causal argument. For Keohane and Nye, "complex interdependence" is more peaceful by definition: it is "a valuable concept for analyzing the political process" only when military force is "unthinkable" (pp. 29, 24). In the second edition: "since we define complex interdependence in terms of [policy] goals and instruments," arguments "about how goals and instruments are affected by the degree to which a situation approximates complex interdependence or realism will be tautological." Thus, "we are left essentially with two dependent variables: changes in agendas and changes in the roles of international organizations." Keohane and Nye, Power and Interdependence , 2d ed. (Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman, 1989), p. 255; emphasis in original. The dependent variable of this article he likelihood of war s nowhere to be found, which is not surprising, since it is assumed away. Other works on interdependence from the 1970s, which largely examined dependent variables other than war, are discussed in Copeland, "Economic Interdependence and the Outbreak of War." 8. One might contend that realists doubt the causal importance of economic interdependence, since relative gains concerns convince great...
[36] Dent C M.1999.

The European Union and East Asia: An economic relationship

[M]. London & New York: Routledge.

[本文引用: 1]     

[37] Dodds K.2001.

Political geography III: Critical geopolitics after ten years

[J]. Progress in Human Geography, 25(3): 469-484.

https://doi.org/10.1191/030913201680191790      URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

I Introduction Nearly ten years ago, Gearoid 17 Tuathail and John Agnew published a paper 17Geopolitics and discourse: practical geopolitical reasoning in American foreign policy17 (1992) in Political Geography.[sup 1] Their analysis precipitated a research agenda, which conceptualized geopolitics as a form of political discourse rather than simply a descriptive term intended to cover the study of foreign policy and grand statecraft (see 17 Tuathail, 1986; Dalby, 1988; and indirectly Waterman, 1998). This paper in alliance with an earlier geo-economic analysis of the world economy (Agnew and Corbridge, 1989), urged political geographers to investigate not only the politics of geographical knowledge but also the geographies of the changing world economy. They argued that geopolitics17 close association with Halford Mackinder and others had obscured the extent to which all models of global politics are informed or even guided by geographical understandings (see Agnew, 1983). As a then doctoral student at the University of Bristol, I read this paper with great excitement. Enriched with a critical geopolitical appreciation, I returned to my archival material and (over the next eight years) investigated how the Falklands/Malvinas and Antarctica were represented within British and Argentine geopolitical cultures (see Dodds, 2000a; 2000b).
[38] Domke W K.1988. War and the changing global system[M]. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

[本文引用: 1]     

[39] Dorussen H.1997.

Trade coalitions and the balance of power[N]. Paper presented at the ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops

. Bern, Switzerland.

[40] Dorussen H.1999.

Balance of power revisited: A multi-Actor models of trade and conflict

[J]. Journal of Peace Research, 36(4): 443-462.

[41] Evans M.2011.

Power and paradox: Asian geopolitics and Sino-American relations in the 21st century

[J]. Orbis, 55(1): 85-113.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orbis.2010.10.004      Magsci      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

<h2 class="secHeading" id="section_abstract">Abstract</h2><p id="spar0005">The pattern of Asian geopolitics can be examined by employing three analytical perspectives. The first employs East Asia and the vigorous debate over the meaning of the rise of China as an intellectual prism to observe the currents of geopolitical continuity and change that are currently abroad in the Asian region. The second explores the extent to which the interacting forces of geopolitics and military modernization foster the rise of new force projection capabilities that may affect the strategic environment in Asia&mdash;particularly in East Asia. Here, the focus is mainly on the arsenals of the three indigenous Asian giants, China, Japan and India, all of whom have developed, or are in the process of developing, significant air and maritime assets whose operations have the potential to intersect in East and South East Asia. Russia is not as much a presence because it no longer possesses its powerful Soviet-era Pacific Fleet and has, in essential respects, retreated to its traditional role as a Eurasian land power.<span id="bfn0005"><a href="#fn0005" id="ancbfn0005" class="intra_ref"><sup>1</sup></a></span> The third examines the future of Sino-American relations in Asia in the context of the debate over China's ascent and U. S. decline&mdash;a discussion that has intensified since the implosion of the U.S. financial system in 2008 and the onset of the worst global recession since the 1930s.</p>
[42] Ganesan N.2000.

ASEAN's relations with major external powers

[J]. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 22(2): 258-278.

URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

Examines the relationship between ASEAN and China, Japan and the United States. Caveats necessary at the outset; Influence of the United States on the ASEAN states; China's overtures towards ASEAN; Decompression effect associated with the dissipation of bipolarity in international relations on ASEAN; Policy positions of major powers towards ASEAN; Convergences among ASEAN members.
[43] Gasiorowski M J.1986.

Economic interdependence and international conflict: Some cross-national evidence

[J]. International Studies Quarterly, 30(1): 23-38.

https://doi.org/10.2307/2600435      URL      [本文引用: 2]      摘要

ABSTRACT This study examines the relationship between economic interdependence and international conflict. Two schools of thought exist on this issue: some prominent writers suggest that interdependence produces greater international conflict, while others suggest that it produces a decline in conflict. These arguments are reviewed and empirically tested here. Previous empirical studies bearing on this issue are found to use inadequate measures and biased samples. More comprehensive analyses presented here suggest that interdependence can have mixed consequences. Several measures of interdependence that embody its costly aspects are found to be positively associated with conflict, implying that interdependence produces increased international conflict. However, when these measures are controlled for, another key measure is found to be inversely related to conflict. This suggests that both schools of thought may be correct: while the costly aspects of interdependence seem to produce greater international conflict, its beneficial aspects appear to produce a decline in conflict.
[44] Gelpi C, Grieco J M.2003. Economic interdependence, the democratic state, and the liberal peace[M]//Mansfield E D, Pollins B M. Economic interdependence and international conflict: New perspectives on an enduring debate. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press: 44-59.

[本文引用: 1]     

[45] Gowa J.1994. Allies, adversaries, and international trade[M]. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

[46] Grieco J M.1988.

Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: A realist critique of the newest liberal institutionalism

[J]. International Organization, 42(3): 485-507.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300027715      URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

Argues that neoliberal institutionalism misconstrues the realist analysis of international anarchy. Claims of neoliberalism about cooperation; Connection between realism and liberal institutionalism.
[47] Grieco J M.1990. Cooperation among nations: Europe, America, and Non-tariff barriers to trade[M]. Ithace, NY & London: Cornell University Press.

[48] He K.2008.

Institutional balancing and international relations theory: Economic interdependence and balance of power strategies in Southeast Asia

[J]. European Journal of International Relations, 14(3): 489-518.

URL      [本文引用: 1]     

[49] Hegre H.2000.

Development and the liberal peace: What does it take to be a trading state

[J]. Journal of Peace Research, 37(1): 5-30.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343300037001001      URL      摘要

This article investigates the liberal idea that trade between two states reduces the likelihood of militarized conflict between them. Richard Rosecrance's argument that industrial-technological developments have made peaceful trading strategies more efficient today is examined in connection with the empirical literature on trade and conflict. Development affects the utility calculations of states: since the costs of seizing and holding a territory increase with increased development, and the relative utility of occupying the territory decreases, the chance that the expected utility of occupation will exceed the expected costs decreases with increased development. Likewise, since the utility of trade increases with increased development, then increased development also makes it more likely that the expected costs of breaking the trade bonds will exceed the gains to be expected from occupation. Consequently, the relationship between trade and conflict is contingent on the level of development. Using Cox regression, and introducing a new measure of interdependence based on a gravity model of trade, I demonstrate that there is a clear negative relationship between trade and conflict. However, this relationship is basically restricted to dyads consisting of two developed dyads. Development itself is strongly associated with peaceful behavior. The results also suggest that the democratic peace requires a minimum level of development to be efficient.
[50] Hirschman A O.1980. National power and the structure of foreign trade[M]. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[本文引用: 1]     

[51] Keohane R O.2005. After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy[M]. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

[52] Keohane R O, Nye J S.1987.

Power and interdependence revisited

[J]. International Organization, 41(4): 725-753.

https://doi.org/10.2307/40202503      URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

Ten years ago, Keohane and Nye published 070705POWER AND INDEPENDENCE070705. In this article they review the work in the light of what has happened in this last decade. 070705The first section of this article examines the three most important themes of the book: the relationship between power and interdependence, the ideal type of complex interdependence, and explanations of changes in international regimes. In the second section, we critique our concepts and theories, and examine which elements of our argument have been most fruitful for later work. The third and fourth sections raise questions about concepts such as those of 070705systemic political process070705 and 070705learning070705, that we did not explicate clearly in 070705POWER AND INDEPENDENCE070705, but which we think suggest fruitful directions for further research.070705 Some of the points made in the article are: &lpar;1&rpar; It is now conventional to analyze interdependence as a political as well as an economic phenomenon, and to examine patterns of interdependence by issue area. &lpar;2&rpar; The concept of international regimes has fostered research on the evolution of rules and institutions and the impact of these on state behavior. There has not yet been a theory of learning developed in international politics. 070705We need to concentrate now on the interplay between the constraints and opportunities of the international system ... We need to examine how conceptions of self&hyphen;interest change, as a result of evolving international institutions, individual or group learning, or domestic political change
[53] Krause L B, Nye J S.1975.

Reflections on the economics and politics of international economic organizations

[J]. International Organization, 29(1): 323-342.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300017975      URL      [本文引用: 1]     

[54] Mansfield E D.1994. Power, trade, and war[M]. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

[本文引用: 1]     

[55] Mansfield E D, Pevehouse J C.2000.

Trade blocs, trade flows, and international conflict

[J]. International Organization, 54(4): 775-808.

URL      [本文引用: 1]     

[56] Maoz Z.2009.

The effects of strategic and economic interdependence on international conflict across levels of analysis

[J]. American Journal of Political Science, 53(1): 223-240.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00367.x      URL      摘要

This study develops a Social Network Analytic approach to conceptualize and measure interdependence across levels of analysis. This framework contains several innovations. First, it integrates &ldquo;sensitivity interdependence&rdquo;&mdash;the effects of changes in one state on other states&mdash;with &ldquo;vulnerability interdependence&rdquo;&mdash;the opportunity costs of breaking a relationship. Second, it measures interdependence at different levels of analysis and across multiple relationships. Third, it integrates multiple dimensions of interdependence into a single measure. I derive hypotheses from the realist and liberal paradigms regarding the effects of strategic and economic interdependence on monadic, dyadic, and systemic conflict. These hypotheses are tested via data on alliances, military capability, and trade. The findings provide robust support to the expectations of the liberal paradigm regarding the effects of strategic and economic interdependence on conflict. On the other hand, the expectations of the realist paradigm are not supported. I discuss the theoretical and empirical implications of this approach.
[57] McGowan P J, Rood R M.1975.

Alliance behavior in balance of power systems: Applying a Poisson model to nineteenth-century Europe

[J]. The American Political Science Review, 69(3): 859-870.

https://doi.org/10.2307/1958395      URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

This paper is a partial systematic test of Morton A. Kaplan's of alliance behavior in balance of power international systems first proposed in his well-known System and Process in International Politics (1957). Three hypotheses are inferred from Kaplan's writings predicting that in a stable balance of power system, (a) alliances will occur randomly with respect to time; (b) the time intervals between alliances will also be randomly distributed; and (c) a decline in systemic alliance formation rates precedes system changing events, such as general war. We check these hypotheses by applying probability theory, specifically a Poisson model, to the analysis of new data on fifty-five alliances among the five major European powers during the period 1814鈥1914. Because our research questions are so general, our findings should not be regarded as definitive; however, the data very strongly support our hypotheses. We conclude that Kaplan's verbal model of a balance of power international system has had its credibility enhanced as a result of this paper.
[58] Mohan C R.2013.

Emerging geopolitical trends and security in the association of Southeast Asian nations, the People's Republic of China, and India (ACI) region

[R]. Asian Development Bank Institute.

[本文引用: 1]     

[59] Morrow J D.1997.

When do "relative gains" impede trade

[J]. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41(1): 12-37.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002797041001002      URL      摘要

Neorealists argue that states may refuse mutually profitable trade because of concern about “relative gains.” If one state profits more than another, the latter may fear the former will use its advantage to dominate it. However, the relative gains argument ignores states' ability to respond to external threats by arming. If a state does not spend its entire gain from trade on the military, it is better off with trade than without. Unless states spend a large fraction of the gain from trade on the military, the division of benefits must be very unequal for either state to spend all its gain on the military. Concern with relative gains, then, should not block trade even between rivals; therefore, the conclusion of the relative gains argument does not follow from its premises. The author analyzes this point with a formal model of the enforceability of trade agreements by examining three types of goods.
[60] Murphy A B.2013.

Trapped in the logic of the modern state system? European integration in the wake of the financial crisis

[J]. Geopolitics, 18(3): 705-723.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2012.748658      Magsci      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

In the wake of the Single European Act of the mid-1980s and a series of follow-on initiatives aimed at fostering greater integration in Europe, a number of commentators began describing Europe as a truly novel political-territorial arrangement. By the middle of the 1990s, however, the adoption of a common currency came to dominate the European integration agenda. The embrace of monetary union reflected a view of European integration that was firmly embedded in the logic of the modern territorial state system. That logic led many commentators to view the success or failure of integration in terms of the degree to which powers were being transferred from state governmental and economic institutions to the central decision-making bodies of the European Union. Such an approach cast the EU as a super-state rather than as a new type of political-institutional entity. As a result, the integration project was less subversive of the state system than it might otherwise have been - bolstering the view of the European Union as a distant bureaucracy not adequately attuned to the needs of everyday Europeans and fueling nationalist sentiments: a social force with deep roots in the modernist territorial order. Moving the European integration process forward will likely require embracing conceptions of progress that are less tethered to modernist territorial ideas and assumptions.
[61] Newman A L, Posner E.2011.

International interdependence and regulatory power: Authority, mobility, and markets

[J]. European Journal of International Relations, 17(4): 589-610.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066110391306      URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

This article revisits a fundamental question of international political economy: when does cross-border economic interdependence become a source of power. The view that economic interdependence is a source of potential power, not just mutual benefits, has a long lineage traceable to political realism, organizational economics, Ricardian trade theory, and structural Marxism, and researchers typically focus on preferred causal variables in isolation. Despite important contributions, little attention has been paid to understanding the interactions of multiple perspectives on asymmetric interdependence, or to making sense of contradictory expectations of the various models. As a consequence scholars engaged in globalization debates, such as those about policy convergence or private actor governance, frequently talk past one another. To deduce expectations about the relationship between power and interdependence, we build a model synthesizing standard approaches that analyze the effects of market size and market scope separately, and then add the critical variable of jurisdictional boundaries. By decoupling geography and authority, our analysis produces a respecification of classic interdependence models and advances core international political economy debates concerning power dynamics in a globalized economy.
[62] Oneal J R, Oneal F H, Maoz Z, et al.1996.

The liberal peace: Interdependence, democracy, and international conflict, 1950-85

[J]. Journal of Peace Research, 33(1): 11-28.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343396033001002      URL      [本文引用: 2]      摘要

The classical liberals believed that democracy and free trade would reduce the incidence of war. Here we conduct new tests of the `democratic peace', incorporating into the analyses of Maoz & Russett (1993) a measure of economic interdependence based on the economic importance of bilateral trade. This allows us to conduct a simultaneous evaluation of the effects of regime type and interdependence on the likelihood that a pair of states will become involved in a militarized interstate dispute. We control in all our analyses for a number of potentially confounding influences: growth rates in per capita income, alliances, geographic contiguity, and relative power. Our logistic regression analyses of politically relevant dyads (1950-85) indicate that the benefits of the liberals' economic program have not been sufficiently appreciated. Trade is a powerful influence for peace, especially among the war-prone, contiguous pairs of states. Moreover, Kant (1991 [1795]) was right: International conflict is less likely when external economic relations are important, executives are constrained, and societies are governed by non-violent norms of conflict resolution.
[63] Oneal J R, Russet B M.1997.

The classical liberals were right: Democracy, interdependence, and conflict, 1950-1985

[J]. International Studies Quarterly, 41(2): 267-294.

[本文引用: 2]     

[64] Oneal J R, Russett B M.1999.

The Kantian peace: The pacific benefits of democracy, interdependence, and international organizations, 1885-1992

[J]. World Politics, 52(1): 1-37.

https://doi.org/10.1353/wp.1999.0021      URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

Abstract The authors test Kantian and realist theories of interstate conflict using data extending over more than a century, treating those theories as complementary rather than competing. As the classical liberals believed, democracy, economic interdependence, and international organizations have strong and statistically significant effects on reducing the probability that states will be involved in militarized disputes. Moreover, the benefits are not limited to the cold war era. Some realist influences, notably distance and power predominance, also reduce the likelihood of interstate conflict. The character of the international system, too, affects the probability of dyadic disputes. The consequences of having a strong hegemonic power vary, but high levels of democracy and interdependence in the international system reduce the probability of conflict for all dyads, not just for those that are democratic or dependent on trade.
[65] Oneal J R, Russett B M, Berbaum M L.2003.

Causes of peace: Democracy, interdependence, and international organizations, 1885-1992

[J]. International Studies Quarterly, 47(3): 371-393.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2478.4703004      URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

Previous studies provide strong evidence for the Kantian theory of peace, but a satisfactory evaluation requires establishing the causal influence of the variables. Here we focus on the reciprocal relations between economic interdependence and interstate conflict, 1885鈥1992. Using distributed-lags analyses, we find that economically important trade does have a substantively important effect in reducing dyadic militarized disputes, even with extensive controls for the influence of past conflict. The benefit of interdependence is particularly great in the case of conflict involving military fatalities. Militarized disputes also cause a reduction in trade, as liberal theory predicts. Democracy and joint membership in intergovernmental organizations, too, have im-portant pacific benefits; but we find only limited support for the role of costly signals in establishing the liberal peace. We find no evidence that democratization increases the incidence of interstate disputes; and contrary to realists' expectations, allies are not less conflict prone than states that are not allied. Democracies and states that share membership in many international organizations have higher levels of trade, but allies do not when these influences are held constant.
[66] Papayoanou P A.1997.

Economic interdependence and the balance of power

[J]. International Studies Quarterly, 41(1): 113-140.

https://doi.org/10.1111/0020-8833.00035      URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

To account for variance in great powers responses to threats and the implications for the peacefulness of the international system since the late nineteenth century, this article elucidates a theory which refines and synthesizes economic liberal perspectives and realist balance of power theory. I argue that different patterns and levels of economic interdependence in the great power system generate societal-based economic constraints on, or incentives for, state leaders of status quo powers hoping to mobilize economic resources and political support to oppose perceived threats. This mobilization process influences strongly the preferences of status quo powers, other states beliefs about those preferences, and the interpretation of signals in balance of power politics. In this way, economic ties influence the strategies great powers pursue. Firm balancing policies conducive to peace in the international system are most likely, I then hypothesize, when there are extensive economic ties among status quo powers and few or no such links between them and perceived threatening powers. When economic interdependence is not significant between status quo powers or if status quo powers have strong economic links with threatening powers, weaker balancing postures and conciliatory policies by status quo powers, and aggression by aspiring revisionist powers, are more likely. I then illustrate how these hypotheses explain the development of the Franco-Russian alliance of the 1890s and its effectiveness as a deterrent of Germany up to 1905, British ambivalence toward Germany from 1906 to the First World War, the weakness of British, French, Soviet, and American behavior toward Germany in the 1930s and World War II, and the American and European responses to the Soviet threat, including the NATO alliance, and the "long peace" of the post-1945 era.
[67] Polachek S W.1980.

Conflict and trade

[J]. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 24(1): 55-78.

https://doi.org/10.1177/002200278002400103      URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

This article applies microeconomic theory to illustrate the plausibility of a relationship between international trade and conflict. It is argued that the mutual dependence established between two trading partners (dyads) is sufficient to raise the costs of conflict, there-by diminishing levels of dyadic dispute. This hypothesis of a negative relationship between conflict and trade is tested using a ten-year thirty-country cross section merged from four separate data sources. It is found that ceteris paribus countries with the greatest levels of economic trade engage in the least amounts of hostility. In fact, a doubling of trade on average leads to a 20% diminution of belligerence. This relationship appears robust, holding even more strongly when statistical adjustments are made for causality.
[68] Polachek S W.1992.

Conflict and trade: An economics approach to political international interactions

[M]//Isard W, Anderton C H. Economics of arms reduction and the peace process[M]. Amsterdam, Holland: North-Holland.

[本文引用: 1]     

[69] Polachek S W.1997.

Why do democracies cooperate more and fight less: The relationship between international trade and cooperation

[J]. Review of International Economics, 5(3): 295-309.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9396.00058      URL      摘要

This paper provides an economics-based interpretation of the standard finding in the literature that democracies rarely fight each other. A general theory of conflict between two countries is presented and empirical analysis applies this theory to the question of why democracies rarely fight each other. The results show that the fundamental factor in causing bilateral cooperation is trade. Countries seek to protect wealth gained through international trade, therefore trading partners are less combative than nontrading nations. Democratic dyads trade more than nondemocratic dyads, and thus exhibit less conflict and more cooperation. Copyright 1997 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
[70] Polachek S W, McDonald J.1992.

Strategic trade and the incentive for cooperation

[M]//Chatterji M, Forcey L. Disarmament, economic conversion, and management of peace. New York: Praeger: 273-284.

[71] Polachek S W, Robst J, Chang Y C.1997.

'Geographic proximity and interdependence: The relationship between distance, trade and international interactions'

[R]. Binghamton University & Chinese Cultural University.

[72] Polachek S W, Robst J, Chang Y C.1999.

Iiberalism and interdependence: Extending the trade-conflict model

[J]. Journal of Peace Research, 36(4): 405-422.

[73] Powell R.1991.

Absolute and relative gains in international relations theory

[J]. American Political Science Review, 85(4): 1303-1320.

https://doi.org/10.2307/1963947      URL      摘要

The problem of absolute and relative gains divides two of the most influential approaches to international-relations theory. Neoliberal institutionalism assumes that states focus primarily on their individual absolute gains and are indifferent to the gains of others. Whether cooperation results in a relative gain or loss is not very important to a state in neoliberal institutionalism as long as it brings an absolute gain. In terms of preferences, this focus on absolute gains is usually taken to mean that a state’s utility is solely a function of its absolute gain. In contrast, neorealism or structural realism assumes that states are largely concerned with relative rather than absolute gains. In the anarchy of international politics, “relative gain is more important than absolute gain” ( Waltz, 1959 : 198). A state’s utility in structural realism is at least partly a function of some relative measure like power. 1 These differing assumptions about states’ preferences lead to different expectations about the prospects for international conflict and cooperation. The more states care about relative gains, the more a gain for one state will tend to be seen as a loss by another, and the more difficult it seems that cooperation will be. 2
[74] Skaperdas S, Garfinkel M.1996. Competitive trade with conflict[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press.

[75] Snidal D.1991a.

International cooperation among relative gains maximizers

[J]. International Studies Quarterly, 35(4): 387-402.

https://doi.org/10.2307/2600947      URL      摘要

A centerpiece result of recent international-relations theorizing is the possibility of cooperation under anarchy Taking the Prisoner’s Dilemma as a stylized representation of international anarchy, a
[76] Snidal D.1991

b. Relative gains and the pattern of international cooperation

[J]. American Political Science Review, 85(3): 701-726.

https://doi.org/10.2307/1963847      URL      摘要

Many political situations involve competitions where winning is more important than doing well. In international politics, this relative gains problem is widely argued to be a major impediment to cooperation under anarchy. After discussing why states might seek relative gains, I demonstrate that the hypothesis holds very different implications from those usually presumed. Relative gains do impede cooperation in the two-actor case and provide an important justification for treating international anarchy as a prisoner's dilemma problem; but if the initial absolute gains situation is not a prisoner's dilemma, relative gains seeking is much less consequential. Its significance is even more attenuated with more than two competitors. Relative gains cannot prop up the realist critique of international cooperation theory, but may affect the pattern of cooperation when a small number of states are the most central international actors.
[77] Sparke M.2007.

Geopolitical fears, geoeconomic hopes, and the responsibilities of geography

[J]. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 97(2): 338-349.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.2007.00540.x      URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

Abstract Geographers have a responsibility to examine persistently, collaboratively, and critically the geographical grounds of hope and fear. We can help debunk false hopes and groundless fears, and in so doing we can also advance more sensible hopes based on more embodied and accountable experiences of fear. The case of the Iraq war shows how the groundless geopolitical fears about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and Al Qaeda connections were combined with equally groundless geoeconomic hopes about making the middle of the Middle East into a bastion of peace and freedom through free-market reforms. These geopolitical and geoeconomic discourses were imagined as part of a foreign policy of accumulation by dispossession. Other, more grounded accounts of the real fears created by dispossession can lead instead to more realistically hopeful geographies of repossession.
[78] Stein A A.2003. Trade and conflict: Uncertainty, strategic signaling, and interstate disputes[M]//Mansfield E D, Pollins B M. Economic interdependence and international conflict: New perspectives on an enduring debate. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press: 111-126.

[本文引用: 1]     

[79] Thomes A.2013.

The borders of solidarity: Trade unions, social entitlements and regional integration

[J]. Geopolitics, 18(1): 157-177.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2012.738728      Magsci      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

This article explores the effects of borders on the making of trade union policies and on their capacity to act. It takes as an entry-point the reform of Luxembourg's system of family allowances and financial support for students in 2010, which redefined the group of beneficiaries and partly excluded cross-border workers from neighbouring countries. This led to heated debates in Luxembourg and in the Greater Region (comprising Luxembourg, Saarland, Rhineland-Palatinate, Lorraine and Wallonia) during which trade unions played an important part. The author explores the contradictory logics of both competition and cooperation within the Greater Region. These lead to a gap between integration as a discourse and what it means for local populations, in particular regarding labour market competition. The debates within trade unions on the issue of social entitlements for cross-border workers offer insights into the dynamics of this dichotomy and into the everyday fabric of cross-border social relations.
[80] Wagner R H.1988.

Economic interdependence, bargaining power, and political influence

[J]. International Organization, 42(3): 461-483.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300027703      URL      [本文引用: 2]      摘要

Bargaining theory is used to evaluate the proposition that asymmetrical economic interdependence among states is a source of political power. It is shown that asymmetrical economic interdependence does not imply that less dependent actors will be able to exercise political influence over more dependent ones. The use of economic interdependence for political influence requires, instead, that the exchange of economic resources for political concessions make both parties to a relationship better off than they would be if they bargained over the distribution of the gains from the economic relationship alone. Whether this is true is independent of the degree of asymmetry in the economic relationship, or its direction. An explanation is given for the fact that other scholars have reached different conclusions, and the implication of these results for our understanding of a variety of types of relations among governments are derived. M. McKay &lpar;journal abstract&rpar;
[81] Walt S M.1985.

Alliance formation and the balance of world power

[J]. International Security, 9(4): 3-43.

https://doi.org/10.2307/2538540      URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content: Stephen M. Walt Stephen M. Walt is an Assistant Professor of Politics and International Affairs in the Department of Politics and the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University. I would like to thank Robert Art, George Breslauer, Lynn Eden, Charles Glaser, Lori Gronich, Fen Hampson, John Mearsheimer, Kenneth Oye, Glenn Snyder, Jack Snyder, Marc Trachtenberg, and Kenneth Waltz for their thoughtful comments on earlier drafts of this article. Appendix 1 The Balance of World Power: The Soviet Alliance Network (All Data 1982) Country Population (millions) GNP ($ m) # in Armed Forces (1000s) Defense $ ($ m) Source: U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers, 1972-1982 (Washington: April 1984). U.S.S.R. 270.0 1715000 4400 257000 Bulgaria 8.9 37451 175 3761 Czechoslovakia 15.4 147065 213 7634 East Germany 16.7 175522 233 10236 Hungary 10.7 69111 112 3108 Poland 36.2 186823 429 13494 Rumania 22.5 104827 237 4793 Afghanistan 14.2 2900 30 165 Angola 7.4 7634 47 90 Cuba 9.8 21971 230 1109 Ethiopia 30.6 4635 250 455 Iraq 14.0 25177 450 11689 North Korea 18.7 16200 710 3500 Laos 3.6 320 57 30 Libya 3.3 23986 55 2800 Mongolia 1.7 1100 36 113 Mozambique 12.7 4786 20 163 Nicaragua 2.7 2515 75 169 Syria 9.4 17583 290 2528 Vietnam 55.8 7750 1000 1000 P.D.R. Yemen 2.0 956 23 120 Finland 4.8 51232 36 897 TOTAL 571.1 2624544 9108 324854 % of World Total 12.4 19.3 33.1 39.7 India 715.1 178141 1120 6223 TOTAL WITH INDIA 1286.2 2802685 10228 331077 % of World Total (with India) 27.8 20.6 37.0 40.5 Appendix 2 The Balance of World Power: The American Alliance Network Country Population (millions) GNP ($ m) # in Armed Forces (1000s) Defense $ ($ m) United States 232.1 3071400 2108 196345 Belgium 9.9 101721 85 3507 Canada 24.6 276706 82 6139 China (Taiwan) 18.5 50583 504 3660 Denmark 5.1 61192 31 1575 Egypt 44.6 29375 447 2395 France 54.4 607429 485 25612 West Germany 61.6 720485 480 24351 Greece 9.8 40209 186 2782 Italy 56.3 374162 391 9778 Japan 118.4 1226951 241 12159 South Korea 40.7 69539 600 4783 Netherlands 14.3 146305 108 4755 Norway 4.1 58521 37 1823 Spain 38.0 197175 353 4123 Turkey 48.1 65252 638 3375 United Kingdom 56.0 531606 322 27368 Thailand 49.7 38695 241 1562 Australia 15.1 180057 73 4415 Philippines 51.8 41830 155 1033 New Zealand 3.1 25817 13 543 Brazil 128.3 295648 460 1850 Saudi Arabia 10.1 16118 55 24754 Somalia 6.1 1985 54 160 Israel 3.9 22917 180 5838 Jordan 3.3 4615 65 984 Mexico 73.8 243677 145 1261 Pakistan 92.1 33598 478 2033 Portugal 10.0 24522 68 900 TOTAL 1283.8 8558090 9085 379863 % of World Total 27.7 62.8 33.0 46.5 P.R. China 1044.8 698000 4490 49500 TOTAL WITH P.R.C. 2328.6 9256090 13575 429363 % of World Total 50.4 67.9 49.3 52.5 Footnotes 1. For representative examples of typical scholarly efforts, consult: Robert Rood and Patrick McGowan, "Alliance Behavior in Balance of Power Systems," American Political Science Review , Vol. 69, No. 3 (September 1975); George T. Duncan and Randolph Siverson, "Flexibility of Alliance Partner Choice in Multipolar Systems," International Studies Quarterly , Vol. 26, No. 4 (December 1982); R.P.Y. Li and W.R. Thompson, "The Stochastic Process of Alliance Formation Behavior," American Political Science Review , Vol. 72, No. 3 (December 1978). More traditional works on alliances are: George Liska, Nations in Alliance (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1962), and Robert L. Rothstein, Alliances and Small Powers (New York: Columbia University Press, 1968). Useful summaries of the literature on alliances may be found in: Ole Holsti, P. Terrence Hopmann, and John D. Sullivan, Unity and Disintegration in International Alliances (New York: Wiley-Interscience, 1973), Chapter 1 and Appendix C; Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and J. David Singer...
[82] Walt S M.1987. Origins of alliances[M]. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

[本文引用: 1]     

[83] Wang S F, Cao Y, Ge Y J.2015.

Spatio-temporal changes and their reasons to the geopolitical influence of China and the US in South Asia

[J]. Sustainability, 7(1): 1064-1080.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su7011064      URL      摘要

The current international society has entered an era of large-scale power transfer. Government interests have gradually transferred from national strength to national influence. As such, how to quantitatively present the fuzzy geopolitical influence ( i.e ., geo-influence) has attracted greater attention from scholars. The proposed concept of geo-influence conforms to this trend of power structure change in international relations, and provides a reference for national sustainable development on the international stage. This study sets up an index system and a mathematical model of geopolitical influence, and explores the spatio-temporal changes of the geo-influence of China and the United States (US) in South Asia over the past decade. Three primary results are found as follows: (1) In general, the geo-influence of China and the US in South Asia increased between 2003 and 2012. In terms of growth rate, the geo-influence of China in South Asia grew much faster than that of the US; (2) The overall strength and geo-influence show non-linear relationships. Strong national overall strength does not necessarily mean that one country has the strongest geo-influence; (3) National geo-influence is inversely proportional to the friction of distance. The larger the friction of distance is, the smaller national geo-potential is, and vice versa .
[84] Yeung H W C.2005.

Rethinking relational economic geography

[J]. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 30(1): 37-51.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2005.00150.x      URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

Recent theoretical and empirical work in economic geography has experienced what might be termed a ‘relational turn’ that focuses primarily on the ways in which socio-spatial relations of economic actors are intertwined with processes of economic change at various geographical scales. This phenomenon begs the questions of whether the ‘relational turn’ is simply an explicit reworking of what might be an undercurrent in economic geography during the late 1970s and the 1980s, and whether this ‘turn’ offers substantial advancement in our theory and practice. In this paper, I aim to evaluate critically the nature and emergence of this relational economic geography by revisiting its antecedents and conceptual frameworks. This evaluation opens up some significant conceptual issues that are further reworked in this paper. In particular, I argue that much of the work in this ‘relational turn’ is relational only in a thematic sense, focusing on various themes of socio-spatial relations without theorizing sufficiently the nature of relationality and its manifestation through power relations and actor-specific practice. This paper thus illuminates the nature of relationality and the multiple ways through which power works itself out in ‘relational geometries’, defined as the spatial configurations of heterogeneous power relations. As a preliminary attempt, I first conceptualize different forms of power in such relational geometries and their causal effects in producing concrete/spatial outcomes. I then show how this relational view can offer an alternative understanding of a major research concern in contemporary economic geography – regional development.

/