Geopolitical economy

Geopolitical economy is a contemporary Marxist approach to understanding the capitalist world historically. It was proposed by Radhika Desai in her Geopolitical Economy: After US Hegemony, Globalization and Empire as a critique of contemporary mainstream theories of International Political Economy (IPE) and International Relations (IR). Geopolitical economy's critique rests on a rejection of orthodox views of the world economy as a seamless whole, united either by markets or by a single leading state, as in free market, free trade "globalization" and "hegemony" theories respectively. Instead, geopolitical economy emphasizes the interplay of political entities, namely, states, in the development of capitalism by going back to classical political economy and to the Marxist theories of imperialism, which geopolitical economy argues should be considered the first theories of international relations.

Background 
The terms "geo-political economy" and "geo-politics’ had been used by British geographer Stuart Corbridge in his work relating to human geography in a 1991 article seeking to designate an approach "which builds upon uneven development theory and which affirms, once again, the insistently spatial foundations of capitalist production, exchange, and regulation." Around the same time Edward Luttwak, economist and author of military-strategy books also made use of similar terms to proclaim a shift from "geopolitics" to "geo-economics" as the Cold War ended. Desai’s work has operationalized the term geopolitical economy into a full-fledged approach to understanding the international relations of the capitalist world. Her geopolitical economy approach has traced its roots in the works of Marx and Engels and other Marxists, linked that tradition to the developmental state tradition and placed the dialectic of imperialism and anti-imperialism, or what Leon Trotsky called Uneven and Combined Development, at the centre of the understanding of world affairs.

Components 
The three main components of the geopolitical economy analysis are the "materiality of nations" thesis, the argument that capitalism develops in an uneven and combined fashion resulting in the tendency towards multipolarity, and geopolitical economy's skepticism towards theories of globalization and US hegemony.

Geopolitical economy's "materiality of nations" thesis insists on the key role of states in capitalism based on an understanding of capitalism as contradictory value production, and the fact that these contradictions must be managed by social agents (pre-eminently states). Geopolitical economy therefore puts imperialism and anti-imperialism, whose interplay Leon Trotsky dubbed that of the Uneven and Combined Development of capitalism, at the heart of both IR and IPE as the motor that drives the international relations of capitalism. In arguing that states are material agents, geopolitical economy also connects Marxism with the literature on "developmental states", focusing on the central role of states in the economic development of today’s first world countries, which geopolitical economy understands as the imperial core of capitalism, and for any other countries, socialist or otherwise, which have advanced development after them. Essentially, geopolitical economy argues that while imperialism seeks to produce and maintain the unevenness of capitalist development (development in capitalism’s core and underdevelopment elsewhere), developmental states (or "contender states") are essential to preventing or counteracting imperialism. This tenet of geopolitical economy, the centrality of states throughout capitalism’s history, leads geopolitical economy to conclude that ideas such as "globalization", in which no state matters, or those of "US hegemony" or "empire", in which only one does, were never accurate.

The "materiality of nations" also insists that, thanks to its contradictions, and resulting imperialism, capitalism is necessarily characterized not just by a state but by multiple states locked in struggle over uneven and combined development, or what geopolitical economy argues is the same thing, imperialism and anti-imperialism.

In this struggle, geopolitical economy argues that in the dialectic between dominant states’ desire to maintain the unevenness of capitalism, and that of states resisting such domination through capitalist or socialist combined development, the latter has prevailed, in the long run and against great odds. That is why, geopolitical economy argues, ideas about the capitalist world expanding peaceably through markets or through a succession of hegemonies of leading capitalist states – the Italian city states, the Dutch United Provinces, the United Kingdom and the United States – were never accurate. In relation to theories of hegemony, geopolitical economy argues that while British dominance, for a time, was inevitable given the historical priority of Britain’s industrial revolution, so were challenges to it. By the late nineteenth centuries, such challenges, from the US, Germany and Japan, to name the most successful, had already created a multipolar world, making US hegemony impossible. Though it sought to emulate the sort of dominance Britain enjoyed in the nineteenth century in the twentieth, not only did the US have to lower its sights, forsaking the acquisition of a formal empire, and settling for making the dollar the world’s money, geopolitical economy argues it failed to realise even this diluted ambition. Geopolitical economy articulates how these efforts foundered first on its deficits, as the Triffin Dilemma predicted, leading in 1971 to the end of the dollar’s gold link, and then repeatedly on the financializations, vast expansions of financial demand for the dollar to counteract downward pressure on the dollar thanks to the still effective Triffin Dilemma, on which it came to depend.

Finally, geopolitical economy argues that "globalization" and "US hegemony/empire" were not theories but ideologies, discourses articulating distinct phases of the US’s increasingly desperate pursuit of its formatively vain hegemonic ambition. Globalization was the rhetoric of the Clinton administration designed to encourage flows of foreign capital into the US stock market, and US hegemony/empire, a ruse for the projection of a flailing US power abroad unilaterally.

In proposing these theses, geopolitical economy seeks to make the emergence of multipolarity, which none of the orthodox theories of IR anticipated, comprehensible, and enables an appreciation of the potential in it since it brings the perspective of the Third World and the centrality of developmental concerns to the foreground. It shows that the uneven and combined development of capitalism, the dialectic and contest between imperialism and anti-imperialism, has been the historical motor driving the evolution of the capitalist world and that, since the peak of imperialism in 1914, combined development/anti-imperialism has increasingly prevailed, making for the more than century long trend toward multipolarity.

Notes

References 

 Abbas, Mehdi. 2016. ‘Uneven and combined development in the Doha stalemate,’ in Analytical gains of geopolitical economy, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 130. https://doi.org/10.1108/s0161-72302015000030b005
 Assa, Jacob. 2015. ‘Gross Domestic Power: Geopolitical Economy and the History of National Accounts’, inTheoretical engagements in geopolitical economy, 30, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 178. https://doi.org/10.1108/s0161-72302015000030a014
 Barredo-Zuriarrain, Juan. 2016. ‘The inherent instability of National Monetary Power in the 21st century: the Triffin Dilemma revisited,’ in Analytical gains of geopolitical economy, 30, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 40. https://doi.org/10.1108/s0161-72302015000030b002
 Bin, Daniel. 2016. ‘The politics of financialization in Brazil,’ World Review of Political Economy, 7(1), pp. 4,18. https://doi.org/10.13169/worlrevipoliecon.7.1.0106
 Bland, Sally. 2013. ‘Fragility of US Supremacy’, The Jordan Times, 25 April, https://www.academia.edu/10789674/Fragility_of_US_Supremacy
 Buzgalin, Alexander, Andrey Kolganov, and Olga Barashkova. 2016. ‘Russia: a new imperialist power?’, International Critical Thought, 6(4), pp. 649. https://doi.org/10.1080/21598282.2016.1242085
 Chadwick, Simon. 2022. ‘From utilitarianism and neoclassical sport management to a new geopolitical economy of sport,’ European Sport Management Quarterly 22(5), pp. 693. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2022.2032251
 DasGupta, Chirashree. 2014. ‘Whither Imperialism?’, Economic and Political Weekly, 49(37), pp. 44–46.
 Desai, Radhika. 2013. Geopolitical Economy: After US Hegemony, Globalization and Empire. London: Pluto.
 Desai, Radhika. 2015. ‘Introduction: The materiality of nations in geopolitical economy,’ World Review of Political Economy, 6(4), pp. 449–458. https://doi.org/10.13169/worlrevipoliecon.6.4.0449
 Desai, Radhika. 2015. ‘Geopolitical economy: The discipline of multipolarity,’ Valdai Papers 24. https://valdaiclub.com/a/valdai-papers/valdai_paper_24_geopolitical_economy_the_discipline_of_multipolarity/
 Desai, Radhika. 2015. ‘Marx and Engels Geopolitical Economy’, in Bagchi, Amiya and Chatterjee, Amita (eds.) Marxism, Routledge India. https://doi-org.uml.idm.oclc.org/10.4324/9781315734705
 Desai, Radhika. 2021. ‘Marx’s Geopolitical Economy: “The relations of producing nations”’, Capital & Class, 46(1), https://doi.org/10.1177%2F03098168211017433
 Glassman, Jim. 2018. ‘Geopolitical economies of development and democratization in East Asia: Themes, concepts, and geographies,’ Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 50(2), pp. 408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518x17737170
 Gürcan, Efe Can. 2020. ‘The construction of “post-hegemonic multipolarity” in Eurasia: A comparative perspective,’ The Japanese Political Economy 46 (2-3), pp. 130-131. https://doi.org/10.1080/2329194x.2020.1839911
 Harris, Jerry. 2015. ‘Geopolitical Economy: After US Hegemony, Globalization and Empire’, Science & Society, 79(4), pp. 632.
 Hoffmann, Sophia. 2022. ‘The geopolitical economy of state-led intelligence-commerce: two examples from Iraq and West Germany,’ Globalizations, pp. 3. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2022.2075527
 Hudson, Michael. 2016. ‘Ukraine and the new economic Cold War,’ International Critical Thought, 6(4), pp. 556–557. https://doi.org/10.1080/21598282.2016.1242344
 İşeri, Emre, and Volkan Özdemir. 2020. ‘Geopolitical Economy of Russia’s Foreign Policy Duality in the Eurasian Landmass’, Russia in the Changing International System, pp. 125–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21832-4_7
 Kellogg, Paul. 2015. ‘Contours of a Multipolar Century’, Rethinking Marxism, 27(4), pp. 558. https://doi.org/10.1080/08935696.2015.1076962
 Kristjanson-Gural, David. 2015. ‘Value and Method in Desai's Geopolitical Economy’, Rethinking Marxism, 27(4), pp. 547. https://doi.org/10.1080/08935696.2015.1076961
 Krpec, Oldrich, and Vladan Hodulak. 2015. ‘Military Power and Trade Policy–Roots of Contemporary Geopolitical Economy,’ in Theoretical engagements in geopolitical economy,30, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 231. https://doi.org/10.1108/s0161-72302015000030a015
 Kurečić, Petar. 2015. ‘Geoeconomic and geopolitical conflicts: Outcomes of the geopolitical economy in a contemporary world,’ World Review of Political Economy6(4), pp. 522,524-525. https://doi.org/10.13169/worlrevipoliecon.6.4.0522
 Kurečić, Petar. 2015. ‘Geopolitical Economy: After US Hegemony, Globalization and Empire. The Future of World Capitalism, Radhika Desai’, Croatian International Relations Review, 21(73), pp. 163,166.
 Labrinidis, George. 2016. ‘Quasi-world money and international reserves’, in Analytical gains of geopolitical economy, 30, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 93. https://doi.org/10.1108/s0161-72302015000030b004
 Lee, Seung-Ook. 2020. ‘China meets Jeju Island: provincializing geopolitical economy in East Asia’, Territory, Politics, Governance, pp. 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2020.1840428
 Lubbock, Rowan. 2018. ‘Geopolitical Economy and the Chimera of Hegemony’, Historical Materialism, 1(13), pp. 1. https://doi.org/10.1163/1569206x-00001508
 McIntyre, Richard. 2015. ‘Combined development and the critique of international political economy’, Rethinking Marxism, 27(4), pp. 551. https://doi.org/10.1080/08935696.2015.1076971
 Montalbano, Giuseppe. 2015. ‘Geopolitical economy and competing capitalist blocs in the EU post-crisis financial regulation: two cases from the reform of the banking sector’, World Review of Political Economy, 6(4), pp. 498, 500. https://doi.org/10.13169/worlrevipoliecon.6.4.0498
 Mundy, Jacob. 2023. ‘A Theoretical War: Accounting for American Imperialism in the Middle East,’ Journal of Labor and Society, 26(1), pp. 30. https://doi.org/10.1163/24714607-bja10106
 Palludeto, Alex WA, and Saulo C. Abouchedid. 2016. ‘The currency hierarchy in center-periphery relationships’, in Analytical gains of geopolitical economy, 30, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 56. https://doi.org/10.1108/s0161-72302015000030b003
 Parisot, James. 2015. ‘Expanding geopolitical economy: A critique of the theory of successive hegemonies’, in Theoretical engagements in geopolitical economy, 30, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 156. https://doi.org/10.1108/s0161-72302015000030a013
 Pratschke, Jonathan. 2015. ‘Clearing the minefield: State theory and geopolitical economy’, World Review of Political Economy, 6(4), pp. 460. https://doi.org/10.13169/worlrevipoliecon.6.4.0459
 Regmi, Sudeep. 2014. ‘“Geopolitical Economy: After Us Hegemony, Globalization and Empire” reviewed by Sudeep Regmi’, Marx and Philosophy Review of Books, 3 March, https://marxandphilosophy.org.uk/reviews/7868_geopolitical-economy-review-by-sudeep-regmi/
 Reid, Ben. 2016. ‘China’s “South-South” trade: Unequal exchange and uneven and combined development’, in Analytical gains of geopolitical economy, 30, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 162. https://doi.org/10.1108/s0161-72302015000030b006
 Rioux, Sébastien. 2015. ‘The collapse of “the international imagination”: A critique of the transhistorical approach to uneven and combined development’, in Theoretical engagements in geopolitical economy, 30, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 86. https://doi.org/10.1108/s0161-72302015000030a011
 Rolf, Steve. 2015. ‘Locating the state: Uneven and combined development, the states system and the political’, in Theoretical engagements in geopolitical economy, 30, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 114. https://doi.org/10.1108/s0161-72302015000030a012
 Saidi, Hamed. 2021. ‘The Geopolitical Economy of Chinese Influence in Iran: Empire of Capital and Uneven Development,’ PhD diss., Master Thesis, Leiden University, pp. 30–31. https://studenttheses.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%3A3210670/view
 Serfati, Claude. 2016. ‘EU integration as uneven and combined development’, in Analytical gains of geopolitical economy, 30, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 258. https://doi.org/10.1108/s0161-72302015000030b009
 Shariati, Shahrouz, and Masoud Ghaffari. 2019. ‘The Iran-Iraq War: Geopolitical Economy of the Conflict’, Geopolitics Quarterly, 14(52), pp. 47–48.
 Silvius, Ray. 2015. ‘Understanding Eurasian integration and contestation in the post-Soviet conjuncture: Lessons from geopolitical economy and critical historicism’, in Theoretical engagements in geopolitical economy, 30, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 237. https://doi.org/10.1108/s0161-72302015000030a016
 Van der Pijl, Kees. 2018. ‘A transnational class analysis of the current crisis,’ in Transnational Capital and Class Fractions, Routledge, pp. 242. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351251945-21
 Winseck, Dwayne. 2017. ‘The geopolitical economy of the global internet infrastructure,’ Journal of Information Policy 7, pp. 237, 255. https://doi.org/10.5325/jinfopoli.7.2017.0228
 Wolf, Christina. 2016. ‘China and latecomer industrialization processes in sub-Saharan Africa: a case of combined and uneven development’, World Review of Political Economy, 7(2), pp. 251–252. https://doi.org/10.13169/worlrevipoliecon.7.2.0249

Marxian economics
Geopolitics
Globalization