تبیین مفهوم ژئواکونومی (اقتصاد ژئوپلیتیکی) ‏ و توصیه هایی برای ایران

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

استادیار جغرافیای سیاسی، دانشگاه اصفهان

چکیده

ژئوپلیتیک شامل سه عنصر جغرافیا، سیاست و قدرت است. اقتصاد از طرفی یکی از ابعاد فضای جغرافیایی و از طرف دیگر یکی از ابعاد قدرت است. ژئوپلیتیک به​طور ذاتی در دو عنصر از سه عنصر تشکیل​دهنده خود یعنی جغرافیا و قدرت با اقتصاد پیوند ​خورده و به آن توجه می‌نماید. بنابراین چنانچه اقتصاد با قدرت و سیاست پیوند بخورد و با جغرافیا نیز عجین شود، در حوزه ژئوپلیتیک قرار می​گیرد که در این‌صورت ژئواکونومی به‌عنوان بُعد اقتصادی ژئوپلیتیک شکل می​گیرد که در زیر مجموعه جغرافیای سیاسی قرار دارد. اگرچه از قدیم استفاده از ابزارهای اقتصادی در سیاست وجود داشته ولی پس از جنگ سرد و جهانی​شدن که رویکردهای اقتصادی مورد توجه بیشتر قرار گرفتند، بحث ژئواکونومی نیز روزبه‌روز در سیاست​های داخلی و خارجی و به​عنوان یک روش نوین کشورداری مطرح شد. با وجود اینکه از نظر نسبت، ژئواکونومی شاخه​ای از ژئوپلیتیک است، ولی تفاوت‌هایی با آن دارد و بازیگران متعددی در آن درگیر می​شوند که بر پیچیدگی این رویکرد می‌افزاید. ابزارهای مورد استفاده در ژئواکونومی نیز علاوه بر تعدد و تنوع زیاد، عمدتاً از نوع ابزارهای قدرت نرم بوده بر پیچیدگی نظام بین​الملل می​افزایند. در سیاست داخلی و امور کشورداری نیز توجه به این رویکرد موجب تقویت زیربناها و زیرساخت‌های قدرت ملی شده و به افزایش وزن ژئوپلیتیکی کشور کمک می​کند که این امر موجب تغییر رفتار و جایگاه کشور در نظام ژئوپلیتیک در راستای تحصیل منافع ملی می​شود. در خصوص ایران به​نظر می​رسد تحلیل مسائل کشور از دیدگاه ژئواکونومیک می​تواند موجب باز شدن زاویه جدید و واقع​بینانه​ای به فهم مسائل شده و راهکارها و راهبردهای تجویزی را بیش از پیش دقیق​تر و مفیدتر می‌نماید.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Explaining the Concept of Geoeconomics and ‎Recommendations for Iran

نویسنده [English]

  • Hossein MokhtariHashi
Assistant Professor of Political Geography, University of Isfahan,Isfahan, Iran‎
چکیده [English]

Extended Abstract
Intrduction
Geopolitics contains three elements of geography, politics and power. Economics on the one hand is one of the dimensions of the geographic space and on the other hand is one of the dimensions of power.Geopolitics is inherently linked to two elements of its three constituent elements, namely geography and power, with economics. Therefore, if the economics is tied up with power and politics, and with geography, it is placed in the sphere of geopolitics that in this case, geoeconomics is formed as economic dimension of geopolitics, which is located under Political Geography field.
Methodology
The research method is descriptive-analytic. Data collection is done in a library method and using internet resources, and the analysis has also been carried out qualitatively.
Findings
Although the use of economic instruments in politics has long history, but after the Cold War and globalization, economic approaches became more prominent and geoeconomic matters are highlighted day by day in both domestic and foreign policies and also as a new method of governance. Although, in terms of relationship, geoeconomics is a sub-branch of geopolitics, but there are differences in between them. In geoeconomics there are several involving actors which complicates this approach than geopolitics.  The instruments used in geoeconomics, in addition to a great variety, are mostly soft-power tools that causes more complexity in the international system.
Conclusion
Geoeconomics is a new approach to foreign and domestic policy and governance, which seeks to strengthen national infrastructure and infrastructure and help increase the geopolitical weight of the country which will change the country's position in the geopolitical system and consequently an increase in power to gain national interests. In the case of Iran, It seems that analyzing the country's problems from the point of view of geo-economics can open up a new and realistic perspective on issues. Also prescribed solutions and strategies from this point of view, are more accurate and useful.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Geoeconomics
  • Geopolitics
  • Iran.‎
  1. Barnard, Anne (2014), “Saudis’ Grant to Lebanon Is Seen as Message to U.S.,” New York Times, January 6, 2014.
  2. Baru, Sanjaya (2012), Geo-economics and Strategy. Survival, Vol. 54 No. 3, June–July 2012.pp. 47–58. DOI 10.1080/00396338.2012.690978.
  3. BBC News (2011), “China Signs $1.4bn Brazil Plane Deal to Kick Off Summit,” April 12, 2011.
  4. BBC News, October 2, 2012.
  5. Blackwill, Robert D and Harris, Jennifer M (2016), War by Other Means. Harvard University Press.
  6. Blair, David (2005) “Oil- Hungry China Takes Sudan under Its Wing,” Telegraph, April 23, 2005.
  7. Bremmer, Ian (2010), The End of the Free Market: Who Wins the War between States and Corporations? New York: Portfolio.
  8. Capaccio, Tony (2012), “China Most Threatening Cyberspace Force, U.S. Panel Says,” Bloomberg Business, November 5, 2012.
  9. Clayton, Blake and Segal, Adam (2013), “Addressing Cyber Threats to Oil and Gas Supplies,” Council on Foreign Relations Energy Brief, June 2013, 2.
  10. Clayton, Mark (2013) “Energy Sector Cyberattacks Jumped in 2012. Were Utilities Prepared? ”Christian Science Monitor, January 7, 2013.
  11. Clinton, Hillary (2011), “Economic Statecraft”, Speech delivered at the Economic Club of New York, October 14, 2011.
  12. Copeland, Dale C (1999), “Economic Interdependence and War: A Theory of Trade Expectations,” International Security 20, No. 4 (Spring 1999): 5–41.
  13. Cornell, Svante E. and Starr, S. Frederick (2009), The Guns of August 2008: Russia’s War in Georgia.
  14. Cowen, Deborah and Smith, Neil (2009), “After Geopolitics? From the Geopolitical Social to Geoeconomics,” Antipode 1, 22–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2008.00654.x.
  15. Crooks, Nathan and Orozco, Jose (2012), “PDVSA Receives $1.5 Billion Housing Loan from Chinese Bank,” Bloomberg Business, February 27, 2012.
  16. Danzig, Richard (2014), “Surviving on a Diet of Poisoned Fruit: Reducing the National Security Risks of America’s Cyber Dependencies,” Center for a New American Security, July 2014, 8.
  17. Dwyer, Geoff (2011), “U.S. Takes Aim at China and Russia over Cyber Attacks,”Financial Times, November 3, 2011.
  18. Economist (2011), “Trying to Pull Together: The Chinese in Africa,” April 20, 2011.
  19. Edward Luttwak (2012), the Rise of China vs. the Logic of Strategy. (Cambridge, Mass. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
  20. England, Andrew and Schafer, Daniel (2014), “Standard Bank to Sell Control of London Arm for $765m,” Financial Times, January 29, 2014.
  21. Hafeznia, Mohammadreza (2017), Tarbiat Modares University, February 27, unpublished [in Persian].
  22. Johnson, Keith (2013), “Putin’s Gas Gambit Backfires,” Foreign Policy, December 12, 2013.
  23. Kagan, Robert (2006), “League of Dictators,” Washington Post, April 30, 2006.
  24. Kharas, Homi; Pinto, Brian and Ulatov, Sergei (2001), “An Analysis of Russia’s 1998 Meltdown: Fundamentals and Market Signals,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity No. 1, 2001, Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.
  25. Kramer, Andrew (2008), “New Anxiety Grips Russia’s Economy,” New York Times, October 30, 2008; “Russia’s International Reserves Gain Five Billion Dollars in Seven Days,” Pravda.ru, May 12, 2008.
  26. Londoño, Ernesto (2014), “U.S. to Partially Resume Military Aid to Egypt,” Washington Post, April 22, 2014.
  27. Lorot, Pascal (2001), “La geoeconomie, nouvelle grammaire des rivalites internationals,” L’information géographique 65, No. 1 (2001), 43–52.
  28. Mandelbaum, Michael (2014), The Road to Global Prosperity (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2014), xvi– xvii.
  29. Martiningui, Ana and Youngs, Richard (2011), “Geo- Economic Futures,” in Challenges for European Foreign Policy in 2012: What kind of geo- economic Europe? Madrid: FRIDE.
  30. McAfee (2014), According to a 2014 report by McAfee “a conservative estimate would be $375 billion in losses, while the maximum could be as much as $575 billion.” Available at: www.mcafee.com/us/resources/reports/rp-economic-impact-cybercrime2.pdf.
  31. Nakashima, Ellen (2012), “Iran Blamed for Cyberattacks on U.S. Banks and Companies,” Washington Post, September 21, 2012.
  32. Papava, Vladimer (2012) “Economic Component of the Russian- Georgian Conflict,” Geo- Economics 6, No. 1.
  33. Rudnitsky, Jake and Bierman, Stephen (2013), “Rosneft’s $270 Billion Oil Deal Set to Make China Biggest Market,” Bloomberg Business, June 21, 2013.
  34. Segal, Adam (2013), “Shaming Chinese Hackers Won’t Work,” Guardian, May 30, 2013.
  35. Shauk, Zain (2013), “Malware on Oil Rig Computers Raises Security Fears,” Houston Chronicle, February 22, 2013.
  36. Soilen, Klaus Solberg (2010), the Shift from Geopolitics to Geoeconomics and the Failure of Our Modern Social Sciences,” Electronic Research Archive, Blekinge Institute of Technology, 2010.
  37. Soilen, Klaus Solberg (2012), Geoeconomics. Bookboon Publications.
  38. Sparke, Matthew (2000), Excavating the Future in Cascadia: Geoeconomics and the Imagined Geographies of a Cross-Border Region. BC Studies, autumn 2000. ProQuest Education Journals. 
  39. Steil, Benn and Litan, Robert (2006), Financial Statecraft: The Role of Financial Markets in American Foreign Policy (New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press).
  40. Suri, Jeremi (2014), “State Finance and National Power: Great Britain, China, and the United States in Historical Perspective,” Tobin Project discussion paper on “Sustainable National Security Strategy,” January 2014.
  41. Thirlwell, Mark (2010), The Return of Geo- economics. Interpreter, Lowy Institute for International Policy, May 24, 2010.
  42. Traynor, Ian (2007), “Russia Accused of Unleashing Cyberwar to Disable Estonia,” Guardian, May 16, 2007.
  43. Tusi, Khaje Nasir al-Din (1981), Akhlaq-i Nasiri (Nasirean Ethics), corrected and justified by Mojtaba Minavi and Alireza Heidari, Tehran: Kharazmi Publishing Company [in Persian].
  44. Wall Street Journal (2014), “China to Increase Loans to Africa by $10 Billion,” Wall Street Journal, May 5, 2014.