Shock Propagation and the Geometry of International Trade: The US–China Trade Bipolarity in the Light of Network Science
What is the impact of geopolitics on the geometry of global trade? What is the key structural role that led to the emergence of the US–China trade bipolarity? Here, we study the geometry of international trade, taking into account not only the direct but also the <b><i>indirect</i>...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2025-03-01
|
| Series: | Mathematics |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/13/5/838 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | What is the impact of geopolitics on the geometry of global trade? What is the key structural role that led to the emergence of the US–China trade bipolarity? Here, we study the geometry of international trade, taking into account not only the direct but also the <b><i>indirect</i></b> trade relations. We consider the self-weight of each country as an indicator of its intrinsic robustness to exogenous shocks. We assess the vulnerability of a country to potential demand or supply shocks based on the entropy (diversification) of its trade flows. By considering the <b><i>indirect</i></b> trade relations, we found that the key <b><i>structural role</i></b> that led to the emergence of the US–China trade bipolarity is that of the <b><i>intermediary hub</i></b> that acts as a <b>“<i>bridge</i>”</b> between different trade clusters. The US and China occupied key network positions of <b><i>high betweenness centrality</i></b> as early as 2010. As international trade was increasingly dependent on only these two intermediary trade hubs, this fact led to geopolitical tensions such as the US–China trade war. Therefore, <b><i>betweenness centrality could serve as a structural indicator, forewarning of possible upcoming geopolitical tensions</i></b>. The US–China trade bipolarity is also strongly present in self-weights, where a race in terms of their intrinsic robustness to exogenous shocks is more than evident. It is also interesting that the US and China are not only the top shock spreaders but also the most susceptible to shocks. However, China can act more as a shock spreader than a shock receiver, while for the USA, the opposite is true. Regarding the impact of geopolitics, we found that <b><i>the Russia–Ukraine conflict forced Ukraine to diversify both its exports and imports</i></b>, <b><i>aiming to lower its vulnerability to possible shocks</i></b>. Finally, we found that international trade is becoming <b><i>increasingly oligopolistic</i></b>, even when <b><i>indirect</i></b> trade relationships are taken into account, thus indicating that a <b>“<i>Deep Oligopoly</i>”</b> has formed. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2227-7390 |