The liberal model of globalization 1.0 has taken a hit in recent years beset by claims of deglobalization and slowbalization. This paper argues that deglobalization claims may be a premature verdict and globalization 1.0 is being replaced by a geoeconomic model of globalization 2.0. Globalization 1.0 assumes that the United States-led neoliberal project would develop seamless connections between trading nations. I suggest that globalization 2.0 eschews the building of this modality of connection as discourses about risks shift to discourses of transnational threats.
BessnerD (2024) Rethinking the relationship between a US-based global security architecture and global capitalism. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers48(1): e12657.
3.
ClaytonCMaggioriMSchregerJ (2023) A framework for geoeconomics. NBER Paper 31852. Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic Research.
4.
DezenskiEAustinJ (2021) Rebuilding America’s Economy and Foreign Policy With ‘Ally-Shoring’. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
5.
DomoshM (2013) Geoeconomic imaginations and economic geography in the early twentieth century. Annals of the Association of American Geographers103: 944–966.
GaoHRenMShihT (2023) Co-evolutions in global decoupling: Learning from the global semiconductor industry. International Business Review32(6): 102118.
8.
GoodmanMReinschW (2022) Filling in the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies.
9.
GreenwoodL (2023) APEC Opportunities and Challenges. APEC Study Centers Consortium Conference, 15 November. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley.
10.
IMF (2023) Geoeconomic fragmentation and the future of multiateralism. IMF Discussion Paper 2023/01. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.
11.
KornprobstMPaulT (2021) Globalization, deglobalization and the liberal international order. International Affairs97: 1305–1316.
12.
LeeSWainwrightJGlassmanJ (2018) Geopolitical economy and the production of territory. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space50: 416–436.
13.
LiE (2012) Globalization 2.0. New Perspectives Quarterly29: 40–44.
14.
LuttwakE (2024) The logic of war in the grammar of commerce: Geoeconomics revisited. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers49(1): e12650.
15.
MallinFSidawayJ (2024) For critical geoeconomics. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographer49: e12648.
16.
NATO (2022) NATO Secretary General at Davos: “Freedom is more important than free trade”. 24May. Available at: www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_195753.htm (accessed 18 December 2023).
17.
NivolaP (1986) The new protectionism: US trade policy in historical perspective. Political Science Quarterly101: 557–600.
18.
PaulT (2023) The specter of deglobalization. Current History122: 3–8.
19.
PoonJ (2021) Regulating the global illicit economy: Singapore’s role in US spatial financial surveillance. Political Geography91: 102493.
20.
PoonJ (2024) End of the Asia-Pacific: Geoeconomics, belt and road and the Indo-Pacific. Political Geography108: 103026.
21.
SparkeM (2007) Geopolitical fears, geoeconomic hopes, and the responsibilities of geography. Annals of the Association of American Geographers97: 338–349.
22.
SparkeM (2024) Defining geoeconomics amid shifts in global hegemony: Critical geographies of new international conjunctures. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space. 57(1): 103–107.
23.
SullivanJ (2023) Remarks by National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan on Renewing American Economic Leadership at the Brookings Institution. Washington, DC: White House.
24.
TeerJMillerC (2023) Action on critical minerals is needed now. Politico, 28September.
25.
The Economist (2023) What is “friendshoring”?23August.
