ResearchPod Summary
Geoeconomics has become a contested term, often used by foreign policy elites and international relations experts to describe 'economic statecraft'—the use of economic tools like sanctions, tariffs, and trade deals to achieve national security goals. However, the author argues that these instrumentalist definitions often overlook the deeper, structural forces of capitalist development. As global hegemony shifts from Western dominance toward a more multipolar order, the entanglement of economic and geopolitical strategies has become more complex, necessitating a more rigorous, critical geographical perspective.
To move beyond simple, descriptive accounts of geoeconomics, the author proposes the use of 'conjunctural analysis.' Borrowing from Gramscian traditions in urban and regional geography, this method seeks to situate geostrategic discourses within the broader context of struggles over territory and hegemony. Rather than treating geopolitics and geoeconomics as independent logics, conjunctural analysis examines how they are dialectically related, reflecting the tension between the need for fixed investments in space and capitalism’s relentless drive for new expansion opportunities.
This approach allows researchers to avoid the pitfalls of 'discursive determinism'—the mistake of assuming that political rhetoric is the only thing that matters—while also avoiding a reductive materialism that ignores the power of ideas. By analyzing how geoeconomic policies (such as 'de-risking' or 'friend-shoring') are constructed and contested, critical geographers can reveal how these strategies are not just neutral economic tools, but are deeply tied to ethno-identitarian visions, imperial histories, and the everyday experiences of people living through these global upheavals. Ultimately, this framework provides a way to study the 'Second Cold War' and other contemporary shifts without losing sight of the underlying contradictions of global capitalism.
Alex: Welcome to another episode of ResearchPod. Today, we're exploring a paper by Matthew Sparke that examines why we so often struggle to make sense of the relationship between global politics and economic policy.
Sam: So the paper is essentially asking why we keep treating geopolitics and geoeconomics as if they're two separate games, when they seem to be played on the same shifting board?
Alex: Exactly. The core problem is that we tend to view them as independent forces, but the paper argues they're deeply tangled and mutually dependent — shaping the world in ways that a separated analysis tends to miss.
Sam: And the tool the author proposes for untangling this is something called "conjunctural analysis." What does that actually mean in plain terms?
Alex: Think of a complex weather system. You can't understand a storm by looking only at the temperature, or only at the wind speed. You have to look at the high-pressure system that forces them to interact. That interaction — that specific collision of forces — is what researchers call a "conjuncture." It's a snapshot of a unique historical moment where political and economic pressures converge to create a particular crisis or opportunity.
Sam: So instead of treating the economy and politics as separate data points, you're studying the specific weather system of a historical moment where those forces meet.
Alex: Precisely. And the reason this matters is that most conventional analysis doesn't do this. It relies instead on what the paper calls "instrumentalism" — the habit of treating complex, messy human systems like a simple toolkit. You pull out a tariff or a loan to fix a specific problem, without asking what larger forces made that problem appear in the first place.
Sam: Like trying to fix a bent car frame by replacing a single bolt.
Alex: That's a useful image. When a policymaker describes an electric vehicle tariff as a "national security" issue, they're using that toolkit framing to obscure what's actually a deeper story about industrial competition and shifting global power. A conjunctural approach would instead ask: why is this tariff happening right now, at this particular moment, and what structural pressures made it feel necessary?
So you're looking at the context, not just the policy itself.
AI-generated third-party summary by ResearchPod. Not official content or an endorsement by the paper authors or affiliated organizations.
Alex: Right. And part of that context involves what the paper calls a fundamental tension built into modern capitalism. On one side, you have "spatial fixity" — the massive, immovable investment in infrastructure. Ports, factories, supply chains. These things are expensive to build and hard to relocate. On the other side, you have constant pressure to expand into new markets, new territories, new sources of profit. Those two forces are always pulling against each other.
Sam: A company wants its factories to stay put to keep costs low, but the system pushes it to keep expanding.
Alex: Exactly. And if you ignore that tension, you end up with what the paper calls "discursive determinism" — the mistake of thinking that political outcomes are caused mainly by the rhetoric leaders use. The speeches matter, but if you focus only on the words, you miss the material reality underneath: the actual factories, the supply chains, the physical geography of where capital has been built and where it's trying to go.
Sam: So the goal is to connect the high-level rhetoric of politicians to the ground-level reality of how capital actually moves and builds across the globe.
Alex: That's the challenge the paper sets out. The author suggests we need to trace what he calls "relays" — the pathways through which a speech about national security actually translates into a physical change in a port, or a restructured supply chain, or a new industrial policy.
Sam: Does the paper give a concrete example of how this plays out?
Alex: Consider the current struggle over microchip manufacturing. It's not simply a trade dispute. It's a contest over who controls the most critical fixed infrastructure of the modern digital economy — the fabs, the equipment, the specialized knowledge clusters that took decades to build and can't simply be relocated. When you look at it through a conjunctural lens, you see how technological dominance, national security concerns, and the physical geography of production are all colliding at the same moment.
Sam: So rather than just labeling it a "tech war," you'd map the specific historical conditions that made that collision happen when and where it did.
Alex: Precisely. And the paper is honest about the difficulty of this. The author acknowledges that this kind of analysis is more demanding — you have to track many moving parts simultaneously — and that policymakers often prefer the simpler toolkit view because it produces clear, actionable answers.
Sam: Which raises an uncomfortable question. If the people in power prefer the simpler framing because it's easier to sell, how does a more critical approach ever gain any real traction?
Alex: The author is candid about this. The dominant narratives — the "common sense" stories that elites use to justify their decisions — are likely to persist regardless of how carefully critical researchers reframe the debate. That's a real limitation the paper doesn't shy away from.
Sam: So even if the research produces a more accurate map of the world, it might not be the map that the people steering the ship actually want to use.
Alex: That's true. But the paper's argument is that the value isn't only in changing policy overnight. It's in producing a more honest account of the forces that are actually shaping our lives — so that we're not just reacting to the storm after it hits, but understanding the atmospheric conditions that built it.
Sam: Moving from passive observer to someone who can read the pressure building in the system before it breaks.
Alex: That's the aspiration. It's a shift from reactive analysis to a more structural understanding of how the global order is being remade — one that takes seriously both the words leaders use and the material realities those words are trying to manage, or sometimes to hide.
Sam: It's a harder way to think about the world. But probably a more honest one.
Alex: The paper suggests so. Behind every policy, there is a complex, historically rooted struggle over material power — and that struggle doesn't pause just because our frameworks for understanding it are too simple to capture it. Thanks for listening to ResearchPod.