PofoliaShared via Pofolia

International Security· 2019Q1

Weaponized Interdependence: How Global Economic Networks Shape State Coercion

Henry Farrell, Abraham L. Newman

Short summary

States can "weaponize interdependence" by leveraging central nodes in asymmetric global economic networks (like SWIFT and the internet) to gather information (panopticon effect) or deny access to adversaries (chokepoint effect).

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • Global economic networks are often highly asymmetric, with a few central nodes.
  • States with jurisdiction over central nodes can "weaponize interdependence" for strategic advantage.
  • Two key mechanisms are the "panopticon effect" (information gathering) and the "chokepoint effect" (denying access).
  • Case studies of SWIFT and the internet support the framework's predictions.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

Abstract Liberals claim that globalization has led to fragmentation and decentralized networks of power relations. This does not explain how states increasingly “weaponize interdependence” by leveraging global networks of informational and financial exchange for strategic advantage. The theoretical literature on network topography shows how standard models predict that many networks grow asymmetrically so that some nodes are far more connected than others. This model nicely describes several key global economic networks, centering on the United States and a few other states. Highly asymmetric networks allow states with (1) effective jurisdiction over the central economic nodes and (2) appropriate domestic institutions and norms to weaponize these structural advantages for coercive ends. In particular, two mechanisms can be identified. First, states can employ the “panopticon effect” to gather strategically valuable information. Second, they can employ the “chokepoint effect” to deny network access to adversaries. Tests of the plausibility of these arguments across two extended case studies that provide variation both in the extent of U.S. jurisdiction and in the presence of domestic institutions—the SWIFT financial messaging system and the internet—confirm the framework's expectations. A better understanding of the policy implications of the use and potential overuse of these tools, as well as the response strategies of targeted states, will recast scholarly debates on the relationship between economic globalization and state coercion.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. International Security, 2019 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Political Science and International Relations

Political Science and International RelationsSocial Sciences