Weaponized Interdependence

How Global Economic Networks Shape State Coercion

Bibliographic Data

ID11262345
AuthorsHenry Farrell (0000-0003-0611-3949, Henry Farrell is Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University., corresponding author), Abraham L Newman (0000-0003-4105-1229, Abraham L. Newman is Professor at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service and the Government Department at Georgetown University.)
Year2019
Volume44
Issue1
Pages42-79
Publication date2019-07-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueInternational Security (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0162-2889 • E-ISSN: 1531-4804
PublisherMIT Press (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1162/isec_a_00351
OpenAlexW2965425066
LanguageEN
Citations received597
References cited77

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

Coercion (linguistics · Economic globalization · Economic interdependence · Economic system · Economics · Globalization · Jurisdiction · Law and economics · Political economy · Political science · Sovereignty · State (computer science · Computer Science · Cybersecurity and Cyber Warfare Studies · European Union Policy and Governance · International Relations and Foreign Policy · Law

Tools

Open DOISci-HubOpen Access