ABSTRACT

In response to comments on a longer article, this essay notes that several scholars define geoeconomics in remarkably broad terms, covering an array of things: borderless economic zones, strategic economic instruments of foreign policy, both neoliberalism and economic nationalism, and so forth. Something is surely gained, but also lost, in developing the concept of geoeconomics towards this all-encompassing direction. The risk is that the concept becomes overly extensive and loses its analytical power.