JEOEKONOMİK REKABETİN YENİ ROTASI: KUŞAK VE YOL GİRİŞİMİ İLE IMEC PROJESİNİN YENİ TİCARET TEORİLERİ ÇERÇEVESİNDE KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI

Öz

Jeoekonomik ve ticari açıdan ticaret yollarının ve ekonomik iş birliğinin önemi her geçen gün artmaktadır. Tarih boyunca küresel ticaret yolları her zaman stratejik öneme sahip olmuştur. İpek Yolu gibi kadim ticaret yolları, erken dönem ticaret ve kültürel alışverişi kolaylaştırmıştır. Ancak teknik ve politik aksaklıklar küresel tedarik zincirlerini yeni rotalara zorlamıştır. Süveyş Kanalı gibi önemli nakliye rotalarındaki aksamalar, küresel ticaretteki kırılganlıkları ortaya çıkarmıştır. Dünyamızdaki değişen ticari ve ekonomik merkezler yeni rotalar getirmiştir. Küresel ticaretin ekseni, Kuzey Amerika ve Avrupa Birliği'ndeki geleneksel merkezlerden, özellikle Çin, Japonya ve Güney Kore gibi Doğu Asya ekonomilerinin yönlendirdiği Asya-Pasifik bölgesine kaymıştır. Bu ortamda, günümüzün iki önemli ekonomik iş birliği yeni ticaret yollarının ortaya çıkmasına yol açmıştır. Kuşak ve Yol Girişimi (BRI) ve Uluslararası Ticaret ve Ekonomi Merkezi (IMEC) en çok konuşulan iki projedir. Bu projelerin yalnızca ticari değil aynı zamanda politik sonuçları da olması, jeoekonomi kavramını ön plana çıkarmıştır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Melitz'in yeni ticaret teorisini jeoekonomi kavramı çerçevesinde kullanarak BRI ve IMEC'i karşılaştırmaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yeni Ticaret Teorisi
• jeoekonomi
• KYG
• IMEC

THE NEW ROUTE OF GEOECONOMIC COMPETITION: COMPARISON OF THE BELT AND ROAD INITIATIVE AND THE IMEC PROJECT WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF NEW TRADE THEORIES

Öz

The importance of trade routes and economic cooperation in geoeconomic and commercial terms is increasing day by day. Throughout history, global trade routes have always been of strategic importance. Ancient trade routes, such as the Silk Road, facilitated early trade and cultural exchange. However, technical and political disruptions have forced global supply chains to new routes. Disruptions to key shipping routes, such as the Suez Canal, have underlined vulnerabilities in global trade. Changing commercial and economic centers in our world have brought new routes. The axis of global trade has shifted from traditional hubs in North America and the European Union to include the Asia-Pacific region, which is driven by East Asian economies such as China, Japan, and South Korea in particular. In this environment, today's two important economic collaborations have led to the emergence of new trade routes. BRI and IMEC are the two most discussed projects. The fact that these projects have not only commercial but also political consequences has brought the concept of geoeconomy to the fore. This study aims to compare BRI and IMEC using Melitz's new trade theory within the framework of the concept of geoeconomics.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• New Trade Theory
• Geoeconomics
• BRI
• IMEC

Kaynakça

1. Agarwal, P., & Sharma, D. K. (2024). Revolutionizing global trade: Unveiling the India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor at G20 (pp. 1–8). https://doi.org/10.58532/nbennur98
2. Abdel-Baz, R. (2025). Great power competition in Central Asia: Current challenges and future scenarios. Maǧallaẗ al-Siyāsaẗ wa al-Iqtiṣād, 26(25), 326–368. https://doi.org/10.21608/jocu.2024.305457.1364
3. Ahmed, A., Salman, R. Y., Mahdi, S., & Naamo, G. S. (2024). Redefining global trade networks: Emerging patterns and trends in the 21st century. Journal of Ecohumanism, 3(5), 984–999. https://doi.org/10.62754/joe.v3i5.3950
4. Ateş, E. (2021). Türkiye’nin jeoekonomik gücünün belirlenmesi: Ampirik bir analiz. Sinop Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 5(1), 133–154. https://doi.org/10.30561/sinopusd.906193
5. Bakkalcı, A. C. (2013). Yeni yeni ticaret teorileri’nin makroekonomik doğası ve Türk ekonomisi. Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 11(22), 69–98. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/705522
6. Biró, D., & Vasa, L. (2024). Unveiling the strategic significance of the Middle Corridor in global trade and geopolitical dynamics. Экономика: Стратегия и Практика, 19(2), 70–83. https://doi.org/10.51176/1997-9967-2024-2-70-83
7. Camman, C., & Livolsi, L. (2024). Changes in world trade routes: An opportunity for secondary ports? Les Cahiers Scientifiques du Transport. https://doi.org/10.46298/cst.12522
8. Cao, L. (2024). An analysis of the economic and policy impacts of the Belt and Road Initiative on participating countries: A case study of Pakistan, Djibouti, and Sri Lanka. Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media, 70(1), 36–42. https://doi.org/10.54254/2753-7048/70/20240997

9. Chen, W., & Wang, N. Y. (2022). Visualizing the changing geographies of international trade, 2000–19. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 9(1), 132–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2022.2043770
10. Cheng, W. (2024). Research on the impact of the Belt and Road Initiative on the economies and development of participating countries. Frontiers in Business, Economics and Management, 12(3), 148–151. https://doi.org/10.54097/oh580s
11. Container xChange. (n.d.). Belt and Road Initiative [Blog yazısı]. https://www.container-xchange.com/blog/belt-and-road-initiative/
12. Cowen, D., & Smith, N. (2009). After geopolitics?: From the geopolitical social to geoeconomics. Antipode, 41(1), 22–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2008.00654.x
13. Dangre, G. (2024). From ancient paths to modern highways: Mapping the evolution of world trade routes and their crucial role in today’s global supply chains. Indian Scientific Journal of Research in Engineering and Management. https://doi.org/10.55041/ijsrem33981
14. Dirioz, A. (2022). An energy-focused alternative and complementary route to the Silk Road. Eurasian Research Journal, 4(2), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.53277/2519-2442-2022.2-01
15. Dobrek, Ł. (2022). Economic geography, politics, and the world trade regime. World Trade Review, 21(3), 367–379. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474745622000040
16. Dunsby, I. J. (2023). Empirical case studies on the economic and political effects of the Belt and Road Initiative in Pakistan, Kenya, Sri Lanka, and Montenegro. International Journal of Social Science and Education Research Studies, 3(7). https://doi.org/10.55677/ijssers/v03i7y2023-30
17. Felbermayr, G., & Jung, B. (2011). Home market effects and the single-sector Melitz model. Research Papers in Economics [Çalışma raporu]. https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_3695.html
18. Ghanem, D., & Sanchez-Cacicedo, A. (2024). What the EU needs to know to bring IMEC to life [Rapor]. European Union Institute for Security Studies.
19. Han, Y., Yang, J., & Wu, J. (2024). The impact of the Belt and Road Initiative on the economic development of the countries participating in the initiative. Highlights in Business, Economics and Management, 39, 140–149. https://doi.org/10.54097/ny8vkm66
20. Indeo, F. (2018). The impact of the Belt and Road Initiative on Central Asia: Building new relations in a reshaped geopolitical scenario (pp. 135–153). In China's Belt and Road Initiative. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75435-2_8
21. Kausch, K. (n.d.). IMEC’s comeback. German Marshall Fund of the United States. https://www.gmfus.org/news/imecs-comeback
22. Khorava, M. (2024). Geoeconomic strategy in the conditions of modern geopolitical challenges. Axali Ekonomisti, 19(1), 60–66. https://doi.org/10.36962/nec19012024-09
23. Krzymowski, A. (2024). India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor in strategic connection with the Abraham Accords and the Three Seas Initiative. Journal of International Studies, 17(4), 179–194. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-8330.2024/17-4/11
24. Kumafan, T. D., & Nguevese, G. E. (2024). China’s Belt and Road Initiative and its implications on the global power dynamics. Deleted Journal, 4(5), 928–933. https://doi.org/10.62225/2583049x.2024.4.5.3346
25. Li, C., Wan, Y., Xu, Z., Fan, X., Shuai, C., Yu, X., & Tan, Y. (2023). Impacts and pathways of the Belt and Road Initiative on Sustainable Development Goals of the involved countries. Sustainable Development. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2819
26. Li, B., Zhang, Z., & Zhang, Z. (2024). The impact of the Belt and Road Initiative on green innovation and innovation modes: Empirical evidence from Chinese listed enterprises. Frontiers in Environmental Science. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1323888
27. Luttwak, E. N. (1990). From geopolitics to geo-economics: Logic of conflict, grammar of commerce. The National Interest, 20(1), 17–24. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42894676
28. Mallin, F., Sidaway, J. D., Cheng, H., & Woon, C. Y. (2024). Introduction: Explanation, critique and critics of geoeconomics. Environment and Planning A. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X241280007
29. MERICS. (2018). Infrastrukturen für drei Kontinente. Mercator Institute for China Studies. https://merics.org/
30. Metro AG. (2025). IMEC—Europe’s new trade bridge to India. https://www.metro.global/news/imec-europes-new-trade-bridge-to-india/
31. Pasupuleti, M. K. (2024). Global business and trade strategies (pp. 40–61). https://doi.org/10.62311/nesx/97868
32. Peng, S., Qian, J., Xing, X., Wang, J., Adeli, A., & Wei, S. (2025). Technological cooperation for sustainable development under the Belt and Road Initiative and the Sustainable Development Goals: Opportunities and challenges. Sustainability, 17(2), 657. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020657
33. Pomfred, R. (2018). The Eurasian landbridge and China’s Belt and Road Initiative. VoxEU (CEPR). https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/eurasian-landbridge-and-chinas-belt-and-road-initiative
34. RailFreight. (2024, November 5). China–Middle Corridor–Europe transit times are now around 30 days. https://www.railfreight.com/railfreight/2024/11/05/china-middle-corridor-europe-transit-times-are-now-around-30-days/
35. Ranjan, P., & Raychaudhuri, J. (2016). The “new-new” trade theory: A review of the literature. In M. Roy & S. S. Roy (Eds.), International trade and international finance. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2797-7_1
36. Rethinking regional hegemonic order: Nexus of BRI and SCO in Central Asian region. (2024). Journal of Development and Social Sciences, 5(II). https://doi.org/10.47205/jdss.2024(5-ii)39
37. Rickard, S. J. (2022). Economic geography, politics, and the world trade regime. World Trade Review, 21, 367–379. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474745622000040
38. Roson, R., & Oyamada, K. (2014). Introducing Melitz-style firm heterogeneity in CGE models: Technical aspects and implications. SSRN Working Paper, 63. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2406887
39. Segerstrom, P. S., & Stepanok, I. (2018). Learning how to export. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 120(1), 63–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjoe.12226
40. Singh, S. K. (2024). IMEEC: Boon for logistics sector. Indian Scientific Journal of Research in Engineering and Management, 8(10), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.55041/ijsrem38142
41. Tumanyan, Y. R., Ishchenko-Padukova, O. A., & Movchan, I. V. (n.d.). Geo-economics in interdisciplinary research system. https://doi.org/10.23683/2073-6606-2018-16-4-144-153
42. Venables, A. J. (2019). Economic geography and trade. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Economics and Finance. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190625979.013.332
43. Vihma, A. (2017). Geoeconomic analysis and the limits of critical geopolitics: A new engagement with Edward Luttwak. Geopolitics, 23(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2017.1302928
44. Wang, B., Gong, S., & Yang, Y. (2023). Innovation capability, global cooperation, and sustainable development along the Belt and Road Initiative. Sustainable Development. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2599
45. Luo, W., & Yang, T. (2025, June 10). China–Europe freight train network marks major milestone. Invest in China. https://investinchina.chinaservicesinfo.com/s/202506/10/WS6847f5cf498eec7e1f7396e9/china-europe-freight-train-network-marks-major-milestone.html
46. Wu, H., Shah, S. M. A., Nawaz, A., Asad, A., Iqbal, S., Zahoor, H., & Maqsoom, A. (2020). The impact of energy cooperation and the role of the One Belt and Road Initiative in revolutionizing the geopolitics of energy among regional economic powers: An analysis of infrastructure development and project management. Complexity, 2020, Article 8820021. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8820021