'Geopoliticonomy'

The vocabulary we use to describe global affairs shapes how we understand them. For decades, geopolitics has served as the dominant lens—focusing on territory, alliances, and military power. Yet in today’s world, that term is no longer sufficient; it cannot fully capture the deep and accelerating interconnectedness of global dynamics. What we are witnessing is not merely geopolitics but a more integrated system—one that may be more accurately described as Geopoliticonomy.

The term “geo,” derived from the Greek word for “Earth,” forms the foundation of a family of concepts used to interpret global affairs. While its literal meaning remains constant, its analytical scope expands across different frameworks.

In geopolitics, “geo” refers to the physical and strategic landscape—territory, borders, location, and natural resources—within which states project power and secure influence. It is a spatial concept grounded in land, proximity, and control. Power is exercised through military presence, alliances, and territorial positioning.

In geoeconomics, the meaning of “geo” shifts from physical terrain to global economic space. It encompasses cross-border trade, supply chains, capital flows, and resource allocation. Economic instruments—tariffs, sanctions, investment controls, and currency policies—become tools of statecraft. The battlefield extends beyond land and sea into markets, financial systems, and production networks.

Neither framework alone captures the architecture of modern global interaction. What emerges instead is an integrated reality in which geography, economics, and power operate as a single interconnected system.

This broader system is geopoliticonomy.

In this framework, “geo” extends beyond both physical territory and economic space. It represents the total architecture of interdependence—a system in which geographic realities, economic networks, and global power structures are fused. Territory, markets, and strategic influence no longer operate in parallel; they interact continuously, shaping outcomes that cannot be understood in isolation.

This transformation is reinforced by global connectivity. What was once physical terrain now includes digital networks, financial systems, and communication infrastructures. Actions propagate with digital speed because the “territory” being contested is no longer just land and sea, but the infrastructure of global exchange and communication. Thus, global political economy may be reconceptualised as geopoliticonomy, and its systematic study as geopoliticonomics. This integration is not merely conceptual—it is operational.

These domains are so deeply interconnected that they defy meaningful disentanglement. A geopolitical conflict disrupts energy markets; a financial sanction reshapes alliances; a trade policy alters strategic balances. What appears as separate events is, in reality, a single chain of transmission across an integrated system. This interdependence reflects the lived reality of modern global dynamics. At the same time, behavior within this system is governed by conjectural variation: actors make decisions not in isolation, but in anticipation of how others will respond, much like firms in an oligopolistic market. Tariffs invite retaliation. Sanctions provoke countermeasures. Alliances trigger realignments. Strategy becomes a continuous process of expectation, reaction, and recalibration.

These dynamics become clearer when examining contemporary global formations.

NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) represents a classical geopolitical alliance, grounded in collective security and deterrence. The European Union (EU) stands as a fully developed geopoliticonomic bloc, integrating markets, monetary systems, and political governance into a unified structure of influence. BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) operates primarily as a geoeconomic coalition, seeking to reshape financial and trade architectures.

The QUAD (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue) reflects a geopolitical alignment shaped by strategic considerations in the Indo-Pacific. OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) functions as a politiconomic oligopoly, exerting coordinated influence over global energy markets without relying on military power. Trade-cantered arrangements such as USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement) and SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) operate largely within the geoeconomic sphere, facilitating commerce and regional integration, though their effectiveness depends on underlying political cohesion.

Taken together, these formations reveal a deeper reality: the boundaries between geopolitics and geoeconomics are no longer distinct—they are entangled, each reinforcing and reshaping the other in the pursuit of global power.

The evolving relationship between the United States (US) and China illustrates this logic with clarity. Tariffs, export controls, and technological restrictions are often framed as economic policies, yet they are fundamentally geopolitical in intent and power-driven in consequence. Semiconductor bans, for instance, are strategic efforts to shape the future distribution of technological power. Diplomatic alignments are reinforced by supply-chain restructuring and shifting capital flows. What may appear as discrete actions is, in reality, a single integrated geopoliticonomic strategy.

At the same time, Russia, China, and Iran—though not bound by a formal alliance—are steadily converging into a geopoliticonomic alignment, where energy flows, financial linkages, and strategic coordination collectively challenge the existing global order without requiring a unified military structure.

A similar pattern is evident in the Russia–Ukraine conflict. The war itself is geopolitical, yet its consequences reverberate through energy markets, financial systems, and global trade networks. Sanctions have reconfigured the flow of energy and finance, while Russia’s pivot toward alternative markets and currencies demonstrates the adaptive use of geoeconomic tools under pressure.

The conflicts in the Middle East further reinforce this transformation. Oil production decisions shape global inflation, monetary policy, and growth trajectories. Power is exercised not solely through military force, but through control over resources, markets, and financial networks. The ongoing conflict in the Middle East—and the threat of closure of the Strait of Hormuz—provides a real-time illustration of geopoliticonomic entanglement. What begins as a regional geopolitical flashpoint cascades instantly through global oil flows, shipping lanes, financial markets, and inflation dynamics, converting a localised conflict into a system-wide reconfiguration of economic and strategic power.

Africa presents a different but equally important dimension. Unlike NATO or BRICS, it does not yet operate as a unified geopoliticonomic actor. Instead, it remains the world’s most contested geoeconomic frontier—where external powers engage in a form of geopoliticonomic entanglement, shaping outcomes often more than domestic institutional structures.

The transformation of Africa from a contested frontier into a unified actor would represent one of the most consequential shifts in the global system. By aligning its vast resources and markets into a coherent framework, the continent has the potential to emerge as a primary player capable of shaping the international order on its own terms.

In analytical terms, the global system may be understood as a strategic interaction between geopolitics and geoeconomics, with global power as the resulting payoff. Each domain can either align with or operate independently of the other. The highest payoff emerges when geopolitical strategy and economic instruments move in coordination—when military strategy and economic instruments reinforce one another. This alignment forms a stable equilibrium, as neither domain benefits from unilateral deviation. Conversely, disjointed strategies generate internal contradictions: geopolitical actions undermine economic interests, economic policies weaken alliances, and power projection becomes unsustainable. In this sense, global power is not an independent variable, but the outcome of successful coordination across these domains.

In this geopoliticonomic theater, success depends on the ability to anticipate how actions in one domain propagate across the others. The most effective actors are those who treat these domains not as separate tools, but as a single, integrated lever of global power.

Middle-power sovereign states increasingly illustrate this reality. By navigating both geopolitical and geoeconomic networks, they maximize autonomy without fully committing to any single bloc. Their behaviour demonstrates that in a world of entanglement, power lies not only in scale, but in strategic adaptability and alignment.

Meanwhile, geopoliticonomic dynamics—long dominated by the US—are undergoing a structural transformation. The axis of global power is fragmenting into multiple competing centres. Once the unrivalled power since World War II, the US is now gradually losing ground, partly because of repeated strategic overreach, especially when contrasted with China’s more measured rise in both economic and military power. At the same time, Washington’s unwavering and often uncritical support for certain allies has cast doubt on the neutrality, credibility, and effectiveness of global institutions such as the United Nations, thereby weakening one of the institutional pillars through which geopoliticonomic power has historically been coordinated. What has emerged is not collapse, but rebalancing.

The implications of geopoliticonomy are profound. For policymakers, it demands integrated strategy: economic policy cannot be divorced from geopolitical objectives. For analysts, it requires abandoning siloed thinking in favour of system-based analysis.

The analytical power of geopoliticonomy lies in alignment—where political objectives, economic instruments, and power capabilities reinforce one another. In a world defined by entanglement, failure to think in geopoliticonomic terms is not simply an analytical limitation, it is a strategic liability.

Geopolitics explains power. Geoeconomics explains instruments. Geopoliticonomy explains the system. In a world of entanglement, power belongs not to the strongest, but to the most aligned.

Dr Abdullah A Dewan is Professor Emeritus of Economics, Eastern Michigan University (USA); and former physicist and nuclear engineer, Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission.

aadeone@gmail.com