Search

Begin New Search Political Geography Asia Publication Year within 1 Year

51. Climate Change, Vulnerable Groups, and Data-Driven Policymaking

Author:
Selahattin Selsah Pasali
Publication Date:
04-2025
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Baku Dialogues
Institution:
ADA University
Abstract:
More than four in five people in Asia and the Pacific reportedly face multi‑hazard risks associated with slow or sudden onset climate events, according to the latest Asia‑Pacific Disaster Report published by the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP). Many existing hotspots of climate‑related multi‑hazards are forecast to intensify. Individuals residing in these hotspots, often already low‑income and with limited access to basic services and infrastructure, will likely be exposed to more frequent and intense sudden‑ and slow‑onset natural disasters. Noteworthy is the assessment that migrants, refugees, internally displaced persons (IDPs), and stateless persons residing in many parts of these vast geographic areas reportedly face even more daunting challenges in this category, due to their vulnerable legal status, limited coping capacity, and access to basic services and opportunities.
Topic:
Climate Change, Inequality, Displacement, and Vulnerability
Political Geography:
Asia

52. The New Geopolitical Scramble for Corridors

Author:
Velina Tchakarova
Publication Date:
01-2025
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Baku Dialogues
Institution:
ADA University
Abstract:
The geopolitical landscape in winter 2024- 2025 is marked by significant transformation, uncertainty, and fierce competition for influence. The geopolitical hotspots of this new contest are most visible in the regions that bridge Europe and Asia—what the editors of Baku Dialogues call the “Silk Road region.” Central to this dynamic is the growing intersection of interests between major regional players against the backdrop of a Cold War 2.0, putting the West against what I was the first to call the “DragonBear” alliance of China and Russia. These corridors are not just infrastructural undertakings; they are the arteries of global power, trade, and connectivity, reflecting deeper geopolitical ambitions and contestations. This extensive analysis elaborates on today’s most significant connectivity projects, exploring their strategic implications and the new power dynamics they are fostering. In the traditional sense, empires have always relied on transport and trade corridors to project power and expand influence. From the ancient Silk Roads to the West’s colonial sea routes, the ability to control the flow of goods and resources has often equated to geopolitical dominance. Today, this principle remains unchanged, though the scale and stakes have reached unprecedented levels.
Topic:
Geopolitics, Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Trade, and International Competition
Political Geography:
China, Europe, Central Asia, and Asia

53. Back to the Future: The Rise of Militarization in China in the 2020s

Author:
Tai Ming Cheung
Publication Date:
05-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC)
Abstract:
In this policy brief, IGCC director Tai Ming Cheung analyzes Chinese militarization efforts as the country seeks tighter integration of the civilian and defense economies and a strong sense of national security, and whether such efforts lead to China being more prone to going to war in the near future.
Topic:
Defense Policy, National Security, Economy, and Militarization
Political Geography:
China and Asia

54. Friends and Foes in the Indo-Pacific: Multilateralism Out, Minilateralism In?

Author:
Axel Berkofsky and Guido Alberto Casanova
Publication Date:
03-2025
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Italian Institute for International Political Studies (ISPI)
Abstract:
Minilateralism is already among us, and it is here to stay. The well-known shortcomings of the multilateral system of governance are pushing individual states in the Indo-Pacific to come up with new and different solutions to deal with the security and prosperity issues that current institutions are unable to tackle. Amid growing geopolitical rivalries and the uncertainty provoked by the re-election of Donald Trump, this report aims to shed some clarity on an emerging trend that is already affecting the foreign policy of great powers in a region that is central to global affairs.
Topic:
Security, Alliance, Multilateralism, Institutions, and Cooperation
Political Geography:
Russia, Japan, India, Asia, North Korea, Philippines, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

55. Radical novelties in critical technologies and spillovers: how do China, the US and the EU fare?

Author:
Alicia Garcia-Herrero, Michal Krystyanczuk, and Robin Schindowski
Publication Date:
05-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
Critical technologies including artificial intelligence, semiconductors and quantum computing are attracting attention because of their indispensable nature and their role in national security strategies. We compare China, the United States and the European Union in these technologies and their subfields. We use large language models (LLMs) to identify which patents in these technologies can be considered most groundbreaking (not patented before) and worth replicating. These are ‘radical novelties.’ We find that the US clearly dominates quantum. Chinese and EU progress is similar. The US does slightly better than China in AI with clear dominance in generative AI, but China stands out in some important subfields, such as aerial vehicle technology. China dominates in a larger number of semiconductor fields but not in the highest value added, which is related to design. In a second step we assess how quickly radical novelties in these three technologies are transferred from one economic area to another and within each economic area. We find that the fastest transmission overall is for AI. The EU is by far the slowest in replicating radical novelties from the US and China, while the US and China tend to replicate European novel patents relatively quickly. Radical novelties are also replicated quickly between China and the US which is surprising given US controls on exports of critical technologies to China. Our findings are concerning for Europe because it does not produce enough critical patents in these technologies and because it is slower in replicating patents from the US and China.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Economy, Trade, and Artificial Intelligence
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and United States of America

56. Which companies are ahead in frontier innovation on critical technologies? Comparing China, the European Union and the United States

Author:
Alicia Garcia-Herrero, Michal Krystyanczuk, and Robin Schindowski
Publication Date:
05-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
Competition in critical technologies is attracting increasing attention not only because of the foundational nature of these technologies for other types of innovation, but also because of their role in the United States national security strategy. In this paper, we look into which entities in China, the European Union and the US innovate at the technology frontier in the three most important critical technologies – artificial intelligence, quantum computing and semiconductors – based on identification of the most radical novel patents in these technologies and their subsectors. Working with these pathbreaking patents, we look into the origin of the companies that file the largest numbers of them. US innovators dominate the innovation frontier for quantum computing and, to a lesser extent, AI, with Chinese innovators doing better in semiconductors. European innovators lag in all, but perform relatively better in quantum computing, in which they rank similarly to Chinese innovators. Furthermore, the innovation ecosystem is quite different across geographies. In the US, tech companies top the rankings of critical novelties and are highly concentrated: as many as three companies are in the top rankings of all of the three critical technologies. Frontier innovators in the field in which the EU competes most equally – quantum – are mostly research centres and not companies. China lies somewhat in between in all three domains.
Topic:
Science and Technology, European Union, Innovation, Artificial Intelligence, Semiconductors, and Quantum Computing
Political Geography:
China, Europe, Asia, and United States of America

57. India-China rapprochement: what are the long-term prospects?

Author:
Nayanima Basu and Alicia Garcia-Herrero
Publication Date:
05-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
China-India relations, which have long been fraught, were further complicated by the 2020 military standoff on the Himalayan border. The political disruption had a significant impact on Chinese companies’ presence in India. And yet, India’s dependence on Chinese imports has increased since. The Indian economy is decelerating at a challenging time for Prime Minister Modi, who governs in a coalition. China could offer a partial solution to India’s economic woes by providing manufacturing FDI and creating jobs. The Modi-Xi ‘rapprochement’ after their encounter at the October 2024 BRICS summit signals that relations could improve. India may be willing to accept targeted investment from China, but relations are unlikely to fully normalise, particularly since the 2025 India-Pakistan military stand-off. There are three main reasons for this. First, the Indian army remains cautious about the situation at the border and security risks relating to China. Second, the United States under President Trump will exert pressure on Modi not to depend further on China. This is even more relevant in the context of Trump’s threat to impose tariffs on India. Third, Indian public opinion on China and the Belt and Road Initiative remains negative. India is predicted to experience greater growth than China in the coming decades, meaning China could lose its upper hand in economic relations between the two countries. This, however, will depend on how dependent India might have become on China for imports or for jobs through FDI and other channels. The militarised border, India’s asymmetric economic dependence on China and China’s leadership in the Global South will still shape the relationship even if the Indian economy grows to a similar size to China’s. India-China ‘rapprochement’ is possible but will remain fragile and unlikely to be maintained in the long run.
Topic:
Bilateral Relations, Governance, Economy, Economic Growth, Investment, and Trade
Political Geography:
China, India, and Asia

58. Will China’s economy follow the same path as Japan’s?

Author:
Alicia Garcia-Herrero and Jianwei Xu
Publication Date:
02-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
Since the bursting of China’s real-estate bubble in mid-2021, there has been a growing concern that the Chinese economy could end up like that of Japan in the early 1990s. Some structural patterns are strikingly similar: low private consumption over a long period, especially when compared to the rest of the world, and an excessively high savings ratio, though China’s imbalances now are even larger that Japan’s were then. Initial policy responses to the bursting of their respective bubbles have also been similar. Both China now and Japan then were initially hesitant to ease monetary and fiscal policies, and opted to expand manufacturing, with an eye on external demand, supported by more research and development expenditure. In both cases, the outcomes were stubborn trade surpluses and a mercantilist attitude to their growth problems, leading to the United States taking protectionist measures. China also seems to be following Japan’s offshoring of production to mitigate the impact of protectionism. The main difference, though, is that China now is a poorer country than Japan was then, with still more convergence opportunities ahead. China is also a much bigger military and geopolitical contender than Japan ever was. China’s geopolitical weight is behind the US technological containment of China, but also gives China more room for manoeuvre globally, especially in the Global South. It remains unclear – though globally significant – whether China will be able to deviate from the path followed by Japan in the 1980s and 1990s.
Topic:
Industrial Policy, Geopolitics, Economy, Economic Growth, Innovation, and Real Estate
Political Geography:
Japan, China, and Asia

59. Charting a Path in the Uncharted Domain

Author:
Jennifer Hong Whetsell
Publication Date:
12-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Project 2049 Institute
Abstract:
The Republic of Korea (ROK, or South Korea) is rising as a prominent player in the space domain. The size of its space program makes its current position as an emerging space power even more impressive and promising. The United States, one of South Korea's closest political and defense allies, and South Korea share a considerable history in space cooperation since the late 1980s. Despite the long history of collaboration between the United States and South Korea, fundamental differences have slowed their progress toward a deeper and more meaningful cooperation in this domain. As space becomes an integral aspect of national security and a coveted frontier for scientific endeavor and exploration, the two capitals have much to gain through enhanced cooperation. “Charting a Path in the Uncharted Domain” examines the landscape of South Korea’s space ecosystem and provides a broad overview of its accomplishments and challenges in the space domain. It then highlights significant milestones of space cooperation between Washington and Seoul and analyzes the cooperative landscape, noting areas of differences and opportunities for enhanced cooperation. The paper then presents recommendations for U.S. and ROK policymakers to help overcome those barriers and strengthen their cooperation in the space domain.
Topic:
International Cooperation, Bilateral Relations, Alliance, and Space
Political Geography:
Asia, South Korea, and United States of America

60. Aimless Rivalry: The Futility of US–China Competition in the Middle East

Author:
Jon Hoffman
Publication Date:
07-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Cato Institute
Abstract:
Fear in Washington over China’s expanding regional presence is quickly becoming a new rationale for an expansive US foreign policy in the Middle East. But China remains an opportunistic actor in the Middle East, driven by practical needs, not by aspirations to dominate the region. Beijing lacks the ability and desire to assume a dominant position in the Middle East, and its ability to jeopardize US regional interests is limited.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Strategic Competition, and Rivalry
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America