Current issue

Geoeconomic risks faced by the Russian Baltic region amid a deteriorating geopolitical situation

DOI

10.5922/2079-8555-2022-2- 2

Pages

23-37

Abstract

This article is a conceptual theoretical-­­empirical study of the geopolitical risks the Baltic Russian regions have faced amid the deteriorating geopolitical situation observed since 2014. The Baltic Russian regions are in a vulnerable position because of their geographical vicinity to EU countries, with which they share common borders, and the dramatically worsening military and political situation. To analyse geoeconomic risks, the author employed an earlier proposed methodology, which has been tested in Russia and abroad. Four types of geoeconomics risks are examined: spatial, economic, socio-­­demographic, national geopolitical and regional geopolitical. Overall, five levels of geopolitical risks can be distinguished. The contribution sets out to provide a conceptual picture of the geoeconomic risks which the Baltic Russian territories — St. Petersburg, the Republic of Karelia and the Leningrad, Kaliningrad, Novgorod, Pskov and Murmansk regions faced in 2014—2021 as the geopolitical situation changed for the worse in the wake of the Ukraine political crisis (2013 —2014). The objectives of the study included selecting economic, social and international trade indicators and analytics matching each type of the geoeconomic risks. To identify the geo-economic risks of the selected regions, three basic indicators are considered — population, GRP, foreign trade turnover, and changes in other indicators for 2014—2021 were tracked. Eighteen risks divided into four types were explored for the Baltic Russian regions. The geoeconomic risks were grouped into two categories: spatial/geopolitical and economic/socio-­­demographic. A preliminary assessment of the regional risks was obtained using a methodology proposed by the author. The risks in the spatial/geopolitical category are substantial for the Kaliningrad region, whilst the Pskov region and Karelia proved to be most susceptible to the economic/socio­demographic risks.

Reference

1. Klemeshev, A. P., Korneevets, V. S., Palmowski, Т., Studzieniecki, Т., Fedorov, G. M. 2017, Approaches to the Definition of the Baltic Sea Region, Balt. Reg., vol 9, № 4, p. 4—20. doi: https://doi.org/10.5922/ 2079-8555-2017-4-1.

2. Shvets, A. B., Yakovenko, I. M., Yakovlev, A. N. 2021, Experience in Mapping Geopolitical Aspects of Sustainable Development of Crimea, Interkarto. Intergis, vol. 27, № 1, p. 60—72. doi: https://doi.org/10.35595/2414-9179-2021-1-27-60-72 (in Russ.).

3. Soltani, H., Triki, M. B., Ghandri, M., Abderzag, F. T. 2021, Does geopolitical risk and financial development matter for economic growth in MENA countries? Journal of International Studies, vol. 14, № 1, p. 103—116.

4. Sparke, M. 2018, Globalizing capitalism and the dialectics of geopolitics and geoeconomics, Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, vol. 50, № 2, p. 484— 489. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X17735926.

5. Kadry, M., Osman, H., Georgy, M. 2017, Causes of Construction Delays in Countries with High Geopolitical Risks, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, № 143, № 2, art. 04016095.

6. Ivanovski, K., Hailemariam, A. 2022, Time-varying geopolitical risk and oil prices, International Review of Economics & Finance, № 77, January 2022, p. 206—221.

7. Salisu, A. A., Cunado, J., Gupta, R. 2022, Geopolitical risks and historical exchange rate volatility of the BRICS, International Review of Economics & Finance, № 77, January 2022, p. 179—190.

8. Le, A.-T., Phuong, T. 2021, Does geopolitical risk matter for corporate investment? Evidence from emerging countries in Asia, Journal of Multinational Financial Management, № 62, December 2021, art. 100703.

9. Bilgin, M. H., Gozgor, G., Karabulut, G. 2020, How do geopolitical risks affect government investment? An empirical investigation, Defence and Peace Economics, vol. 31, № 5, p. 550—564.

10. Ezhiev, I. 2011, Geopolitical risk: subject, object, classification, analysis, forecasting, Vlast’, № 1, p. 50—55 (in Russ.).

11. Dzhus, I. V. 2004, Politicheskie riski: otsenka, analiz i upravlenie [Political Risks: Assessment, Analysis and Management], M., IMEMO RAN, 92 p. (in Russ.).

12. Fjäder, C., Helwig, N., Wigell, M. 2021, Recognizing ‘geoeconomic risk’ rethinking corporate risk management for the era of great-­power competition, FIIA briefing paper. Geoeconomics series, № 314, p. 1—8.

13. Vihma, A. 2018, Geoeconomics Defined and Redefined, Geopolitics, vol. 23, № 1, p. 47—49.

14. Wigell, M. 2016, Conceptualizing regional powers’ geoeconomics strategies: neo-imperialism, neo-mercantilism, hegemony and liberal institutionalism, Asia Europe Journal, № 14, p. 135—151. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10308-015-0442-x.

15. Lachininskii, S. S. 2013, Experience on the typology of geoeconomic risks, Geography and Natural Resources, vol. 34, № 2, p. 111—117. doi: https://doi.org/10.1134/S1875372813020017.

16. Lachininskii, S., Xiaoling, L. 2021, Geopolitical risks and prospects for Russia-­Western relations in the Baltic region, Pskov Journal of Regional Studies, vol. 17, № 4, p. 3—15. doi: https://doi.org/10.37490/S221979310017062-1 (in Russ.).

17. Khudoley, K. 2016, The Baltic Sea region and increasing international tension, Balt. Reg, vol. 8, № 1, p. 4—16. doi: https://doi.org/10.5922/2079-8555-2016-1-1.

18. Peven, L. V. 2011, Some conclusions from the assessment of geopolitical and geostrategic aspects of the national security of the Russian Federation in the XXI century, Vestn. Mosk. un-ta. ser. 18. Sotsiologiya i politologiya [Vestn. Moscow university ser. 18. Sociology and political science], № 2, р. 98.

19. Pelinka, A., Bischof, G. 2003, Austria in the European Union. Österreich in der Europäischen Union, Wien, Böhlau Verlag, p. 280.