Trade Network of China and Countries Along Belt and Road Initiative” Areas from 2001 to 2013
Jialing Zou1,2(),Weidong Liu1
Key Laboratory of Regional Sustainable Development Modeling, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China 2.University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
Since the proposition of “Belt and Road Initiative”, researches on trade between China and countries along the Initiative area have increased. However, it is relatively rare to study trade network taking China and those countries as a whole. In this article, we utilize a social network analysis method to analyze the characteristics, trade groups as well as core-periphery structure and its evolution of this trade network. Then we analyze the structure of sub trade network of China and the Southeast Asian countries. The results show that density of the trade network established by China and countries along “Belt and Road Initiative” areas has increased, coupled with growing number of core countries. Meanwhile, China’s core degree in this trade network has increased with China being the most important core country in 2013. What’s more, China becomes the core country in the sub trade network of China and the Southeast Asian countries as well. Based on this analysis, we propose that during the process of promoting “Belt and Road Initiative” construction, China should rely on policy communication to reduce trade barriers and improve trade facilitation with countries along the Initiative area. In particular, it should be set as the priority to facilitate trading conditions with core countries in the Initiative area trade network for further enhancing China’s core position in this network. What’s more, China should make good use of the advantage of being the core position in the network, play an active role of being the area core country and promote the construction and development of “Belt and Road Initiative”.
. 2001~2013年中国与“一带一路”沿线国家贸易网络分析[J]. 地理科学,
2016, 36(11): 1629-1636.
. Trade Network of China and Countries Along Belt and Road Initiative” Areas from 2001 to 2013[J]. SCIENTIA GEOGRAPHICA SINICA,
2016, 36(11): 1629-1636.
[HanYonghui, LuoXiaofei, ZouJianhua.Trade cooperation competitiveness and complementarities of China and West Asia under the background of Silk Road Economic Belt and Maritime Silk Road Strategy. , 2015, (3): 89-98.]
[WangNa, ChenXingpeng, Zhang Zilong et al. Research on trade ties networks structure of the Silk Road Economic Belt—Based on social network analysis of provincial scale and national scale. , 2015, 28(3): 55-65.]
[XiaoJianzhong, PengYing, WangXiaolin.On the Evolution of Natural Gas International Trade Network and Regional Variations. , 2013, (3): 1-8.]
WuF, GucluH.Global maize trade and food security: Implications from a social network model[J]. , 2013, 33(12): 2168-2178.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/risa.12064/full
ABSTRACT In this study, we developed a social network model of the global trade of maize: one of the most important food, feed, and industrial crops worldwide, and critical to food security. We used this model to analyze patterns of maize trade among nations, and to determine where vulnerabilities in food security might arise if maize availability was decreased due to factors such as diversion to nonfood uses, climatic factors, or plant diseases. Using data on imports and exports from the U.N. Commodity Trade Statistics Database for each year from 2000 to 2009 inclusive, we summarized statistics on volumes of maize trade between pairs of nations for 217 nations. There is evidence of market segregation among clusters of nations; with three prominent clusters representing Europe, Brazil and Argentina, and the United States. The United States is by far the largest exporter of maize worldwide, whereas Japan and the Republic of Korea are the largest maize importers. In particular, the star-shaped cluster of the network that represents U.S. maize trade to other nations indicates the potential for food security risks because of the lack of trade these other nations conduct with other maize exporters. If a scenario arose in which U.S. maize could not be exported in as large quantities, maize supplies in many nations could be jeopardized. We discuss this in the context of recent maize ethanol production and its attendant impacts on food prices elsewhere worldwide.
KimS, ShinE.A Longitudinal Analysis of Globalization and Regionalization in International Trade: A Social Network Approach[J]. , 2002, 81(2): 445-471.http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/content/81/2/445
Although there have been heated debates over globalization and regionalization, refined empirical research has been lacking. Defining globalization and regionalization as specific types of linkages between countries, we attempt to empirically examine the following: (1) Has the world been globalized and/or regionalized? and (2) If it has, what are the consequences of these processes? To explore these questions, we analyze longitudinal data on international commodity trade using the social network approach. Data analysis shows that the world became increasingly globalized between 1959 and 1996 in the sense that each country studied traded with more countries in 1996 than in 1959. As a result, the world trade network became denser. At the core of this process has been the development of countries in the middle strata. We also find that the structure of the world trade network became decentralized over time, a change that provides greater support for neoclassical economic theory than for world-system/dependency theory. Regarding regionalization, we find that intraregional density is greater than interregional density and that intraregional ties are stronger than interregional ones. Moreover, both intraregional and interregional density increased significantly between 1959 and 1996, indicating, first, that the flow of world trade became regionalized and, second, that globalization and regionalization are not contradictory processes.