The structure and evolution of trade relations between countries along the Belt and Road

doi:10.1007/s11442-018-1522-9

Abstract

Abstract:

Trade facilitation is one of the five main agendas of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Social network analysis has helped understand the complexity of trade networks, but existing studies tend to overlook the fact that not all bilateral trade relations are equally important to a country. To fill this gap in the literature, this paper focuses on the top 2 trade relations networks to illuminate the structure and evolution of B&R trade relations, the relative positions of different countries, and changes in the composition of trade communities (e.g., the community leaders) and the changing patterns of trade between them. We find rich dynamics over time both inter- and intra-communities. The overall international trade networks of B&R countries experienced a leadership change from Russia to China on one hand, some temporary communities experienced emergence, disappearance (e.g. the Kuwait- and Thailand-led communities) or reemergence (e.g. Poland-led community), and a community membership was generally consistent on the other hand. Since the future impacts of China’s BRI will depend on the degree of integration of the connected regions, some countries with stable and high centrality indices (e.g. Russia, Singapore, Serbia, Greece, Turkey, Iran, Poland, Hungary and Romania) could be selected by China as strategic regional partners, and countries with a strategically important geographical position but weak trade links (e.g. Myanmar, Pakistan, and Belarus) should be prioritized.

Key words: The Belt and Road Initiative, international trade, community core detection, top trade partner

Zhigao LIU, Tao WANG, Won SONN Jung, Won SONN Jung. The structure and evolution of trade relations between countries along the Belt and Road[J].Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2018, 28(9): 1233-1248.

Figures/Tables 8

Table 1

Figure 1

Table 2

Figure 2

Table 3

Table 4

Figure 3

Table 3

Top 10 countries by centrality indicators in 2000, 2004, 2008, 2013 and 2016"

2000						2004						2008
Country	DC	Country	CC	Country	BC	Country	DC	Country	CC	Country	BC	Country	DC	Country	CC	Country	BC
Russia	0.35	Russia	0.50	Russia	0.47	Russia	0.35	Russia	0.52	Russia	0.45	Russia	0.38	Russia	0.57	Russia	BC
China	0.29	China	0.47	China	0.31	China	0.32	China	0.52	China	0.38	China	0.33	China	0.55	China	0.50
Singapore	0.19	Singapore	0.41	Singapore	0.12	Serbia	0.14	Turkey	0.45	Turkey	0.09	Serbia	0.16	Turkey	0.47	Serbia	0.40
Turkey	0.11	Turkey	0.41	Mongolia	0.08	Singapore	0.13	Greece	0.42	Iran	0.09	Singapore	0.14	Hungary	0.44	Iran	0.13
Iran	0.10	Mongolia	0.40	Thailand	0.07	Turkey	0.11	Hungary	0.41	Ukraine	0.07	Turkey	0.13	Greece	0.44	Turkey	0.10
Saudi Arabia	0.10	Kyrgyzstan	0.39	Croatia	0.07	Iran	0.08	Singapore	0.40	Serbia & Montenegro	0.07	Iran	0.09	Syria	0.42	Hungary	0.08
Thailand	0.10	Vietnam	0.39	Turkey	0.06	Hungary	0.08	Saudi Arabia	0.39	Hungary	0.07	Hungary	0.09	Serbia	0.41	Greece	0.07
Poland	0.08	Iran	0.37	Hungary	0.06	Saudi Arabia	0.08	Kyrgyzstan	0.39	Greece	0.07	Saudi Arabia	0.08	Kyrgyzstan	0.41	Tajikistan	0.06
Hungary	0.08	Thailand	0.37	Belarus	0.05	Greece	0.08	Iran	0.39	Saudi Arabia	0.07	Greece	0.08	Vietnam	0.41	Singapore	0.05
Croatia	0.08	Croatia	0.37	Iran	0.05	Oman	0.08	Romania	0.39	Qatar	0.06	Oman	0.06	Tajikistan	0.41	Kuwait	0.05
2013						2016
Country	DC	Country	CC	Country	BC	Country	DC	Country	CC	Country	BC
Russia	0.34	Russia	0.55	Russia	0.49	China	0.41	China	0.59	China	0.60
China	0.33	China	0.52	China	0.40	Russia	0.25	Russia	0.50	Russia	0.24
Serbia	0.19	Turkey	0.46	Serbia	0.22	Serbia	0.16	Serbia	0.46	Serbia	0.16
Turkey	0.13	Serbia	0.44	Turkey	0.10	Singapore	0.14	Turkey	0.44	Hungary	0.13
Singapore	0.13	Hungary	0.43	Iran	0.08	Turkey	0.13	Singapore	0.42	Poland	0.11
Hungary	0.11	Kyrgyzstan	0.42	Hungary	0.08	Hungary	0.11	Hungary	0.42	Turkey	0.08
Saudi Arabia	0.09	Vietnam	0.41	Romania	0.06	Qatar	0.09	Qatar	0.41	Qatar	0.07
Romania	0.09	Belarus	0.41	Greece	0.05	Poland	0.09	Greece	0.41	Iran	0.07
Iran	0.08	Greece	0.40	Bhutan	0.04	Iran	0.08	Poland	0.41	Singapore	0.06
Greece	0.08	Kazakhstan	0.39	Syria	0.03	Saudi Arabia	0.08	Iran	0.41	United Arab Emirates	0.04

Table 3

References 43

[1]	Barbieri K, Keshk O M, Pollins B M, 2009. Trading data evaluating our assumptions and coding rules.Conflict Management and Peace Science, 26(5): 471-491.
[2]	Beckfield J.,2009. A new trichotomous measure of world-system position using the international trade network.International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 50(1): 5-38.
[3]	Benedictis D L, Tajoli L, 2011. The world trade network.The World Economy, 34(8): 1417-1454.
[4]	Bennett M M, 2016. The Silk Road goes north: Russia’s role within China’s Belt and Road Initiative.Area Development and Policy, 1(3): 341-351.
[5]	Blondel V D, Guillaume J L, Lambiotte Ret al., 2008. Fast unfolding of communities in large networks.Journal of Statistical Mechanics Theory and Experiment, (10): 1-12.
[6]	Breiger R L, 1981. Structures of economic interdependence among nations. In: Blau P, Merton R. Continuities in Structural Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 353-380.
[7]	China and World Economy, 2017. Special Issue: Eurasian perspectives on China’s Belt & Road Initiative.China and World Economy, 25(5): 1-138.
[8]	Cinar E M, Johnson J, Geusz K, 2016. Estimating Chinese trade relationships with the Silk Road countries.China and World Economy, 24(1): 85-103. doi: 10.1111/cwe.12145
[9]	De Benedictis L, Nenci S, Santoni Get al., 2014. Network analysis of world trade using the BACI-CEPII Dataset.Global Economy Journal, 14(3/4): 287-343. doi: 10.1515/gej-2014-0032
[10]	East Asia, 2015. Special Issue: New Silk Road Project.East Asia, 32(1/2): 1-221. doi: 10.1007/s12140-015-9232-8
[11]	Fagiolo G, Reyes J A, Schiavo S, 2008. On the topological properties of the World Trade Web: A weighted network analysis.Physica A, 387(15): 3868-3873. doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2008.01.050
[12]	Geopolitics, 2017. Special section: The geopolitics of China’s Maritime Silk Road Initiative.Geopolitics, 22(2): 223-473.
[13]	Gong P P, Song Z Y, Liu W D, 2015. Commodity structure of trade between China and countries in the Belt and Road Initiative area.Progress in Geography, 34(5): 571-580. (in Chinese)
[14]	Han Y H, Zou J H, 2014. The current situation and prospect of trade cooperation between China and Western Asian countries under the background of BRI.Intertrade, (8): 21-28. (in Chinese)
[15]	He M, Zhang N N, Huang Z Q, 2016. Analysis on competitiveness and complementarity of agricultural products trade in countries along “Belt and Road Initiative” areas.Issues in Agricultural Economy, (11): 51-60. (in Chinese)
[16]	Huang Y P, 2016. Understudying China’s Belt & Road Initiative: Motivation, framework and assessment.China Economic Review, 40(c): 314-321.
[17]	Jacomy M, Venturini T, Heymann Set al., 2014. ForceAtlas2, a continuous graph layout algorithm for H&Y network visualization designed for the Gephi software.PLoS ONE, 9(6): 98679.
[18]	James D S, Chih Y W, 2017. Chinese narratives on “One Belt, One Road” in geopolitical & imperial contexts.The Professional Geographer, 69(4): 591-603.
[19]	Kali R, Reyes J A, 2010. Financial contagion on the international trade network.Economic Inquiry, 48(4): 1072-1101. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-7295.2009.00249.x
[20]	Kim K, Shin E H, 2002. A longitudinal analysis of globalization and reigonalization in international trade: A social network approach.Social Forces, 81(2): 445-468.
[21]	Liu J Q, Liang Q, 2015. Research on energy cooperation along BRI.Energy of China, (7): 17-20. (in Chinese)
[22]	Liu W D, 2015. Scientific understanding of the Belt and Road Initiative of China and related research themes.Progress in Geography, 35(5): 538-544. (in Chinese)
[23]	Liu W D, 2017a. Inclusive globalization: New philosophy of China’s Belt and Road Initiative.Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 32(4): 311-339. (in Chinese)
[24]	Liu W D, 2017b. Inclusive Globalization: New Philosophy of China's Belt and Road Initiative. Beijing: The Commercial Press. (in Chinese)
[25]	Liu W D, Dunford M, 2016. Inclusive globalization: Unpacking China’s Belt & Road Initiative.Area Development and Policy, 1(3): 323-340.
[26]	Liu W D, Dunford M, Gao B Y, 2017. A discursive construction of the Belt and Road Initiative: From neo-liberal to inclusive globalization.Progress in Geography, 36(11): 1321-1331. (in Chinese) doi: 10.1007/s11442-018-1520-y
[27]	Liu X R, 2010. The Silk Road in World History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[28]	Ma Y, Xu L L, 2017. The structure and influencing factors of natural gas trade network of countries along “Belt and Road Initiative” areas.World Economy Studies, (3): 109-121. (in Chinese)
[29]	National Development & Reform Commission (NDRC), Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) & Ministry of Commerce (MC) of China, 2015. Vision & Actions on Jointly Building Silk Road Economic Belt & 21st Century Maritime Silk Road. Beijing: Foreign Languages Press.
[30]	Ravi B, 2016. The Silk Road as a Global Brand.China Report, 52(1): 45-52.
[31]	Smith D A, White D R, 1992. Structure and dynamics of the global economy: Network analysis of international trade 1965-1980.Social Forces, 70(4): 857-893.
[32]	Song Z Y, Che S Y, Yang Y, 2017a. Topological relationship between trade network in the Belt and Road Initiative area and global trade network. Progress in Geography, 36(11): 1340-1348. (in Chinese)
[33]	Song Z Y, Che S Y, Zhang W, 2017b. Spatial-temporal characteristics of foreign trade between China and countries along the Silk Roads.Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 32(4): 365-369. (in Chinese)
[34]	Summers T, 2016. China’s ‘New Silk Roads’: Sub-national regions & networks of global political economy.Third World Quarterly, 37(9): 1628-1643.
[35]	Toops S, 2016. Reflections on China’s Belt and Road Initiative.Area Development and Policy, 1(3): 352-360. doi: 10.1080/23792949.2016.1233072
[36]	Vinokurov E, Tsukarev T, 2018. The Belt and Road Initiative and the transit countries: An economic assessment of land transport corridors.Area Development and Policy, 3(1): 93-113. doi: 10.1080/23792949.2017.1385406
[37]	Wang M C, Xu K N, 2016. The dynamic relationship between bilateral trade and China’s economic growth in countries along “Belt and Road Initiative” Areas: Based on perspective of spatial interaction.World Economy Studies, (2): 101-110. (in Chinese)
[38]	Xinhua, 2017.Belt and Road forum for international cooperation. Available from .
[39]	Yang L Z, Liu X J, Yu W C, 2015a. Research on the trade complementarity between China and Central Asian countries under the background of BRI.Shanghai Journal of Economics, (11): 94-103. (in Chinese)
[40]	Yang M Q, Yang L, Hu Z D, 2015b. Pattern evolution and challenges of trades between China and Indo-China Peninsula countries under the background of “One Belt and One Road”.Tropical Geography, 35(5): 655-663. doi: 10.13284/j.cnki.rddl.002769
[41]	Zhou M, Wu G, Xu H, 2016. Structure and formation of top networks in international trade, 2001-2010.Social Networks, 44(44): 9-21. doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2015.07.006
[42]	Zou J L, Liu C L, Yin G Qet al., 2015. Spatial patterns and economic effects of China’s trade with countries along the Belt and Road.Progress in Geography, 34(5): 598-605. (in Chinese)
[43]	Zou J L, Liu W D, 2016. Trade network of China & countries along “Belt and Road Initiative” areas from 2001-2013.Scientia Geographica Sinica, 36(11): 1629-1636. (in Chinese) doi: 10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2016.11.004

Year	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008
Number of countries	64	64	64	64	64	64	65	65	65
Number of ties	1782	1802	1840	1840	1886	1884	2102	2130	2168
Density	0.428	0.433	0.442	0.442	0.453	0.453	0.505	0.512	0.521
Degree of centralization	0.032	0.036	0.045	0.061	0.072	0.082	0.091	0.107	0.117
Year	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Number of countries	65	65	65	65	65	65	65	65
Number of ties	2164	2168	2188	2184	2216	2192	2216	2222
Density	0.520	0.521	0.526	0.525	0.533	0.527	0.533	0.534
Degree of centralization	0.116	0.112	0.117	0.112	0.120	0.125	0.122	0.126

Networks	Top 1	Top 2	Top 3	Top 4	Top 5	Top 10	Top 20	All
Percentages of edges (%)	5.40	10.53	15.48	19.98	24.48	45.09	74.08	100.00
Percentages of trade values (%)	56.61	74.03	82.20	88.01	90.84	97.64	99.73	100.00