The trade network of the Belt and Road Initiative and its topological relationship to the global trade network

doi:10.1007/s11442-018-1523-8

Abstract

Abstract:

Unimpeded trade is one of the cooperation priorities in the Belt and Road Initiative proposed by China. On 15 May 2017, the Joint Communique of the Leaders Roundtable of the Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation reaffirmed the participants’ shared commitment to build an open economy and ensure free and inclusive trade. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is not only China's new action to drive its open and global development, but also a platform for an increasing number of countries to explore free and inclusive trade and promote a universal, rule-based, open, non-discriminatory, and equitable multilateral trade system. It is therefore important to examine the topological relationship between the BRI and global trade networks. More specifically, this article first analyzes the community structure of trade networks using a community detection algorithm, and then estimates the topological relationship between different trade communities. The findings of this article are as follows. First, this research identified three trade communities and two sub-communities in the BRI trade network, in which China is the core, Russia is the sub-core of the biggest trade community, and India, United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia are cores of the second trade community (South Asia-West Asia). Second, it identified five trade communities in the global trade network, centred on China, USA, Russia, India-United Arab Emirates, and Germany-Netherlands-France-Britain and other European developed countries. Third, the topological analysis indicated that in the global trade network, most BRI countries are attracted by the core nodes of the BRI regions, such as the China, Russia and India-United Arab Emirates core nodes, and have strong trade contacts with BRI countries. Most Central-East European countries are mainly attracted by Germany-Netherlands-France-Britain and other developed European countries with a low penetration of BRI trade. Although some Southeast Asian countries are incorporated into the Asia-Australia-South Africa community with China as the core, they still need to strengthen trade linkages with BRI countries.

Key words: Belt and Road Initiative, global trade network, trade community, topological relationship

Zhouying SONG, Shuyun CHE, Yu* YANG. The trade network of the Belt and Road Initiative and its topological relationship to the global trade network[J].Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2018, 28(9): 1249-1262.

Figures/Tables 9

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8

Table 1

References 23

[1]	Blondel V, Guillaume J, Lambiotte R, 2008. Fast unfolding of communities in large networks.Journal of Statistical Mechanics Theory, 25(10): 155-168.
[2]	Carolo P, Lucia T, 2015. Are preferential agreements significant for the world trade structure? A network community analysis.Kyklos, 68(2): 220-239. doi: 10.1111/kykl.12081
[3]	Chen Y F, 2011. Analysis on social network of world trade situation in 2000-2009.Journal of International Trade, (11): 31-42. (in Chinese)
[4]	Cinar M, Johnson J, Geusz K, 2016. Estimating Chinese trade relationships with the Silk Road countries. China & World Economy, 24(1): 5-103. doi: 10.1111/cwe.12145
[5]	Duan W Q, Liu B Q, Ji J H, 2008. Topological structure evolution of world trade network.Systems Engineering: Theory & Practice, (10): 71-75. (in Chinese)
[6]	Fagiolo G, Reyes J, Schiavo S, 2010. The evolution of the world trade web: A weighted-network analysis.Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 20(4): 479-514. doi: 10.1007/s00191-009-0160-x
[7]	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)
[8]	Hakanson L, Dow D, 2012. Markets and networks in international trade: On the role of distances in globalization.Management International Review, 52(6): 761-789. doi: 10.1007/s11575-012-0142-3
[9]	He M, Zhang N N, Huang Z Q, 2016. Analysis on competitiveness and complementarity of agricultural products tradein countries along “Belt and Road Initiative” areas.Issues in Agricultural Economy, (11): 51-60. (in Chinese)
[10]	Henderson J, Jepson N, 2018. Critical transformations and global development: Materials for a new analytical framework.Area Development and Policy, 3(1): 1-23. (in press) doi: 10.1080/23792949.2017.1369856
[11]	Hudson R.2016. Rising powers and the drivers of uneven global development.Area Development and Policy, 1(3): 279-294. doi: 10.1080/23792949.2016.1227271
[12]	Kim S, Shin E H, 2002. A longitudinal analysis of globalization and regionalization in international trade: A social network approach.Social Forces, 81(2): 445-471. doi: 10.1353/sof.2003.0014
[13]	Liu W D, 2017. Inclusive globalization: New philosophy of China’s Belt and Road Initiative.Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 32(4): 311-339. (in Chinese)
[14]	Liu W D, Dunford M, 2016. Inclusive globalization: Unpacking China’s belt and road initiative.Area Development and Policy, 1(3): 323-340. doi: 10.1080/23792949.2016.1232598
[15]	Luca D B, Lucia T, 2011. The world trade network.The World Economy, 34(8): 1417-1454.
[16]	Ma S Z, Ren W W, Wu G J, 2016. The characteristics of agricultural trade network and its impact on the division of global value chain: Based on social network analysis.Management World, (3): 60-72. (in Chinese)
[17]	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)
[18]	Pick J B, Sarkar A, Johnson J, 2015. United States digital divide: State level analysis of spatial clustering and multivariate determinants of ICT utilization.Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 49: 16-32. doi: 10.1016/j.seps.2014.09.001
[19]	Serrano M A, Boguá M, 2003. Topology of the world trade web.Physical Review E, 68: 015101. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.68.015101 pmid: 12935184
[20]	Song Z Y, Che S Y, Zhang W, 2017. 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)
[21]	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)
[22]	Xu H L, Sun T Y, Wu G, 2015. Status in trade networks, R&D expenditure and technology diffusion: An empirical study based on the trade data of global high-end manufacturing.China Soft Science, (9): 55-69. (in Chinese)
[23]	Zou J L, Liu W D, 2016. Trade network of China and countries along “Belt and Road Initiative” areas from 2001 to 2013.Scientia Geographica Sinica, 36(11): 1629-1636. (in Chinese) doi: 10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2016.11.004

Country	BRI Percentage	Country	BRI Percentage	Country	BRI Percentage
China centred intensity		Developed European centred intensity		India and United Arab Emirates centred intensity (Continued)
Laos	91.37%	Republic of Montenegro	66.46%	Saudi Arabia	27.86%
Afghanistan	89.55%	Bosnia and Herzegovina	52.08%	United Arab Emirates	22.89%
East Timor	89.31%	Serbia	51.28%	Russia centred Intensity
Turkmenistan	89.28%	Croatia	44.49%	Tajikistan	87.62%
Myanmar	82.01%	Slovakia	42.88%	Syria	80.49%
Mongolia	80.16%	Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia	39.67%	Kyrgyzstan	79.28%
Iran	76.22%	Slovenia	38.81%	Byelorussia	75.41%
Pakistan	60.36%	Romania	36.76%	Uzbekistan	69.11%
Indonesia	53.26%	Czech Republic	35.16%	Moldova	66.97%
Malaysia	52.29%	Hungary	34.97%	Armenia	66.71%
Singapore	49.98%	Albania	33.36%	Ukraine	66.47%
Thailand	49.84%	Poland	33.05%	Georgia	62.02%
Cambodia	48.13%	India and United Arab Emirates centred intensity		Latvia	58.26%
Bangladesh	45.57%	Nepal	86.06%	Lithuania	53.80%
Qatar	41.29%	the Kingdom of Bhutan	83.38%	Kazakhstan	52.67%
Vietnam	40.19%	Maldives	76.46%	Egypt	47.34%
The Philippines	39.50%	Oman	66.21%	Bulgaria	45.53%
Brunei	39.25%	Bahrain	64.27%	Lebanon	45.15%
China	28.98%	Yemen	62.63%	Turkey	44.00%
Kuwait	25.15%	Iraq	61.88%	Azerbaijan	43.38%
USA centred intensity		Jordan	56.87%	Russian Federation	41.62%
Palestine	85.40%	Sri Lanka	55.07%	Estonia	39.50%
Israel	23.37%	India	47.90%