Much work in International political economy (IPE) & International Economics discusses two extreme forms of disruption to the flows of goods & services in the global economy.
On the one end, IPE focuses a lot on policy restrictions -- tariffs or non-tariff barrier regulations -- and how these come about (i.e. interest group pressure; firm interests).
In contrast to these two extremes, the Ever Given debacle shows that there is a more fundamental fragility to the global economy: small shocks that can bring down the whole thing.
This fragility is inherent to the networked nature of the global economy: supply chains, shipping routes, inter-firm trade.
Indeed, the fragility of the global economy is not new.
Consider how a key focus of the @USNavy is to keep open "choke points" (one of which is the Suez Canal): narrow maritime passageways through which cargo ships must travel.
IR scholars have written on how governments could seek to disrupt the global economy by closing off one of these choke points (see @ProfTalmadge in @Journal_IS)...
Which, of course, brings us back to Suez and the Ever Given. While this wasn't a case of piracy or a government blocking the choke point, it illustrates how it doesn't take much to accomplish that aim.
A cruiser or two could do the trick...or, in the case of the Bosphorus strait, a really long chain
In sum, the shipping debacle in the Suez provides a great lesson on the inherent fragility of the global economy (and how governments can exploit it). Oh, and a source for great memes 👇
[END]
Addendum 1: While the above thread highlights the fragility of the global economy, worth noting that this can be a short-term problem.
Longer term, adjustments can be made.
That appears to be the case in this specific instance...
... and can be a feature of many global markets, such as the market for rare earth metals today (explored by Eugene Gholz and @LlewelynHughes recently in @RIPEJournal)...
One might think this is simply a budgeting and accounting exercise. That's part of it, but it's actually a conceptual exercise: what do we mean by "defense" or "national security"
The @WhiteHouse released an "Interim National Security Strategic Guidance" this week. After reading it, I'm sure international relations scholars will go.....hmmmmmm 🤔
Don't get me wrong. I agree with @MatthewKroenig that releasing this document is a good thing: folks are anxious to know more about what "America is Back" means. This document offers some...well..."guidance" (hence the name)
And given how early it is being released (for example, 2017 NSS wasn't released until December of Trump's first year) sends a useful signal about intentions
Possible 🇺🇸 arms sales restrictions on 🇸🇦 raises a question: Is there such a thing as a "defensive weapon"? Can some weapons ONLY be used to STOP attacks?
International Relations scholars are (mostly) unanimous: No
Also, it is possible that a state's military will have a "defensive strategy" -- i.e. non-expansionist -- rather than an "offensive strategy" -- i.e. expansionist.