Global power rivalry reshapes economic systems: State‑led versus market‑led orders and their systemic drivers
Original framing: “New geopolitical-economic order framework shows firm strategies vary under two types of state-market order” — Phys.org
The rise of state‑based orders echoes the post‑World War II Bretton Woods era, while market‑centric regimes recall the neoliberal surge of the 1980s, both cycles linked to crises of capital accumulation and geopolitical realignments. Historical analysis shows that shifts are rarely abrupt binaries but evolve through contested reforms, debt restructurings, and social movements.
The binary framework of market versus state orders obscures a complex historical tapestry of debt, colonial legacies, and climate pressures that shape contemporary geopolitical competition.
By integrating indigenous stewardship, cross‑cultural developmental experiences, and robust scientific modelling, we see that resilient economic systems require hybrid governance that balances market incentives with strong public oversight and community participation. Marginalised voices and artistic‑spiritual insights reveal the human costs of both extremes, while trickster analysis uncovers the self‑defeating logic of framing stability as competition. Implementing multilateral reforms, inclusive industrial policies, climate‑just financing, and democratic oversight can redirect power from elite capture toward equitable, sustainable prosperity.