Modification de The circuits and their geographies

The theoretical framework of the economic circuit raises the problem of economic circuits and their geography. We will present what an economic circuit is and establish its geographical characteristics.

{{Translations
| fr = Les circuits et leurs géographies
}}

= Economic circuits =

== The economy and its circuit ==

An economic circuit is composed of two elements, namely poles and flows. There are two types of poles: the consumption pole and the production pole. Between the poles, the moments, the places and the actors of production and consumption, there are exchanges that can be material or immaterial exchanges. In this interaction, there are four types of flows between the poles of consumption and production which are flows of goods and services, cash flows, labour flows and information flows.

[[Fichier:Ecogeo circuit économique 1.png|vignette]]

It is important to know in the history of ideas where this concept of the economic circuit comes from? The first to think of the economic circuit was François Quesnay in 1758 who worked in the physiocrat movement. Physiocrats were thinkers in political economy who developed a reflection on the wealth of nations. The interactions between the poles and the flows refer to the idea of the human body. Society would function in the same way. It is an organicist vision as if society were a body with organs and there were exchanges. An organicist metaphor is never innocent. Beware of organicist metaphors in the social sciences. Comparing the city to a body is a vision of the city that implies policies and practices that are not insignificant.

This allows us to reflect on economics, which is defined as the production, consumption and exchange of rare goods. What is important is to stress that it is not just goods that circulate, namely services, information, work and money.

== From simple to complex circuits ==

[[Fichier:Ecogeo circuit économique 2.png|vignette]]

It is possible to make the circuit more complex. In the previous case, we were in a non-monetary economy, whereas now we are integrating concepts that complicate the economy, which is becoming monetarized. Exchanges are multiplying. Sometimes there is a superposition of the poles of production and consumption. There is behind the idea of mass production and mass consumption that we find in Fordism in particular.

[[Fichier:Ecogeo circuit économique 3.png|left|vignette]]

It is possible to envisage more complex economic circuits. There are no longer two poles, but there are four. Institutions play an intermediary role between these poles with an administration and private and financial institutions. We obtain matrices that become very complicated. This economic circuit will become more complex until we realize what the economy and society are.

We must ask ourselves the question of the location of production and consumption poles, which is an important aspect of economic geography, and we must ask ourselves the question of the direction of these flows within the framework of a geography of trade. What is interesting is why these flows are taking place and what is their orientation.[[Fichier:paradigme iceberg.jpg|vignette]]

The sliding through these examples is not insignificant. The iceberg paradigm is not an economic theory, but an interesting image which is the idea that in the field of economy, we only see the submerged part of the iceberg, that is to say that we only see the market economy, which passes through an economic and monetarized exchange is capitalism and labour. Most theories are theories that theorize markets and most economic indicators focus on the market and its components while this is only a very small part of the economic because there are many elements that happen outside the market economy that do not necessarily respond to the law of supply and demand. In other words, a whole series of aspects of the economy take place outside the market economy. Because of this submerged part, there is a kind of myopia that hides most of the economic field.

The market is a way of regulating and organising the economy. According to the work of anthropologists, it is possible to distinguish three:
*the market;
*donation for donation;
*redistribution.

By taking these three types of circuit regulation, a complete view of trade and consumption and production of rare goods is obtained. It is very difficult to measure the share in the economy of each of these modes of regulation precisely because the only figures available come from the market economy, because they measure only what is visible relating to the market economy. It can be assumed that, whatever the society studied, the market economy accounts for only a minority share of economic trade, production and consumption.

= Trade regulation =

== Gift for gift ==

The system of donation for donation is first in anthropological terms, on the one hand because it is the first economic system that existed and also because it will be the founder of economics and society as such. Gift for gift is a system of exchange that is characterized by different elements:
* the exchange is alternating, but deferred in time: the gift always calls for a donation and the counter-gift takes place after another time.
* it is a freely consented exchange: it is what is called the alternating inequality of the market.
However, it is more complicated than that. Mauss in Essay on Gift. Form and reason for the exchange in primitive societies published in 1924 speaks of the "anthropological mystery" of the gift which would be the enigma on which anthropologists are constantly stumbling. This anthropological mystery is formalized as a "free obligation". What characterizes giving against giving is that there is an obligation to give and that there is an obligation to offer. The obligation will also be in the fact that one has no right to refuse a gift that is the obligation to receive.

The gift under the guise of freedom is extremely codified and standardized. The gift, because it creates obligation and because the obligation is shifted in time, it creates social bond. There is an infinite debit and credit link. From an economic point of view, that makes no sense. In giving against giving, there is something counterproductive that can be likened to an economic waste. That's why it's an anthropological mystery. Gift for gift should not be seen as an anecdotal example. There is the idea that we are all fragile beings and that help is always given. The gift we receive is something of the order of survival. Economically, if we try to evaluate it, it is enormous. According to some researchers, donation for donation would represent three quarters of GDP.

Anthropologists have analyzed the phenomenon of the potlatch which is a meeting between two tribes who will offer each other more and more precious gifts until the time when the opposing tribe can not give back. The potlatch is the continuation of war by other means. In some circumstances, gifts are burned to say the whole non-utilitarian dimension, because it is a practice that only seeks to create social bond. The antiutilitarian social science movement seeks to show that giving for giving serves to create a bond and to make society. Gift for gift is not about creating wealth, but it is about creating a social bond. There are times when we have to get out of economics in order to understand economics.[[Fichier:Phénomène de la kula.png|vignette]]

Donation for donation was first observed in ethnological societies. A famous example is the example of the kula rite in Malinovsky's work. The kula is a very complex donation for donation system that takes place in western Indonesia. Ships will leave an island loaded with presents for other islands. The most precious gifts are pig gifts. A few months later, or a few years later, we will make a donation on the next island and so on. The system of donation for donation is staggered in time, but it is also indirect. There is a counter-donation, but it is not intended for the person who made the donation, but for a third person. The interest of this complex system is to conceal the reciprocity of giving and to engage not only two actors, but also a whole group of peoples in giving against giving. In our societies, there are also complicated forms of donation versus donation and their share is extremely important.

To create a gift, it is often necessary to personalize relationships. Because giving creates social bonds, it is much easier to give to people you know well than to people you don't know well. Gift for gift is essential in the economy, it is a huge part of the iceberg metaphor. This is a part of the economy where there is very little theory. What we know about it is through sociologists and anthropologists who, in working on contemporary societies, show the importance of giving against giving.

== Redistribution ==

The redistribution circuit operates in two stages. As in the system of donation for donation, there is a time lag. First, a sample is taken with a view to redistribution. What characterizes the system of redistribution is that there is a moment of levy and a moment of redistribution and unlike the market and donation for donation, this implies authority, it is not a voluntary participation of actors. It is possible to withdraw money, work or in kind. Authority can be a king, a government, a city, a religious, military or economic authority. Unlike the market system of donation for donation, an authority will decide to take and redistribute. The current economic world is governed by the principle of redistribution. Redistribution in our societies is essential.

Redistribution also plays an essential role within companies. If the market economy worked well, there would be no business. The company is not regulated by the market economy, we obey orders. The company prefers to internalize rather than externalize and govern by regulation rather than by the market economy. Within each company, the economy is regulated by redistribution. An authority directs the company and decides on the flows within the company. We must understand that the field of regulation in the economy is colossal. In the company, there is authority, a levy and a redistribution.

Redistribution raises the question of the justice of the levies as well as the principles of redistribution. These are political decisions. Enforcing these decisions requires authority; it is a coercive system. It is not because we do not see pure forms of redistribution that the redistribution system is not present in our societies. Authority changes in nature. Behind the regulation and the systems regulated by redistribution, there is always a font that is someone capable of enforcing redistribution. One of the questions that always arises is the question of justice. The goal of redistribution is not in itself the creation of wealth, but the regulation of the economy according to decided principles. The issue of effectiveness is not the first one.

== Market ==

What characterizes the market economy is an immediate and balanced satisfaction, the exchange is symmetrical and instantaneous, the link is dissolved immediately as soon as the exchange is finished. The market is also a staging and all players are equal. The market gives rise to a transaction and negotiation. The agreement is absent from redistribution and gift for gift. For the market, there is an agreement where anonymity is important assuming there is no power effect. Market regulation does not necessarily imply the use of a currency. There are many other markets such as the black market, the grey market or the underground market which are prohibited or hidden markets. What we observe depends on the observation tool. The measures used to quantify the market are surface indicators that do not take into account the submerged side of the iceberg.

It is interesting that the physical market has served as a metaphor for the very principle of its organization and virtual markets. The physical market has given rise to sociological and anthropological studies that analyse the behaviour of players. It also goes against the idea that the market would be like a natural way of organising the economy or like the normal way of the economy when it is not organised.

Historical studies show that markets have been put in place, regulated with coercive mechanisms that had a hard time imposing themselves at the outset. This is based on a very present and urgent intervention of the public authority which fixes a precise day, timetables, an allocation of seats, with particular legislation on the fact of displaying the price of products, the fact that scales must be fair and controlled. A whole series of texts and legislations make the functioning of the market possible. The public authorities will intervene in order to impose the market system as a means of regulating the economy. Myopia suggests that the natural mode of organization would be the market economy. In reality, the oldest systems of wealth circulation and economic circuits were the system of donation versus donation and the system of regulation. The market idea existed before the market. It is because we believed in the interest of the market system that this type of structure was set up.

The reason for the success of this recent institution can be explained by qualities that it possesses that donation for donation does not allow or that redistribution does not allow. Among the major points of difference, there is the fact that it does not depend on an authority, but that it depends on the agreement of the participants[1], it gives rise to a mutual and instantaneous satisfaction of the partners[2], it does not suppose and does not necessarily create a social link with the idea of anonymity of the actors[3]. The system of redistribution supposes a common identity since this system supposes that one submits oneself to a common authority which is that of the community from which one takes out an identity. In the context of giving for giving, there is no authority because the link is direct, whereas in the context of the market there is no link between the partners and the exchange is instantly settled because there is no time lag on the contrary in giving for giving where what creates the link is the debt.

= Circuit scales =

For a geographer, what is interesting is the spatial organization of each of these types of economic circuit regulation. Geographically, in its spatial distribution, does an economic circuit organized by donation versus donation through regulation or the market system have the same characteristics. The scale of the economic circuit is to know what is the distance between the different poles of economic circuits.

== The concept of the world economy: Braudel and Wallerstein ==

In Civilisation matérielle, économie et capitalisme - XVe - XVIIIe siècles published in 1979, Fernand Braudel proposes the concept of world economy, which gives the following definition: "a fragment of the universe, a piece of the planet economically autonomous, capable essentially of self-sufficiency and to which its internal links and exchanges confer a certain organic unity".

A world economy is a space limited by a border and economically autonomous that has very little exchange with the outside, in contrast, there is much exchange with the inside. The exchanges with this space are so strong that it gives it unity. A world economy is both a more or less closed economic system whose elements interact and a space system.

Systems are never closed on themselves. What constitutes this spatial and economic entity in system and in circuit is both the intensity of interactions within it and the rarity of interactions with the outside. A world economy is both a geographical and an economic space. In other words, a world economy is the superposition of a geographical space and an economic circuit. It is an economy and, at the same time, a world closed in on itself that partly derives its coherence from its economy.[[Fichier:Fernand braudel et économie monde 1.png|vignette]]

Braudel lists some geographical features of the world economy which are spatial features:
* "occupies a given geographical space";
* "always accepts a pole, a center;
* "It is "divided into successive zones".
The terms "poles" or "centre" do not necessarily have a geometric definition. When we speak of "centre" or "periphery" it is more in terms of geography than geometry. The reason why Braudel conceived the concept of world economy was to reflect what was happening in Europe and the Mediterranean.

Until the beginning of the 16th century, trade was essentially inter-European. From 1500, with the great explorations, little by little flows will be formed. In the 18th century, the world economy changed in configuration and scale. Europe was a world economy in 1500 whereas, in 1775, it was included in a world economy that did not affect all parts of the planet, but was marked by multiple exchanges between numerous coastal trading posts.

Actually, these cards are fake. There are reasons why they are not admissible.

In The Modern World-System, vol. I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century published in 1974, Wallerstein proposes the concept of world system. This concept goes further than Braudel's saying that there are two types of "world system", namely a world empire [1] and a world economy [2].

What Braudel calls a "world economy" is not only geographical and economic entities, but also political entities. Wallerstein speaks of a "world empire" when these geographical and economic circuits that is the "world economy" correspond to a political entity. The borders of the "world economy" correspond to those of an empire. The international division of labour takes place within the same political, economic and geographical system. Wallerstein will reserve the term "world economy" in the case where international division is between states. The geographical entity does not correspond to one political entity, but to several political entities. In other words, a world empire is a country and a world economy is several countries.

Braudel's concept is interesting because it compares spatial and economic organization, Wallerstein adds political organization. The economic circuit is economy, the world economy is economy more geography, the world empire would be economy, space and politics.[[Fichier:Carrefours du commerce au moyen age 1.png|vignette|gauche]]

This map is the map of the crossroads of trade in the Middle Ages before the opening of the Atlantic. Everything is centred both on the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, on the axis of the Meuse and the Rhine, the proto-industrial cities of Italy and the flows that link the western production and consumption basins with those of the East.

[[Fichier:Circuit économique 4.png|vignette]]

There are flows, poles, cities and very few exchanges with the outside world. In terms of trade intensity in Europe, trade with Asia is insignificant and negligible. Nevertheless, the economic and coherent circuit forming an organization in a situation of interdependence making it possible to determine. This is the classic view of the geography of the period. Europe would correspond to the world economy having a functional and economic existence. However, this is not the case.

== The gradient of exchange: Sahlins and Chaunu ==

In 1976 Sahlins published his work Stone Age, Age of Abundance, whose purpose is not to talk about economic geography and trade. The idea is that scientific and technological progress, agriculture, the market and industrialisation have saved us from a risky and miserable existence, freeing us from the strong constraints of comfort, freedom and leisure. Sahlins was interested in "tribes and savages" observing societies that knew neither industry, agriculture, nor livestock. These are hunter-gatherer savings. These are people who work an average of between one and two hours a day. The time to survive is measured and low. The rest of the time is dedicated to other practices. The Stone Age is the Age of plenty. What was considered progress can be seen as a moron. To meet our needs, we have to work between eight and ten hours a day.

There has been a reversal of outlook. The reason why we agreed to work so hard and because we were created a new need. Sahlins was interested not only in production, but also in exchanges. To exchange, there is a specialization from tasks with women who will pick berries and men will hunt animals, but according to strict criteria. There is the hypothesis that specialization is not aimed at maximizing production, but at making exchange compulsory, because one is forced to exchange.[[Fichier:Gradient échange 1.png|vignette]]

Sahlins wonders how economic exchanges take place. It will distinguish three successive circles:
*'''circle of the household''': it is the circle of the people of the family which is close. The exchange is made according to the system of gift for gift without obligation, in other words, the free obligation to give, receive and return. This characterizes exchanges between symbolic and spatially close individuals. This regulatory system does not presuppose authority, but proximity and dependence because exchanges are daily and permanent. There is a symbolic proximity.
*'''village circle''': within the tribe, the rule is redistribution.
*'''intertribal circle''': exchanges with neighbouring tribes do not go well because the relations are mainly warlike. There are times when there are ritualized exchanges through barter. It is the system of immediate satisfaction of both parties on the basis of negotiation without the creation of social ties and without the need for social ties. The gift is a generalized reciprocity, but delayed in time, the redistribution is a balanced reciprocity whereas the reciprocity for the market is immediate, but can be negative. There's a degradation. According to Sahlins, the farther the partner is symbolically and geographically, the more a degraded mode of trade regulation is used. There is a noble mode of regulating trade, which is gift for gift, which presupposes and creates social ties; there is a somewhat degraded mode, which is redistribution, and an even more degraded mode within the framework of the market. The market is reserved for foreigners, for those with whom we do not want or we cannot talk. This is the way economic actors experience trade. Exchanges are linked to otherness.

[[Fichier:Gradient échange 2.png|vignette]]

Chaunu was working on the nature of exchanges in the Middle Ages. 90% of economic exchanges did not travel more than 5 kilometres. There is a strong self-consumption. Each household is self-consuming, which means that there is a specialization within each household that operates on donation for donation. In the villages, there are exchanges between neighbours with specialisation and a division of labour. Part of the trade is regulated by the redistribution circuit, barter will also play a role.

The further away from the village there is a lot of redistribution and a little barter. It is estimated that at the time, 90% of exchanges took place within a radius of 5 kilometres. It is possible to need products that do not come from local production either because you cannot or because you do not know. The solution is either to resort to peddlers who bring what is necessary, or it is possible to move towards a village or a city more anchored in the monetary economy with real merchants. This requires a journey of 25 kilometres. In Latin, this is called a "pagus" in which markets regularly take place. 9% of exchanges are made within a radius of 25 kilometers to buy and sell. 1% of the trade is with the rest of the world concerning rare and expensive products which the peasants have little use being reserved for the bourgeoisie or the aristocracy as jewels, instruments, rarer care, rarer services.[[Fichier:Carrefours du commerce au moyen age 1.png|vignette|gauche]]

This map deals with the 1% of exchanges that cross a radius of 25 kilometres. This map shows what trades between extremely localized world economies. This space is fragmented into spaces with a radius of 25 kilometres between which almost nothing circulates. We see a traffic quantitatively non-existent, but very visible which is the trade in the distance. They are expensive products, moved over great distances reserved for people of a very high social rank. It is a world of luxury trade for an aristocracy, but it is not a world economy as defined by Braudel.

Many of these maps invisibilize flows that are also essential. Beware of maps that tend to draw the line between world economy and the rest of the world in the wrong place. We must keep in mind the idea of an exchange gradient which is that the further we get, the less we exchange and the more the forms of exchange are anthropologically degraded. What is visible are the rare products and the market, while what circulates inside are the channels of giving against giving and redistribution. This allows us to reflect on globalisation and the change in scale of economic circuits that globalisation would bring. With this story and this myth that our economies would have become globalized, that our economic circuits would have changed scale and that we would have gone from a local world economy to a world economy that is the world.

This idea is wrong for two reasons: globalization did not take place [1] and globalization took place long ago [2]. In other words, globalization has not affected us as much as we are told and it is not as new as we are told. Globalization must be put into perspective in its unprecedented newness, but also in its measure. For some authors, the first globalization is between 30,000 and 5,000 years before Jesus Christ with the humanization of the planet. It is possible to make arrows showing how human space has spread over the planet. This globalisation has serious consequences, but is not an economic phenomenon.

== The first globalizations: XVIIIth century - XIXth century ==

We must remember 1492 and the discovery of the New World which is America. Before 1492, there was the Silk Road, but the western horizon was limited because there was no access to it. Asian products could only be acquired through Turkish intermediaries. For the first time, the West is gaining access to an elsewhere which it was unaware of until now and which it had not even hypothesized. This is a fascinating moment in Western history because it is difficult to define what it would be like today. This discovery was incompatible with what was written in the Bible. A hypothesis was formulated at this time that there were two creations and two paradises. It is the first moment when the political, cultural and economic reality of the West changes horizon.

[[Fichier:Commerce triangulaire 1.png|vignette]]

The first exchange took place in the form planned by Sahlins, which is theft, looting and violence, particularly with the massive arrival of gold and silver which will totally destabilise the European economy for the benefit of the countries of the Iberian Peninsula. Mining resources will be developed using indigenous labour. The Church will discuss in the context of the Valladolid controversy which questions the condition of the indigenous people. This will generate slave trade with Africa. The second phase is the plantation system and the massive transfer within the framework of the triangular trade of the "ebony wood" that are the black slaves. This highlights the existence of a trade of unavailability which means that if we go to look for certain resources abroad it is because we cannot produce them in Europe.

In the beginning, the predation economy did not represent much for the peasant, even if it had a major impact on the European monetary system. On the other hand, products that start to transit in large quantities will have an impact for the local farmer creating a demand for exotic products that he cannot produce himself. For some, we will create a need with sugar or create an addiction as with tobacco. There is the first installation of a quantitatively significant economic circuit that is being set up on both sides of the Atlantic.[[Fichier:Négoce atlantique 1.png|vignette]]

The extraction of "ebony wood" which is an economic extraction is done in violence, the plantation system is done by buying slaves, but these plantations belong for the most part to large owners and families in Europe regulated in Europe by redistribution circuits. Gradually, we move from exploitation through looting, to colonial exploitation and plantation to a more capitalist system of colonization more linked to the market, as evidenced by the existence of commercial companies characterizing the commercial capitalist system.

At the beginning, the market was opposed to colonization and therefore to globalization through transatlantic trade. The first reason was for its economic inefficiency and the second ideological reason, because if you believe in the market, the use of force, of indigenous labour is counterproductive. If we believe in the market, we cannot be "for" slavery and colonization. There was a fear in the business community that the development of trade brought about by colonization would result in economic development of the colonies and thus competition from the colonies. Exploiting the colonies was possible provided they did not become competitors. A first globalization is that of gold, then of slaves and finally of tropical products which come to feed Europe. The first economic globalisation took place in the 16th century with the globalisation of colonial trade.

In 1914, colonization globalized the planet. All parts of the world are registered in trade circuits managed by metropolises. We fall back on Braudel's concept of the world economy with a centre that is the metropolis, a periphery that is the colony and the empire.[[Fichier:Monde colonisé en 1914 1.png|vignette|centré]]

What is taking place is flows that are no longer anecdotal, but flows of massive consumer products. This globalization will last and be important until the middle of the 20th century.

== L’essor du commerce international : XIXème siècle – XXIème siècle ==

La deuxième mondialisation se fait avec la mise en place du commerce international. Avant le XIXème siècle, le commerce international n’existe quasiment pas du fait qu’on fait beaucoup la guerre, les barrières douanières rendent le commerce prohibitif et les transports sont peu efficaces. Avec une série d’inventions techniques, de procédures, de nouvelles idées qui vont assurer l’émergence du commerce international se traduisant par une augmentation des flux entre les pays.

En 1801 ouvre le London Stock Exchange. Entre 1841 et 1842 vont mener la guerre de l’Opium imposant le droit de vendre de l’opium sur le littoral et dans les villes chinoises. Une des premières guerres économiques se base sur le marché de la drogue. Cette guerre a été un moyen d’obliger la Chine à s’ouvrir vers l’extérieur. Au même moment en 1846 sont abolis les corn laws qui protégeaient les céréaliers anglais permettant à la production céréalière anglaise de survivre. Arrive sur le marché britannique du blé international beaucoup moins cher se traduisant par la disparition de la céréaliculture en quelques années parce que cela n’est pas rentable. L’avantage comparatif de l’Angleterre est l’industrie. Avec l’ouverture de l’Angleterre au libre-échange, va se produire l’industrialisation de l’Angleterre. En 1862 est signé un traité de libre-échange franco-anglais. Entre 1890 et 1914 va s’imposer le libre-échange au point que l’ouverture économique des pays en 1914 et aujourd’hui est quasiment la même. Entre 1914 et les années 1960, les frontières se sont de nouveau mis en place. Le XXème siècle est l’arrêt du commerce international à cause des deux guerres, mais aussi à cause de la crise de 1929. Entre 1929 et 1933, le commerce extérieur à l’échelle du monde a diminué de 66%. L’histoire de la mondialisation n’est pas l’histoire de la mondialisation du commerce international, n’est pas l’histoire du progrès régulier jusqu’à nos jours, mais celle d’un commerce qui s’internationalise rapidement et puissamment au XIXème siècle avec un arrêt très brutal en 1914 et une stagnation du commerce international à un niveau relativement très bas entre 1914 et les années 1960.

Le XXème siècle va être le siècle de la désinternationalisation du commerce avec la Première et la Seconde Guerre Mondiale. Avec crise de 1929, c’est moins la crise que sa contagion qui a frappé les esprits avec le fait que la crise ait commencé aux États-Unis et qu’elle se soit propagée selon un effet domino. La solution a été de fermer les frontières avec toute une série de mesures protectionnistes. Néanmoins, le mouvement va reprendre un peu avant la fin de la Deuxième guerre mondiale.

À partir de 1944 est 1945 va de nouveau être mis en place à l’échelle internationale et locales des systèmes qui permettent de lever les barrières protectionnistes et les barrières douanières. Le premier élément est tout un ensemble d’institutions et de mesures de la fin de la guerre à 1947 visant à reconstruire un univers économique et politique ruiné en mettant en place un nouvel ordre qui est aussi un ordre économique avec la GATT, la BIRD et le FMI. À travers ces organismes internationaux se met en place une gouvernance économique mondiale qui se fonde sur l’idée que l’augmentation des échanges internationaux se ferra pour le bien de chacun. En 1957, à l’occasion du traité de Rome est créée la communauté économique européenne jouant un rôle massif dans l’abaissement des tarifs douaniers ayant pour but de constituer un marché européen unique. Au début, le projet était de construire un circuit économique européen, mais les raisons pour lesquels ont voulait établir un circuit économique unique n’étaient pas des raisons d’abord économiques. On pensait que c’était le meilleur moyen d’éviter une Troisième guerre mondiale ne tissant des liens économiques et de communauté. L’économique a été instrumentalisée à des fins politiques dont le but de l’union était à des fins diplomatiques et politiques. Cette communauté a eu pour conséquence une augmentation du commerce international à l’échelle européenne régionale. La décolonisation a été le troisième grand facteur du développement du marché du commerce international. Une fois que les anciennes colonies échappent à la puissance et à l’autorité de la métropole, elles acquièrent une autonomie économique et financière faisant qu’elles peuvent devenir des acteurs du marché international. La décolonisation s’est traduite par l’entrée sur le marché international des pays libérés de la tutelle des métropoles. Le quatrième moment est l’essor du néolibéralisme dans les années 1980 qui a précédé l’effondrement du bloc soviétique, du monde communiste ainsi que d’idéaux politique et économique que ces puissances représentaient. La fin de l’histoire est l’idée qu’on était arrivé à un moment de l’histoire où le choix n’était plus possible. La marge de l’histoire était le choix entre les deux modèles. À la fin dans les années 1980 et dans les années 1990, s’impose l’idée qu’il n’y a qu’un seul modèle qui est le modèle du marché, de la démocratie de l’impératif des droits de l’homme. Dans ce modèle, il y a la libéralisation économique. Beaucoup pour les États-Unis, il y a un consubstantiel entre le libéralisme économique et la démocratie. La démocratie et le marché fonctionnent ensemble. La fin de l’histoire et l’accord général sur le marché, les droits de l’homme et la démocratie sont traduits par une très forte internationalisation de l’économie.

La révolution technologique autour des transports joue un rôle dans l’élargissement des circuits économiques. Le coût du transport a rarement été un obstacle définitif au commerce international qui serait plutôt les mesures protectionnistes. Les années 1990 avec l’émergence de la bulle internets’est traduit par une quasi-annulation du coût du franchissement de la distance pour certains produits et par une unification du marché. En 1992 est créé l’ALENA qui crée un marché unique pour les États-Unis, le Canada et le Mexique. L’idée que les frontières sont devenues poreuses a pour résultat de créer une région où les frontières ne s’opposent plus au commerce international. Si les frontières économiques disparaissent au sein de l’Europe ou des États-Unis, cela est pour mieux les établir ailleurs. Au fond, l’Union européenne n’a fait que repousser les frontières. Dans un sens, le régionalisme est le contraire du libre-échange puisqu’on se barricade sous des frontières économiques qui sont déplacées et changées d’échelle. On n’est pas dans la mondialisation, mais dans un stade intermédiaire entre des marchés locaux et un marché très unique. En 1994 est fondé l’OMC et en 2000 l’adhésion de la Chine à l’OMC qui est à la fois un pays marqué par l’économie dirigiste communiste et une croissance à deux chiffres depuis des décennies.

[[Fichier:OMC avril 2003 1.png|vignette|gauche]]

La situation est que le monde entier a adhéré à l’OMC. Cela signifie que le monde entier a adhéré à l’économie de marché et que le monde entier s’est mis d’accord sur l’idée qu’à terme il faut créer un marché mondial unique. Cela soulève de nombreuses discussions et débats. L’adhésion au principe de l’économie mondial n’empêche pas des distancions sur les moyens d’y parvenir.

On arrive à l’idée que s’il y a eu la mise en place du libre échange entre 1800 et 1914, s’il y a un effondrement du marché international entre les deux guerres mondiales, cela reprend dans les années 1950, cela s’accélère dans les années 1960 pour aboutir à des cartes iconiques qui montrent un monde mondialisé.

[[Fichier:Commerce mondial de marchandise 2000.png|vignette]]

Lorsqu’on regarde cette carte, on a l’impression que la mondialisation est accomplie et que l’échelle des circuits économiques et la même que celle de la planète. Cette carte est manipulatrice parce qu’il y a des bouts qui sont coupés comme l’Afrique du Sud, d’autre part, on met l’emphase sur les liens nord – nord entre la « triade ». Le titre est faux. Cette carte porte sur le « commerce international », mais elle ne le dit pas parlant du « commerce mondial ». Nous devrions voir tous les flux qui ont lieu dans le monde, mais elle ne montre que les flux internationaux.

Par exemple, les flux économiques à l’échelle de la Suisse ou de la France ne sont pas montrés, or ils sont cinq fois plus massifs que les flux internationaux. Le premier facteur qui affecte la quantité des flux internationaux est la taille des pays. Si un espace est fragmenté en petits pays, il y a beaucoup de flux internationaux, si un espace est n’est divisé qu’entre grands blocs limite les flux internationaux. Cette carte est biaisée par la carte politique. Au fond, cette carte a une fonction idéologique pour mettre l’emphase sur la mondialisation alors qu’en fait ce n’est pas de cela qu’il s’agit.

[[Fichier:Importation et exportation par pays en 2000.png|vignette|centré]]

Ce tableau est le taux d’ouverte de différent pays à l’échelle du monde pour différent pays. Pour calculer le taux d’ouverture, on additionne les importations plus les exportations divisées par deux fois le PNB. Cela donne l’idée de la part de la production exportée et de la part de la consommation qui est importée. Pour les États, un taux d’ouverture de 13% signifie qu’en moyenne, 13% de la production et exportée ou 13% de la consommation est importée. En d’autres termes, 87% de la production américaine est destiné au marché américaine est 87% de ce que les consommateurs américains achètent est fabriqué sur le sol des États-Unis. Les neuf dixièmes de l’économie américaine se passent sur le sol américain alors que les États-Unis poussent à l’ouverture des frontières et à la mondialisation des marchés alors que c’est une économie très nationale. Si on regarde le Japon, son taux d’ouverture est de 0,10 qui veut dire que 10% de la consommation japonaise est importée ou exportée. Les gardes montrant les flux internationaux ne sont fondées que sur le taux d’ouverture, c’est pourquoi il faut relativiser ces flux. Le taux d’ouverture est rarement supérieur à 20%.

Il y a des exceptions comme l’Allemagne, la France ou encore le Royaume-Uni. Au sein de l’Union européenne, la moyenne est autour de 25%. L’ouverture européenne est deux fois plus importante que celle des États-Unis et du Japon. Le fait que les flux franchissent des frontières est lié à deux facteurs. Le premier est la construction de l‘Union européenne et le fait que des politiques ont été mis en place pour faciliter les échanges internationaux et la coopération économique internationale. Cela fait que ces pays sont ouverts vers l’extérieur, mais essentiellement sur leurs voisins. Le second facteur est la taille de l’Europe, car par nature des pays de petite taille ont un taux d’ouverture supérieur au pays de grande taille. Le taux d’ouverture des Pays-Bas est de 0,53. Il y a un effet lié à la taille. Dans le cadre de la compétition internationale, la seule façon de produire et de vendre et de se spécialiser. Les pays vont se spécialiser dans des produits et des productions dans lesquelles ils espèrent être compétitifs. La spécialisation des petits pays signifie que toute leur production est exportée et que toute la consommation est importée. Par nature, les petits pays ont un taux d’ouverture beaucoup plus grand que les grands pays. À la fois des raisons matérielles et pour des raisons ayant trait au marché intérieur. Cela explique que lorsqu’on cherche des petits pays, le taux d’ouverture est beaucoup plus important.

Il y des cas comme Singapour, la Malaise et Hong Kong où le taux d’ouverture est supérieur à 1. À Hong Kong, les exportations et les importations correspondent à 122% de la consommation ou de la production. L’explication est que ce sont des pays d’entrepôt qui réexportent ce qu’ils importent, ce sont des plaques tournantes. Les importations ne sont pas liées au marché intérieur, mais destinées à leur retraitement et à leur réexportation.

Il faut faire attention avec ce type de tableau sur ce que sont les flux internationaux. La façon dont on les mesure joue un grand rôle sur les conclusions tirées. Ce qui est intéressant de savoir est la distance moyenne parcourue par un pays. L’augmentation du commerce international ne prouve pas vraiment que la distance moyenne parcourue par les produits a augmenté, mais cela prouve qu’ils franchissent plus de frontières. Ces chiffres ne disent pas grand-chose sur l’échelle des circuits économiques, mais sur le fait qu’ils franchissent plus de frontières. L’internationalisation est très mesurée. Pour la plupart des petits pays, on est en dessous d’un quart ce qui signifie que dans la plupart des pays sont destinés à et produit par le marché national. La mondialisation n‘affecte qu’une petite partie de l’économie et encore on ne parle que de l’économie de marché. La mondialisation reste un phénomène relativement marginal. Ce n’est pas non plus un phénomène nouveau.

[[Fichier:Geoeco_évolution_du_taux_ouverture_par_pays.png|vignette|gauche]]

Entre 1913 qui est le moment culminant du libre-échange et de la mise en place d’un marché mondial et 1950, les taux d’ouverture s’effondrent. Aujourd’hui, si on regarde les chiffres, plusieurs pays viennent de retrouver ou n’ont pas encore retrouvé les taux d’ouverture de 1913. Par exemple, en 1913, le Japon était 33 fois internationalisé qu’aujourd’hui.

Si les États-Unis sont à part, cela est lié à la taille du pays, mais aussi lié au fait que l’économie américaine n’a pas souffert de la manière des deux guerres mondiales en ayant même bénéficié. On vit dans un monde aujourd’hui qui n’est pas davantage mondialisé qu’il n’était en 1914. Les taux d’ouverture sont des pourcentages et cela ne vaut pas en chiffre absolu puisqu’en même temps, le commerce mondial en « poids » a explosé. C’est une autre réalité quantitative, mais si on raisonne en pourcentage, on n’a fait que rattraper le niveau de 1914. Ce qui est vrai pour le marché des marchandises est également vrai pour les personnes. Il y avait beaucoup plus de migrations internationales au XIXème siècle qu’aujourd’hui, mais évidemment, quantitativement cela n’est pas la même chose.

Cela n’est pas nier l’idée que quelque chose change à la fin du XXème siècle. Quelque chose change dans les années 1980 et 1990. Ces chiffres et ces cartes visent à suggérer que la mondialisation n’est pas un phénomène nouveau et que la mondialisation est un événement qui touche une petite partie de l’économie de marché et que la plupart des circuits de marché sont locaux et nationaux. Il ne faut pas céder à une forme de myopie qui hypnotise par le caractère massif et récent de la mondialisation qui n’est ni massive ni récente.

= Conclusion =

Le marché est un type de circuit et sans doute pas le plus important. À chaque mode de régulation à savoir le don contre don, la redistribution et le marché, ses fonctions et ses échelles sont différents. À chaque type d’échange correspond une proximité spatiale et symbolique. On peut distinguer trois grandes périodes du changement de circuit économique à l’échelle mondiale avec la colonisation, la mises-en place du libre-échange au XIXème siècle et la reprise récente. Il faut concevoir la mondialisation comme un mode (maximal) d’extension spatiale du circuit pour transformer la planète en économie monde. La mondialisation a un caractère « ancien » et limité.

Quels sont les moteurs de la mondialisation ? Bien sûr, il y a une dimension technologique avec la révolution des transports. Ces grandes mutations logistiques qui ont autorisé des réorganisations des circuits économiques des changements d’échelles sont importantes étant liées à l’histoire des chemins de fer, des bateaux, des avions et d’internet. Cela permet la mondialisation, mais cela ne la nécessite pas. Les raisons pour lesquelles on s’est mis à faire du commerce international sont des raisons idéologiques et politiques. Cela veut dire que l’explication de l’économique n’est pas dans l’économique en pensant que les évolutions trouvent au sein de ce monde leur explication. L’économique est incrustée dans le politique et dans le social et ces mutations ne trouvent pas leur principe et leur raison au sein de l’économie conçue comme une fiction. Elles prennent place dans des logiques plus vastes et plus complexes.

= Annexes =

= References =
<references />

[[Category:Jean-François Staszak]]
[[Category:géographie]]
[[Category:économie]]
[[Category:2012]]  
[[Category:2014]]