O Risco Geoeconômico da Argentina como Exportadora de Alimentos: Uma Avaliação a partir do Índice de Exposição ao Risco Geoeconômico por Produto (IEGP)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14409/rdee.2025.2.e0070Palavras-chave:
Risco Geoeconômico, Fragmentação Geoeconômica, Inserção Internacional, Argentina, ExportaçõesResumo
O artigo examina a vulnerabilidade geoeconômica da pauta exportadora argentina no contexto da crescente fragmentação geoeconômica global. Para tanto, propõe e aplica o “Índice de Exposição ao Risco Geoeconômico por Produto” (IEGP), um instrumento analítico original que combina variáveis econômicas —como relevância e concentração de mercados— com variáveis político-institucionais referentes aos principais parceiros comerciais da Argentina e às características centrais da relação bilateral. A construção do índice baseia-se na premissa de que o uso da política comercial com fins estratégicos, e, consequentemente, a probabilidade de disrupção geopolítica dos fluxos comerciais, tende a ocorrer quando se verificam simultaneamente baixa institucionalidade bilateral, elevados níveis de divergência ideológica e antecedentes de comportamento coercitivo. Quando essas condições se manifestam em produtos relevantes e com mercados concentrados, configura-se uma vulnerabilidade significativa para a inserção internacional. Aplicado à pauta exportadora argentina de 2023, o IEGP identifica 26 produtos com vulnerabilidade econômica, dos quais seis apresentam elevado nível de risco geoeconômico. Os resultados indicam que a especialização argentina em alimentos e produtos agropecuários acarreta riscos que extrapolam a dimensão econômica, gerando implicações geopolíticas diretas. A abordagem proposta possibilita considerar de forma integrada as dimensões de política econômica e de política externa na formulação da estratégia de inserção internacional, oferecendo uma base empírica consistente para a antecipação e mitigação de riscos em um ambiente global marcado por crescente instabilidade.
Referências
Aggarwal, V. K., & Reddie, A. W. (2025). New economic statecraft and global technology conflicts: The dilemma for middle powers. Business and Politics, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/bap.2025.10011
Aiyar, S., Presbitero, A., & Ruta, M. (2023). Geoeconomic Fragmentation The Economic Risks from a Fractured World Economy. IMF & CEPR Press.
Bauer, M., du Roy, O., & Sharma, V. (2023). A forward-thinking approach to open strategic autonomy: Navigating EU trade dependencies and risk mitigation (ECIPE Policy Brief No. 13/2023). European Centre for International Political Economy.
Bauerle Danzman, S., & Meunier, S. (2024). The EU’s Geoeconomic Turn: From Policy Laggard to Institutional Innovator. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 62(4), 1097–1115. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13599
Blanga-Gubbay, M., & Rubínová, S. (2023). Is the global economy fragmenting? World Trade Organization Economic Research and Statistics Division, Staff Working Paper ERSD-2023-10. https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/ersd202310_e.pdf
Busso, A. (2025). Orden internacional en la tercera década del siglo XXI y política exterior argentina. Reflexiones iniciales. Colección Documentos de Trabajo - Editorial CEA, 9(19), 1–26.
Davis, C. L., & Meunier, S. (2011). Business as Usual? Economic Responses to Political Tensions: BUSINESS AS USUAL? American Journal of Political Science, 55(3), 628–646. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00507.x
Economist Intelligence. (2025). Democracy Index 2024. The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited. https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2024/
Evenett, S., Fiorini, M., Fritz, J., Hoekman, B., Lukaszuk, P., Rocha, N., Ruta, M., Santi, F., & Shingal, A. (2022). Trade policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic crisis: Evidence from a new data set. The World Economy, 45(2), 342–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/twec.13119
Evenett, S., Jakubik, A., Martín, F., & Ruta, M. (2024). The return of industrial policy in data. The World Economy, 47(7), 2762–2788. https://doi.org/10.1111/twec.13608
Farrell, H., & Newman, A. L. (2019). Weaponized Interdependence: How Global Economic Networks Shape State Coercion. International Security, 44(1), 42–79. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00351
FMI. (2023). Trade Integration and Implications of Global Fragmentation for Latin America and the Caribbean. https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/REO/WHD/2023/October/English/background-paper-2-en.ashx
Gopinath, G., Gourinchas, P.-O., Presbitero, A., & Topalova, P. (2024). Changing Global Linkages: A New Cold War? (IMF Working Paper No. 2024/76). https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2024/04/05/Changing-Global-Linkages-A-New-Cold-War-547357
Government of Canada, S. C. (2017, December 11). Measuring Canadian export diversification. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/13-605-x/2017001/article/54890-eng.htm
Gras, C. (2023). Geopolitical crisis and changing global commodity markets: Responses by agribusiness and the state in Argentina. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 50(5), 1687–1708. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2023.2219204
Hallak, J. C. (2023). La necesidad de una orientación pro-exportadora de políticas en Argentina. Serie Documentos de Trabajo Del IIEP, 85, 1–51.
Hoekman, B. M., & Mavroidis, P. C. (2015). World Trade Organization (WTO): Law, Economics, and Politics (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315742212
Kastner, S. L. (2007). When Do Conflicting Political Relations Affect International Trade? Journal of Conflict Resolution, 51(4), 664–688. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002707302804
Mayer, J. (2009). Policy Space: What, for What, and Where? Development Policy Review, 27, 373–395. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7679.2009.00452.x
Merino, G. E., & Haro Sly, M. J. (2023). Argentina en el sistema mundial desde el quiebre de los 70’sa la actualidad: Política exterior, proyectos en pugna y punto de bifurcación. Relaciones Internacionales, 32(65), 255–284.
Moravcsik, A. (1997). Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics. International Organization, 51(4), 513–553. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081897550447
Naldi, M., & Flamini, M. (2014). The CR4 Index and the Interval Estimation of the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index: An Empirical Comparison. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2448656
Nazir, S., Sohag, K., & Mariev, O. (2025). Geopolitical Risk and Trade Reorientation Dynamics: A Comparative Study. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 0(0), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/1540496X.2025.2451188
OECD, European Union, & Joint Research Centre - European Commission. (2008). Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264043466-en
Oneal, J. R., & Russett, B. (1999). The Kantian Peace: The Pacific Benefits of Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations, 1885–1992. World Politics, 52(1), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887100020013
Organización Mundial del Comercio. (2025). Finalidad y conceptos básicos—Trato de la nación más favorecida. https://www.wto.org/spanish/tratop_s/serv_s/cbt_course_s/c1s6p1_s.htm
Piñeiro, M., Illescas, N., & Vicentin Masaro, J. (2024). El comercio agropecuario argentino: Respuestas estratégicas frente a los nuevos riesgos geopolíticos.
Qiu, H., Xia, D., & Yetman, J. (2024). Deconstructing global trade: The role of geopolitical alignment. BIS Quaterly Review, Sept-2024. https://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt2409c.pdf
Quah, D. (2026). Correlated Trade and Geopolitics Driving a Fractured World Order. In The New Global Economic Order (pp. 54–66). Routledge. https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/104259/1/9781040400159.pdf#page=39
Reuveny, R., & Kang, H. (1998). Bilateral Trade and Political Conflict/Cooperation: Do Goods Matter? Journal of Peace Research, 35(5), 581–602. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343398035005003
Roberts, A., Choer Moraes, H., & Ferguson, V. (2019). Toward a Geoeconomic Order in International Trade and Investment. Journal of International Economic Law, 22(4), 655–676. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgz036
Roberts, A., & Lamp, N. (2021). Six Faces of Globalization: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why It Matters. Harvard University Press.
Singh, V., Correa da Cunha, H., & Mangal, S. (2024). Do Geopolitical Risks Impact Trade Patterns in Latin America? Defence and Peace Economics, 35(8), 1102–1119. https://doi.org/10.1080/10242694.2023.2299072
Turner, C. (2023). Global Business Analysis: Understanding the Role of Systemic Risk in International Business. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27769-6
U.S. Department of Justice & Federal Trade Commission. (2010). Horizontal Merger Guidelines (08/19/2010).
Vicard, V. (2012). Trade, conflict, and political integration: Explaining the heterogeneity of regional trade agreements. European Economic Review, 56(1), 54–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2011.06.003
Voeten, E., Strezhnev, A., & Bailey, M. (2024). United Nations General Assembly Voting Data (Version 34.0) [Dataset]. Harvard Dataverse. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/LEJUQZ
World Trade Organization. (2025). WTO Trade Monitoring Update: Latest Trends. https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news25_e/trdev_03jul25_e.pdf
Yalcin, E., Felbermayr, G., Kariem, H., Kirilakha, A., Kwon, O., Syropoulos, C., & Yotov, Y. (2025). The Global Sanctions Data Base - Release 4: The Heterogeneous Effects of the Sanctions on Russia. Working Papers, Article 2025002. https://ideas.repec.org//p/drx/wpaper/2025002.html
Zelicovich, J. (2023). Las lógicas de la diplomacia económica instrumental en las relaciones internacionales contemporáneas (2017-2022). Revista de Ciencia Política, 43(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-090x2023005000103
Zelicovich, J. (2025). How Does Trade Policy Respond to the Polycrisis: Analysis of the Argentinean Case. The World Economy. https://doi.org/10.1111/twec.13717
Downloads
Publicado
Edição
Seção
Licença
Direitos autorais (c) 2025 Julieta Zelicovich, Nicolás Sidicaro
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
