Towards a more China-centred global economy? Implications for Chinese power in the age of hybrid threats
An era of hyper globalization is giving way to an age of geoeconomics wherein China seeks a decisive seat at the table.
As China continues to rise, a key question will be whether and to what extent it is able to translate economic prowess into comprehensive national power and global influence. When considering the question of hybrid threats to democratic political systems, China’s role in transforming the global economy raises two broad questions. The first relates to the scope of China’s economic power. To what extent can and will China’s rise transform the global economy in a way that amplifies its power in the age of hybrid threats and undermines liberal democratic institutions and their underlying value systems? The second relates to China’s ambitions with regard to political and social change. To what extent does China seek to undermine liberal democratic institutions and actively export or construct an alternative model?
This paper analyses the rise of a new geoeconomic world order and discusses how economic power is organized and wielded within a context of complex interdependence. It considers how the notion of interdependence has changed from a stabilizing force in international relations into a source of asymmetric power and, conversely, of vulnerability. It describes how a networked global economy produces asymmetric interdependencies that amplify economic power in the hands of states that are able to achieve a degree of network centrality. The paper explores five interrelated actions that China is taking that ultimately increase its network centrality in the global economy today:
- Cultivating resilience through indigenization
- Pursuing high-end import substitution and export promotion (“dual circulation”)
- Establishing hard and soft infrastructure hubs
- Building a narrative and a community framework
- Elaborating upon the relevant tools of economic statecraft
Ultimately, the hybrid threats resulting from China’s increasing economic power can be considered in two different ways: 1) direct, or active threats to liberal democracies stemming from the ability to impress upon or influence key economic infrastructure and actors, and 2) systemic-level threats related to the rules, values and principles on which these systems are built.
This article was published by the European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats.
Access the text from the Hybrid CoE website:
Towards a more China-centred global economy? Implications for Chinese power in the age of hybrid threats
Available in:
Regions and themes
ISBN / ISSN
Share
Related centers and programs
Discover our other research centers and programs
Center for Asian Studies
Asia is a nerve center for multiple global economic, political and security challenges. The Center for Asian Studies provides documented expertise and a platform for discussion on Asian issues to accompany decision makers and explain and contextualize developments in the region for the sake of a larger public dialogue.
The Center's research is organized along two major axes: relations between Asia's major powers and the rest of the world; and internal economic and social dynamics of Asian countries. The Center's research focuses primarily on China, Japan, India, Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific, but also covers Southeast Asia, the Korean peninsula and the Pacific Islands.
The Centre for Asian Studies maintains close institutional links with counterpart research institutes in Europe and Asia, and its researchers regularly carry out fieldwork in the region.
The Center organizes closed-door roundtables, expert-level seminars and a number of public events, including an Annual Conference, that welcome experts from Asia, Europe and the United States. The work of Center’s researchers, as well as that of their partners, is regularly published in the Center’s electronic journal Asie.Visions.
Find out more
Discover all our analyses
Afghanistan-Pakistan: The Overlooked War at the Margins of the Middle East Conflict
Pakistan has historically maintained the closest ties to the Taliban movement and initially viewed its return to power in Afghanistan in the summer of 2021 with considerable optimism. The bilateral relationship has since deteriorated, and the two neighbors have been caught in a cycle of escalation since last fall. In October 2025, Pakistan launched its first airstrikes on Kabul. For three weeks in February–March 2026, Afghanistan intensified ground assaults on the Pakistani side of the border as well as drone attacks on Islamabad and Rawalpindi. Pakistan, for its part, has intensified airstrikes on Afghan border areas, as well as on Kabul and Kandahar. Given the dynamics at play at the bilateral and regional levels, the prospects for a sustained return to stability appear limited.
European Union-India: Lasting Rapprochement or Partnership of Convenience?
The partnership between the European Union (EU) and India has long been limited to economic exchanges. Its political dimension has gradually developed, culminating in its elevation to the status of a “strategic partnership” in 2004. However, the failure of negotiations for a free-trade agreement in 2013 slowed this momentum. Since the early 2020s, in an uncertain geopolitical context, bilateral rapprochement has gained new momentum.
Japan’s Takaichi Landslide: A New Face of Power
Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi has turned her exceptional popularity into a historic political victory. The snap elections of February 8 delivered an overwhelming majority for the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), driven by strong support from young voters, drawn to her iconoclastic and dynamic image, and from conservative voters reassured by her vision of national assertiveness. This popularity lays the foundation for an ambitious strategy on both the domestic and international fronts.
The U.S. Policy Toward Taiwan Beyond Donald Trump: Mapping the American Stakeholders of U.S.-Taiwan Relations
Donald Trump’s return to the White House reintroduced acute uncertainty into the security commitment of the United States (U.S.) to Taiwan. Unlike President Joe Biden, who repeatedly stated the determination to defend Taiwan, President Trump refrains from commenting on the hypothetical U.S. response in the context of a cross-Strait crisis.