What does economic analysis suggest happens when trade instruments are repurposed from correcting imbalances to coercing political outcomes?
Traditionally, tariffs are justified on three grounds: terms-of-trade manipulation, protection of infant industries, and retaliation in trade disputes. In all three cases, the objective is economic. The current episode surrounding Greenland is different in nature. Tariffs are no longer being discussed as a tool to alter relative prices or bargaining positions in trade negotiations, but as leverage to influence the territorial and sovereign decisions of allied states.
This is a qualitative shift.
In standard trade theory, tariffs operate through relative prices. A tariff raises the domestic price of an imported good, redistributes income from consumers to producers and the state, and generates deadweight losses. Retaliation magnifies these losses. The welfare analysis is well known and, in most cases, negative-sum.
However, when tariffs are used for non-economic objectives, the calculus changes. The relevant comparison is no longer between consumer surplus, producer surplus, and fiscal revenue, but between economic costs and geopolitical outcomes. In this sense, tariffs become closer to sanctions or coercive diplomacy than to trade policy.
In the short run, the effects are relatively straightforward. Firms exposed to the targeted trade corridors face higher costs, compressed margins, and cash-flow stress. Supply chains, which have already been partially reconfigured after earlier tariff episodes, must once again adjust. As recent history shows, these adjustments are possible, but not frictionless. The immediate burden falls disproportionately on exporters, on tradable sectors, and on firms with thin margins or high leverage.
Financial markets respond not only to the expected loss of profits but also to the increase in uncertainty. This explains why episodes of politically driven tariff threats are typically accompanied by a rise in safe-haven assets such as gold and a repricing of risk, even when the direct macroeconomic impact is small.
In the longer run, the consequences are more structural.
If tariffs become a general-purpose instrument of geopolitical coercion, the expected stability of the trading system deteriorates. Firms no longer face merely price risk or demand risk, but regime risk: the possibility that market access itself becomes contingent on political alignment. This increases the option value of diversification, regionalization, and redundancy, even when these are inefficient from a static cost-minimization perspective.
In effect, the world moves further away from a rules-based trading system and closer to a bargaining-based one.
This has several implications.
First, the credibility of alliances is weakened. If economic instruments are used to pressure allies on issues unrelated to trade, then the boundary between partnership and rivalry becomes blurred. This increases the incentive for states to hedge rather than to specialize within alliances.
Second, investment decisions become more political. Capital will increasingly flow not just to the most productive locations, but to those perceived as geopolitically safe. This implies a persistent wedge between private returns and social returns, as firms overinvest in resilience and underinvest in efficiency.
Third, the role of institutions such as the WTO is further eroded. A system designed to adjudicate trade disputes cannot easily discipline the use of tariffs for explicitly non-trade objectives. The enforcement problem becomes one of power rather than law.
There is also a historical dimension. Economic history offers many examples where commercial instruments were used for political ends. The British naval blockades, the US embargo on Japan before World War II, and the Cold War sanctions regimes all illustrate how economic tools migrate from commerce to strategy. In many cases, these measures failed to produce the intended political concessions but succeeded in accelerating fragmentation.
The risk is not primarily that a particular tariff will reduce growth by a few tenths of a percentage point. The deeper risk is that the expectation of conditional market access becomes normalized.
Once that happens, the global economy begins to resemble a system of overlapping spheres of influence rather than an integrated market.
It is important to note that this does not imply that trade policy was ever apolitical. It always was. But there is a difference between using trade policy to negotiate trade and using it to negotiate territory, security arrangements, or sovereignty itself.
The former operates within an economic logic. The latter subordinates economics to power.
In such a world, firms rationally respond by shortening supply chains, duplicating capacity, and holding more strategic inventory. These are individually prudent decisions, but collectively they lower productivity growth and raise the capital intensity of the global economy.
The final effect is a world that is more robust to shocks, but also structurally poorer.
In conclusion, the use of tariffs as a tool of sovereignty bargaining represents a regime change in the political economy of trade. The immediate costs are borne by exporters, consumers, and financial markets. The longer-term costs are borne by the growth rate itself, through higher uncertainty, lower specialization, and the gradual replacement of rules by leverage.
The central lesson is that when trade policy becomes an extension of geopolitics, it ceases to be merely a distortion. It becomes a structural tax on global coordination.
To read the full piece as it was posted on Bloomsbury Macro : Click here