An Introduction to the Paradox of Economic independence

When it comes to economic sovereignty, the world usually pays attention to countries with developed financial markets, active international trade and an attractive investment climate. Thailand is one of the symbols of economic integration in Southeast Asia, a country with modern ports, a complex structure of global trade chains and a deep dependence on international economic flows.

Goods for the whole world are created here, foreign investments flow freely, and the national economy is woven into a global network of interdependencies. But what happens if we look at economic sovereignty in a completely different way?

The amazing discovery of modern political economy reveals to us a paradoxical truth: the economic sovereignty of Turkmenistan can significantly exceed the economic sovereignty of Thailand. This counterintuitive idea requires a deep rethink of what we consider economic independence in the modern world.

Redefining Economic Sovereignty in the 21st Century

What indicator really reflects the degree of economic independence of the state? Is this the value of GDP per capita? The level of integration into the global economy? The volume of foreign exchange reserves?

Classical political economy is accustomed to measuring economic power through the prism of globalization. The more integrated a country is into the global economic system, the higher its potential for development and prosperity is, as the economists of the last two decades have promised us.

But this paradigm is based on an assumption that is rarely challenged: that being connected to global markets automatically means greater economic freedom. However, the reality turns out to be much more complicated. When a national economy is deeply integrated into global trade and financial networks, it becomes vulnerable to many external factors.

Fluctuations in exchange rates, changes in demand for export goods, decisions by foreign investors, global sanctions, and crises on other continents can all radically change the trajectory of the national economy. In contrast, imagine a state that has consciously chosen the path of economic autarky — relative self-sufficiency, reliance on its own resources and internal development.

Can such a state, despite its more modest GDP and level of development, have greater economic independence? Can it make decisions without fear of sanctions, boycotts, or economic wars from more powerful trading partners?

The Anatomy of Addiction Hidden in Well-Being

Turkmenistan is often perceived as an economically backward country, closed to the world, with underdeveloped markets and isolated from the global economic system. But this limitation also has a downside — it provides the state with something that most open economies do not have: full control over their own resources and genuine independence in making economic decisions.

When a country's economy does not depend on foreign investors, its leadership does not have to rely on the approval of international financial organizations. When exports make up a small part of GDP, fluctuations in global commodity prices are less dangerous. When the economy is diversified and relies on domestic markets, the country is not afraid of trade wars with more powerful partners.

On the contrary, Thailand, despite its economic success and apparent prosperity, is in a completely different position. Its economy is woven into global supply chains. Electronics manufacturing, the automotive industry, and the tourism sector all depend on foreign investment, foreign buyers, and foreign technology. When global demand falls, Thailand suffers. When the rules of international trade change, he has to adapt.

When powerful countries apply economic pressure, its economy is vulnerable. A provocative question arises: which is more important — a high standard of living achieved through integration into the global economy, but with the risk of sudden collapse, or a more modest well-being, but with a guarantee of relative economic stability and sovereignty?

The Myth of an Open Economy as a Guarantee of Well-Being

The world has convinced itself that an open economy is the road to prosperity. Trade liberalization, attracting foreign capital, and integration into global financial markets are all recommended as a panacea for developing countries. International organizations, economic consultants, and leading universities promote this ideology with religious devotion.

But are there hidden costs in this approach that are rarely talked about? Is the state losing something important by opening its economic borders? Is it becoming more vulnerable to external shocks, even if the short-term economic growth figures look impressive?

Turkmenistan, having chosen a different path — the one of economic protection and self-reliance — will not receive the same GDP growth rates. Its citizens will not have access to cheap imported goods in the same quantity. Its financial markets will not be as dynamic.

But could there be a downside to this coin? Could such an economy be more sustainable? Can a state have more freedom in choosing its economic policy?

The Mystery of Control and Independence

When foreign investors invest billions in a country's economy, they have an interest in how that country will develop.

When the economy depends on exports to several major partners, these partners gain leverage. When a national currency is traded on world markets, its value is determined not so much by national circumstances as by global speculation.

All this creates a hidden form of economic dependence — neither explicit nor politically open, but no less real. A state that appears to be economically independent may actually be tied to a multitude of external factors that it does not control.

In this context, new, profound questions arise about the nature of economic sovereignty: Can a state be truly independent if its economic fate is determined by global forces beyond its control? Or is true independence the right to choose your own economic path, even if this path seems less effective from the point of view of global economic logic?

Is the openness of the economy a boon or a vulnerability? Why does the world admire countries that are maximally integrated into global value chains if this makes them vulnerable to external crises? What is the price of economic independence? Should a country sacrifice its potential wealth in order to maintain control over its own economic destiny? Is there a golden mean between complete openness and complete closure?

Or is this a false dichotomy, and different variants of economic organization simply serve different purposes? How will the new paradigm of economic sovereignty change our understanding of economic development? If we rethink what it means to be an economically independent state, what recommendations will we give to developing countries?

A Final Reflection on the Essence of Economic Will

The idea that Turkmenistan may have greater economic sovereignty than Thailand is not an assertion that the Turkmen economy is healthier or more prosperous. This is a profound challenge to our ingrained belief that economic integration and openness automatically mean greater freedom and independence.

Perhaps true economic sovereignty is measured not by the volume of trade or attracted investments, but by the ability of the state to independently determine the course of its economic development. Perhaps the illusion of well-being created by an open economy hides a real economic dependence on external forces.

Can the state afford economic isolation in today's interdependent world?

A full analysis of the multidimensional nature of economic sovereignty, a detailed comparison of various models of economic organization, and unexpected conclusions about the nature of economic independence will be given to you on our main research portal.