Hope despite Hostility
Source details
- Canonical URL
- Hope despite Hostility
Other formats
Bibliographic details
- Authors: ELIZABETH VAN HEUVELEN
- Published: September 3, 2025
Overview and thesis
- Book reviewed: Trade in War: Economic Cooperation across Enemy Lines by Mariya Grinberg, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, 2025, 259 pp., $48.
- Reviewer: ELIZABETH VAN HEUVELEN, senior economist in the IMF’s Strategy, Policy, and Review Department.
- Core question: Why do warring countries trade with each other?
- Central argument: States allow as much wartime trade as makes military sense and prohibit as much militarily dangerous trade as is economically viable.
Historical turning point: neutral rights and the Crimean War
- Trade during wartime was once considered a nonstarter because it was seen as contributing to military capability.
- The introduction of “neutral rights” during the Crimean War caused a fundamental shift in thinking about trade during war—nuanced trade policy could replace the extreme practice of severing all trade.
- Anecdote: A large amount of produce already paid for by France became stuck in Russian ports because of late-melting ice in the Baltic Sea; this circumstance enabled France to persuade Britain and Russia to allow the shipment through despite the ongoing war.
- Outcome: A declaration on the rights of neutrals and eventual adoption of the Declaration of Paris, which codified such practices through subsequent conflicts and allowed trade to continue.
Analytical framework: conversion time and wartime trade decision-making
- Key concept: “conversion time” — the time it takes for trade products to be converted into military capability.
- Decision rule emphasized: Weigh immediate military benefits of restricting trade against long-term economic costs from prohibition.
- Implication: States calibrate wartime commercial policy by assessing both conversion time and revenue generated by trades.
Case study: World War I dynamics
- Britain and Germany frequently adjusted commercial policies as the war progressed and expectations about duration and stakes changed.
- Britain: initially lax policy based on anticipation of a short war; policy tightened as the war dragged on.
- Germany: implemented a more prohibitive policy based on dire predictions about the stakes, but ultimately allowed for more trade once the conflict proved protracted.
Modern context: global value chains and strategic calculations
- Modern strategic calculations are complicated by global value chains and economic interdependence of major trading partners.
- Grinberg’s argument implies that decoupling in these circumstances is highly unlikely even amid heightened tension.
- Through line of the book: Economic cooperation can thrive even in the most hostile times.
F&D Magazine review by ELIZABETH VAN HEUVELEN, September 2025; review of Mariya Grinberg, Trade in War: Economic Cooperation across Enemy Lines, Cornell University Press, 2025, 259 pp., $48.
Content in this bundle
- Hope Despite Hostility