Open access Articles CC BY 4.0 February 24, 2026

Open Access Article Economics

An Asymmetrical Relationship Between Oil Price Fluctuations And Geopolitical Tensions Between China And The United States

Authors

Authors: Abdelkader Mohamed Sghaier Derbali1,*

Author info & affiliations
  1. Department of Administrative and Financial Sciences, Applied College, Taibah University, Saudi Arabia
  2. * Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Publication: Innovation Economics Frontiers, Vol. 29 No. 1 (2026), pp. 01-10 https://doi.org/10.36923/ie-frontiers.v29i1.408

Ask AI (Dimensions) How to Cite
Download PDF

Abstract

Oil remains a strategic asset at the heart of contemporary geopolitical rivalries. China’s rise to become the world’s largest importer and the United States’ transformation into a major producer and exporter have profoundly altered the energy balance of power, reinforcing the interdependence between oil markets and bilateral geopolitical tensions. This article examines the existence and nature of an asymmetric relationship between oil price fluctuations and geopolitical tensions between China and the United States, distinguishing the effects of price increases and decreases and their dependence on risk regimes. The analysis is based on monthly data covering 2000–2024 and employs a nonlinear econometric approach that combines an NARDL model for asymmetric cointegration, a Quantile VAR (QVAR) model to capture conditional effects by risk level, and an EGARCH model to analyze the asymmetric transmission of geopolitical uncertainty to oil volatility. The results show that rising oil prices significantly intensify Sino-American geopolitical tensions, while falling prices have a weaker and less persistent effect. This asymmetry is particularly pronounced during periods of high international instability. Furthermore, geopolitical tensions significantly increase oil price volatility, with a leverage effect indicating that negative geopolitical shocks have a disproportionate impact on energy markets. These results suggest that the asymmetry in the oil-geopolitical transmission reflects differentiated energy vulnerabilities and distinct strategic behaviors between China and the United States. The study underscores the importance of oil as a vector of asymmetric interdependence and as an amplifier of international tensions, with major implications for energy security policies, financial market stability, and global energy governance.

Article information

Keywords
Oil PriceGeopolitical RiskAsymmetrydynamic relationshipSurprises
Section
Articles
Issue
Vol. 29 No. 1 (2026)
Pages
01-10
Submitted
October 21, 2025
Accepted
January 16, 2026
Published
February 24, 2026
Corresponding author
Abdelkader Mohamed Sghaier Derbali
Check for updates
Check for updates

Article highlights

  • Oil price increases significantly intensify Sino-American geopolitical tensions.
  • Oil price decreases have weaker and less persistent geopolitical effects.
  • The oil–geopolitics relationship is nonlinear and regime-dependent.
  • Geopolitical tensions significantly amplify oil price volatility with a leverage effect.
  • Asymmetry reflects structural energy dependence between China (importer) and the U.S. (producer/exporter).

References

  1. Antonakakis, N., Gupta, R., & Kollias, C. (2020). Geopolitical risks and the oil-stock nexus. Finance Research Letters, 34, 101206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2017.07.017 Google Scholar PubMed Crossref WorldCat
  2. Balcilar, M., Bonato, M., Demirer, R., & Gupta, R. (2018). Geopolitical risks and stock market dynamics of the BRICS. Economic Systems, 42(2), 295-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecosys.2017.05.008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecosys.2017.05.008 Google Scholar PubMed Crossref WorldCat
  3. Battiston, S., Mandel, A., Monasterolo, I., Schütze, F., & Visentin, G. (2021). Climate risks and financial stability. Journal of Financial Stability, 54, 100867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2021.100867 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2021.100867 Google Scholar PubMed Crossref WorldCat
  4. Caldara, D., & Iacoviello, M. (2022). Measuring geopolitical risk. American Economic Review, 112(4), 1194–1225. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20191823 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20191823 Google Scholar PubMed Crossref WorldCat
  5. CBOE. (2024). CBOE volatility index (VIX) data. Chicago Board Options Exchange. Google Scholar PubMed WorldCat
  6. Cherp, A., & Jewell, J. (2014). The concept of energy security: Beyond the four As. Energy Policy, 75, 415–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.09.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.09.005 Google Scholar PubMed Crossref WorldCat
  7. Zhu, Z., Hunjra, A. I., Alharbi, S. S., & Zhao, S. (2025). Global energy transition under geopolitical risks: An empirical investigation. Energy Economics, 145, 108495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2025.108495 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2025.108495 Google Scholar PubMed Crossref WorldCat
  8. Farrell, H., & Newman, A. L. (2019). Weaponized interdependence. International Security, 44(1), 42–79. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00351 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00351 Google Scholar PubMed Crossref WorldCat
  9. Hamilton, J. (2014). Oil prices are an indicator of global economic conditions. Econbrowser Blog entry, 14. Google Scholar PubMed WorldCat
  10. IEA. (2023). World Energy Outlook 2023. International Energy Agency. https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2023 Google Scholar PubMed WorldCat
  11. Keohane, R. O., & Nye Jr, J. S. (1973). Power and interdependence. Survival, 15(4), 158-165. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396337308441409 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00396337308441409 Google Scholar PubMed Crossref WorldCat
  12. Kilian, L. (2019). Measuring global real economic activity: Do recent critiques hold up to scrutiny?. Economics Letters, 178, 106-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2019.03.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2019.03.001 Google Scholar PubMed Crossref WorldCat
  13. Koenker, R., & Xiao, Z. (2006). Quantile autoregressione. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 101(475), 980–990. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214506000000672 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1198/016214506000000672 Google Scholar PubMed Crossref WorldCat
  14. Bodas-Freitas, I.M., & Corrocher, N. (2019). The use of external support and the benefits of the adoption of resource efficiency practices: An empirical analysis of European SMEs. Energy Policy, 132, 75-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.05.019 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.05.019 Google Scholar PubMed Crossref WorldCat
  15. Radnitz, S. (2022). Solidarity through Cynicism? The Influence of Russian Conspiracy Narratives Abroad. International Studies Quarterly, 66(2), sqac012. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqac012 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqac012 Google Scholar PubMed Crossref WorldCat
  16. Lin, B., & Song, Y. (2024). Coal price shocks and economic growth: A province-level study of China. Energy Policy, 193, 114297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2024.114297 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2024.114297 Google Scholar PubMed Crossref WorldCat
  17. Nelson, D. B. (1991). Conditional heteroskedasticity in asset returns: A new approach. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 347-370. https://doi.org/10.2307/2938260 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2938260 Google Scholar PubMed Crossref WorldCat
  18. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), 289–326. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.616 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.616 Google Scholar PubMed Crossref WorldCat
  19. Ren, X., An, Y., & Jin, C. (2023). The asymmetric effect of geopolitical risk on China's crude oil prices: New evidence from a QARDL approach. Finance Research Letters, 53, 103637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2023.103637 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2023.103637 Google Scholar PubMed Crossref WorldCat
  20. Guo, C., & Feng, Y. (2025). Asymmetric risk spillover between energy markets and uncertainties of economic policy, infectious disease, and geopolitical risk. Romanian Journal of Economic Forecasting, 28(1), 63-80. Google Scholar PubMed WorldCat
  21. Shin, Y., Yu, B., & Greenwood-Nimmo, M. (2014). Modeling asymmetric cointegration and dynamic multipliers in a nonlinear ARDL framework. In R. C. Sickles & W. C. Horrace (Eds.), Festschrift in honor of Peter Schmidt (pp. 281–314). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-8008-3_9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-8008-3_9 Google Scholar PubMed Crossref WorldCat
  22. Dulian, M. (2024). Security of energy supply. European Parliamentary Research Service. 1-9. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2024/762410/EPRS_BRI(2024)762410_EN.pdf Google Scholar PubMed WorldCat
  23. Scholten, D. (2024). The Power of Energy: The Geopolitics of the Energy Transition. E-International Relations, 1-6. https://www.e-ir.info/2024/06/17/the-power-of-energy-the-geopolitics-of-the-energy-transition/ DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800370432.00005 Google Scholar PubMed WorldCat
  24. Zaghdoudi, T. (2025). US-China tension, geopolitical risks, and oil price uncertainty: Evidence from the Fourier-QARDL approach. Energy Research Letters, 7(Early View). https://doi.org/10.46557/001c.144072 DOI: https://doi.org/10.46557/001c.144072 Google Scholar PubMed Crossref WorldCat
  25. Özdemir, L., Vurur, N. S., Ozen, E., Świecka, B., & Grima, S. (2025). Volatility Modeling of the Impact of Geopolitical Risk on Commodity Markets. Economies, 13(4), 88. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies13040088 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/economies13040088 Google Scholar PubMed Crossref WorldCat

Recommended articles