Pakistan border

POSITIVE & NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF INTERNATIONAL BORDERS

A border delineates the area under the control of a particular governing body. Because the assembly factors of territories must be settled, exploited, and controlled, they are frequently analyzed in terms of national sovereignty and global economic systems. These strategies are frequently implemented by metropoles that regard the borderlands with a mixture of thrilling suspicion and ignorant disdain. Borders, of course, are not limited to global barriers; they are created and maintained within countries as a result of racial, socioeconomic, and environmental injustices, among other factors. It has been rightfully said that international borderlands may or may not be areas of conflict but what would draw the line of difference would be the positive and negative aspects and impacts associated with international borderlands and surrounding context. Before moving on to understand the positive and negative aspects of international borders, we need to understand the varying border regulations, whether it is an open border or a regulated border or a demilitarized border. (Plonski et al. 2018)

Regulated borders have varying degrees of control over the movement of people and goods between countries and jurisdictions. Most industrialized countries have access rules that include one or more of the following procedures: visa checks, passport checks, or customs checks. Australia, the United States, Israel, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United Arab Emirates have some of the most strictly enforced international borders.

An open border is defined as the deregulation or lack of regulation on the movement of people between nations and jurisdictions; this does not include trade or movement between privately owned land areas. Most nations have open borders for travel within their own country, though more authoritarian states, such as the former Soviet Union, may restrict citizens' freedom of movement within their own country.

A demilitarized zone (DMZ) is a border that separates two or more nations, groups, or militaries that have agreed to prohibit the use of military activity or force within its boundaries. A demilitarized zone (DMZ) can serve as a war boundary, a ceasefire line, a wildlife preserve, or a de facto international border. The 38th parallel between North and South Korea is an example of a demilitarized international border.

Figure 7 Crossing the bridge into Canada, from the US: Ambassador Bridge, Open Border of India-Nepal Boundary, Indian and Pakistan border officers at the Indian-Pakistan border

Borders impede the free flow of people, goods, and ideas, confining small nations with fewer resources or markets while benefiting large countries with greater access to capital, ideas, and

buyers. Romain Wacziarg, associate professor of economics at Stanford GSB, and Enrico Spolaore, assistant professor of political economy at Brown University, posed the following question:

“Suppose we removed the borders between two existing countries and then calculated what the growth would have been for the hypothetical country over the past 30 years? We would then be able to assess the costs or benefits of borders.”

When countries merge, each gains greater access to ideas, customers, and capital, and as a result, economic benefits can be anticipated. Wacziarg refers to this as "the size effect." The researchers discovered that when two countries join forces, both almost always benefit economically, owing to the larger size providing businesses with better access to markets and capital. A limited form of political integration that allows free movement across borders almost always has a positive impact. Aside from increased size, there are other advantages. Access to improved growth fundamentals will benefit a poor country merging with a rich one However, there may be negative consequences for the wealthy country. If borders are removed and the two countries are allowed to share all of their fundamentals, the richer country's human capital, savings rate, and average salary are likely to fall. It may also face poorer infrastructure, higher fertility rates, and a larger, more bureaucratic government. All of these factors could slow the richer country's economy and work to reduce the size effect. The net effect of borders is determined by the size of the merged country as well as the pre-existing levels of income.(Rietveld 2012)

The openness of a country to trade is also important. The greater a country's size, the less likely it is to be open to trade with other countries. "They don't need to be as open," because larger countries already have access to more capital and customers. As a result, if two countries merge, the resulting entity is less likely to be open to trade with other countries, reducing the size effect's benefits. However, the researchers discovered that the benefits of establishing a massive new nation may outweigh the disadvantages of other factors. Even though Pakistan is poorer than India, both countries would benefit if India, with a population of about 1 billion, and Pakistan, with a population of about 200 million, merged.(Rietveld 2012)

Borders have the primary effect of discouraging spatial interaction. However, there are some distinct cases where the opposite is true: borders can also stimulate interaction.