Search

Begin New Search Topic Trade Policy Political Geography China

1. Alignment or Misalignment? US and EU High-Tech Trade and Sanctions Policies toward China

Author:
Antonio Calcara and Jeffrey J. Schott
Publication Date:
04-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE)
Abstract:
This Policy Brief focuses on the alignment or misalignment of the European Union and the United States on high-technology trade and sanctions vis-à-vis China. The Trump administration is likely to continue the aggressive US stance toward China in the technological realm, putting increasing pressure on its European allies to align with US policy. The Europeans, for their part, are in a difficult position: On the one hand, they are under pressure from the US government; on the other hand, the more Washington restricts Chinese trade, the more Chinese exporters will look to the European market to sell their manufactured goods. Increased competition from Chinese imports in Europe, especially in the automotive sector, could in turn trigger a political backlash that weakens support for transatlantic coordination on China.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Sanctions, European Union, Trade Policy, and Imports
Political Geography:
China, Asia, United States of America, and European Union

2. Have Dynamic Spillovers and the Connectedness of Trade Policy Uncertainty Changed During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Sino–US Trade Frictions?

Author:
Chien-Chiang Lee and Farzan Yahya
Publication Date:
03-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA)
Abstract:
In this paper, we examine the spillover and connectedness between the trade policy uncertainty (TPU) of the United States (US), China, Japan, and the Republic of Korea (henceforth, Korea) under global geopolitical risk (GPR), infectious disease equity market volatility (EMVID), and GPR from North Korea (GPRNK) using a relatively novel time-varying parameter vector autoregression (TVP-VAR) approach. Additionally, method of moments quantile regression is utilised to estimate the asymmetric effect of GPR, GPRNK, and EMVID on TPU. Our findings suggest that there is a high total and directional spillover amongst underlying variables during Sino–US trade friction that further elevated during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic period. The US is a net receiver of spillover from the TPU of all economies, while the Chinese TPU receives spillover from EMVID. The results further confirm that both the TPU of China (TPUCN) and the TPU of the US (TPUUS) are vulnerable to EMVID, but the effect is stronger for Chinese TPU in the higher quantiles. Although Japanese TPU is less vulnerable to GPR and EMVID, it is significantly exposed to GPRNK. Korean trade shows resiliency and immunity to pandemic-induced volatility and GPRNK.
Topic:
Trade Wars, Trade Policy, COVID-19, and Spillovers
Political Geography:
Japan, China, Asia, South Korea, and United States of America

3. Export Controls Game: Rethinking Global Integration

Author:
Sangjun Yea
Publication Date:
07-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)
Abstract:
The article discusses how geopolitical interests are influencing trade policies and global supply chains, leading to a reevaluation of international relationships. The U.S. and China are specifically highlighted, with the U.S. implementing export controls on semiconductors to prevent China's military advancement, while China responds with its own export restrictions on essential raw materials. Using a game-theoretic model, the study illustrates how countries use export control measures to balance security interests and economic benefits, ultimately impacting the global semiconductor supply chain and production decisions of multinational corporations.
Topic:
Exports, Trade Policy, Economic Integration, Supply Chains, and Semiconductors
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

4. The International Economic Implications of a Second Trump Presidency

Author:
Warwick McKibbin, Megan Hogan, and Marcus Noland
Publication Date:
09-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE)
Abstract:
The paper explores policies promoted by former president and now candidate Donald Trump that would potentially affect the global economy. We focus on immigration policy, trade, and erosion of the Federal Reserve Board’s political independence. Each policy has differing macroeconomic and sectoral impacts on the United States and other countries. We find, however, that all the policies examined cause a decline in US production and employment, especially in trade-exposed sectors such as manufacturing and agriculture, as well as higher US inflation. The trade policies do little to improve the US trade balance; however, the erosion of Fed independence does so by causing capital outflows, a significant depreciation of the dollar, and higher unemployment toward the end of 2028, which worsen American living standards. Scenarios combining individual policies show that the changes cause a large inflationary impulse and a significant loss of employment (particularly in manufacturing and agriculture) in the US economy. The negative impact of a contraction in global trade is significant for countries that trade with the United States the most. The adverse effect is offset for some economies by the positive effects of an inflow of foreign capital that would otherwise have gone into the US economy. An online dashboard contains a full set of macroeconomic and sectoral results for all countries.
Topic:
Migration, Central Bank, Trade Policy, Donald Trump, and Deportation
Political Geography:
China and Asia

5. US Trade Policy Options for Pacific Islands States Require Washington’s Political Commitment

Author:
Marcus Noland
Publication Date:
07-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
The Pacific Islands have emerged as a zone of contestation in the ongoing rivalry between China and the United States. While the US has long been the dominant military power in the region, China is raising its profile through activities like port visits, military exercises, and establishing diplomatic and security ties with regional states like Kiribati and the Solomon Islands. In 2018, Chinese leader Xi Jinping visited Papua New Guinea for the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit. President Biden was supposed to visit PNG in May 2023, in the first ever visit of a sitting US president to the Pacific Islands, but that trip was scuttled due to the debt ceiling fiasco in Washington. In the economics sphere, the US has attempted to counter China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) together with Japan and Australia through the Blue Dot Network and the Indo-Pacific Infrastructure Trilateral to promote high-quality, transparent, and sustainable infrastructure development. The region contains considerable natural resources, and the US has been working with Pacific Island nations to promote sustainable resource management, in contrast to China’s alleged illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing in the Pacific. What has been missing, however, is a trade policy component to the US strategy to counterbalance China’s exploration of a free trade agreement with the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF).
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Economics, Politics, and Trade Policy
Political Geography:
China, North America, United States of America, and Pacific Islands

6. Despite disruptions, US-China trade is likely to grow

Author:
Megan Hogan and Gary Clyde Hufbauer
Publication Date:
10-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE)
Abstract:
The United States and China hit record trade levels in 2022, despite a prickly relationship, suggesting that calls for severe or even total economic decoupling between the world’s two economic superpowers may be ill-advised, say Hogan and Hufbauer. The dollar value of US-China trade grew significantly between 2019 and 2022, notwithstanding declines in trade flows of certain products such as semiconductors and aircraft due to the trade war. The persistence and even growth of the two countries’ total trade despite political and economic disputes reflects the mutual benefit that private firms see in this commercial relationship. The authors conclude that partial decoupling between the United States and China has not, so far, redrawn the world trade map. Nor does it seem likely to do so on an aggregate trade basis between now and 2025.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Bilateral Relations, Trade Policy, and Semiconductors
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

7. Lessons for Europe from China’s quest for semiconductor self-reliance

Author:
Alicia Garcia-Herrero and Pauline Weil
Publication Date:
11-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
Semiconductors are a critical input to production of information and communication technology and many other goods. The major economies want to be able to produce chips at home to avoid excessive dependence on supply chains in an increasingly unpredictable world, where trade is being compromised because of national security concerns. China was first in terms of timing and scale of funding to support its its semiconductor industry. Since 2015, China has spent $150 billion upgrading its semiconductor industry. Success, however, has been limited. China’s massive industrial policy effort has been most successful in increasing capacity for assembly of chips, though that is also the least value-added part of the semiconductor supply chain. Progress on chip design and fabrication in China remain underwhelming. The United States has also started implementing its $50 billion package to support the production of chips. The European Union, meanwhile, has not yet fully finalised its main semiconductor initiative, the European Chips Act. China’s experience offers a number of lessons. First, chip fabrication requires massive fixed asset investment and, therefore, large subsidies, but with no guarantee of success. Second, one reason for the underwhelming results of China’s semiconductor policy is US containment, through export controls and other measures. In this respect, the EU should find it easier than China to upgrade its chips industry but, given the costs, focusing on the highest-end part of the supply chain would be the best approach. Assembly and production of lower-end semiconductors already face overcapacity, given the financial resources already invested by China.
Topic:
International Relations, European Union, Economy, Trade Policy, and Semiconductors
Political Geography:
China and Europe

8. The US–China trade war and phase one agreement

Author:
Chad P. Bown
Publication Date:
02-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE)
Abstract:
The Trump administration changed US trade policy toward China in ways that will take years for researchers to sort out. This paper makes four specific contributions to that research agenda. First, it carefully marks the timing, definitions, and scale of the products subject to the tariff changes affecting US-China trade from January 20, 2017 through January 20, 2021. One result is that each country increased its average duty on imports from the other to rates of roughly 20 percent, with the new tariffs and counter-tariffs covering more than 50 percent of bilateral trade. Second, the paper highlights two additional channels through which bilateral tariffs changed during this period: product exclusions from tariffs and trade remedy policies of antidumping and countervailing duties. These two channels have received less research attention. Third, it explores why China fell more than 40 percent short of meeting the goods purchase commitments set out for 2020, the first year of the phase one agreement. Finally, the paper considers additional trade policy actions—involving forced labor, export controls for reasons of national security or human rights, and reclassification of trade with Hong Kong—likely to affect US-China trade beyond the Trump administration.
Topic:
Education, Trade Wars, Trade Policy, and Protectionism
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

9. Deglobalisation in the context of United States-China decoupling

Author:
Alicia Garcia-Herrero and Junyun Tan
Publication Date:
12-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
After decades of increasing globalisation on every front, from trade – pushed further by the growing role of value chains – to technology, movement of people and investment, there now seems to be a turn towards slower globalisation if not deglobalisation, at least in some areas. Deglobalisation is not a new concept but rather a megatrend which has been seen before, for example right before the First World War. Signs of deglobalisation, measured by decelerating trade and investment, and smaller global value chains, started to appear already in 2008. But this trend seems to have accelerated because of the United States’ push to contain China in the context of the strategic competition between the two. Such containment is apparent not only in bilateral trade and investment flows but also in technology. COVID-19 has been a second very important factor contributing to deglobalisation. The most obvious impact has been in movement of people. However, the trend towards deglobalisation is much less evident for finance, with the exception of foreign direct investment, though increasing attempts by the US and China to decouple particular types of financial flows are emerging, including the delisting of Chinese companies from US stock exchanges and the imposition of sanctions for transactions with certain Chinese companies and individuals. Overall, it is too early to confirm the depth and the sustainability of the current wave of deglobalisation, but an increasing number of signals suggest a trend of deglobalisation is underway.
Topic:
Globalization, Bilateral Relations, Geopolitics, Investment, Trade Policy, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

10. The US–China trade deal and its impact on China’s key trading partners

Author:
Sonali Chowdhry and Gabriel Felbermayr
Publication Date:
02-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW)
Abstract:
The US–China Economic and Trade Agreement (ETA) entered into force on 14th February 2020, marking a new phase in their protracted trade and geopolitical rivalry. The ETA includes specific targets for increased Chinese imports of US goods and services, amounting to 200 bn USD over 2020 and 2021. The authors show that these purchase commitments can generate substantial trade diversion effects and market share shifts for China’s top trading partners. In manufacturing, Germany is likely to experience the greatest trade diversion effects in a number of industries such as vehicles (-1.28 bn USD), aircraft (-1.59 bn USD) and industrial machinery (-0.72 bn USD). Moreover, developing countries will be hit if China re-directs its imports towards US suppliers. E.g. Brazil could experience a reduction of 4.95 bn USD in soybeans exports to China in 2021 as a result of the ETA.
Topic:
International Political Economy, International Trade and Finance, Exports, Trade, Trade Policy, and Imports
Political Geography:
United States and China