Number of results to display per page
Search Results
102. Trade trends show China should take the opportunity to diversify its market
- Author:
- Dong Yan, Ma Yingying, and Xu Tingting
- Publication Date:
- 05-2019
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Abstract:
- The China-US trade row has been drawing a lot of attention. A detailed review of the bilateral trade situation between China and the US from January through April is a good reference for the future trend. Also, as uncertainties loomed amid tariff hikes, some related US industries were afflicted, such as plants, minerals and precious metal in the first quarter.
- Topic:
- Markets, Tariffs, Trade Wars, Diversification, and Trade
- Political Geography:
- China, Asia, North America, and United States of America
103. US-EU dispute over auto trade could get worse
- Author:
- Dong Yan and Xu Tingting
- Publication Date:
- 02-2019
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Abstract:
- The dispute over auto trade between the United States and the European Union is becoming more heated and uncertain. US President Donald Trump has threatened to slap additional tariffs of 25 percent on autos imported from the EU if the bloc doesn't agree to a trade agreement favorable to the US. Although Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte told CNBC on Monday that there's a lot happening behind the scenes to ensure the US and the EU reach a trade deal, Bloomberg, citing a senior EU official, reported on Friday that the EU is ready to target Caterpillar and Xerox if Trump hits cars.
- Topic:
- Treaties and Agreements, European Union, and Trade
- Political Geography:
- Europe, North America, and United States of America
104. Opinion: What Is China’s Core Economic Interest in Trade War?
- Author:
- Qiyuan Xu
- Publication Date:
- 02-2019
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Abstract:
- The trade conflict between China and the U.S. has lasted for more than half a year. The two sides have held several rounds of consultations, but agreements were later broken and tensions have only intensified. The spat will likely be protracted, with frictions to continue and possibly escalate for a period of time, given the two countries’ diverging interests, public opinions and historical experiences. A broad range of issues are involved in the trade dispute. For example, the U.S. has pressured China on forced technology transfer, talent strategy and industrial policy issues, as well as issues the two sides have long been at odds over, such as intellectual property rights, labor, environmental protection, stateowned enterprise reform and foreign exchange rates. Meanwhile, the U.S. has targeted products and sectors that go well beyond those in which China has a competitive advantage. The U.S. tariffs also target industries that the country plans to focus on for future development.
- Topic:
- Development, Tariffs, Trade Wars, Trade, and Strategic Competition
- Political Geography:
- China, Asia, North America, and United States of America
105. The US–China trade–tech stand-off and the need for EU action on export control
- Author:
- Brigitte Dekker and Maaike Okano-Heijmans
- Publication Date:
- 08-2019
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Clingendael Netherlands Institute of International Relations
- Abstract:
- As the great power rivalry and (technological) trade conflict between the United States (US) and China intensifies, calls for an export control regime tailored to so-called emerging technologies are growing. In August 2018 the US government announced the Export Control Reform Act (ECRA), seeking to limit the release of emerging technologies to end uses, end users and destinations of concern. The contest is on for the leader in the development and use of emerging technologies, but also for shaping norms and writing the rules for their use. This requires the Netherlands and other EU member states – in coordination with key stakeholders from business and academia – also to redouble their efforts to recraft their own approach to export controls of so-called ‘omni-use’ emerging technologies. This Clingendael Report outlines four levels of action in the field of export control for the Dutch government to pursue in parallel: bilaterally with the US; European Union cooperation; ‘Wassenaar’ and beyond; and trusted communities.
- Topic:
- Development, Science and Technology, Power Politics, Exports, and Trade
- Political Geography:
- China, Europe, Asia, North America, and United States of America
106. The US-China economic relationship: A comprehensive approach
- Author:
- Neena Shenai and Joshua Meltzer
- Publication Date:
- 02-2019
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
- Abstract:
- The US–China economic relationship has reached a critical juncture. Over the past year, the US has imposed tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese imports and China has retaliated, raising tariffs on a similar amount of US exports. At the G-20 leaders’ summit in November 2018, Presidents Trump and Xi agreed to resolve the trade dispute within 90 days—by March 1, 2019, though this deadline has been recently extended. The US concerns that underpin these bilateral trade tensions stem from specific practices endemic to China’s economic model that systematically tilt the playing field in favor of Chinese companies domestically and globally. Progress on specific trade issues will require China to comply with its World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments and to make certain reforms that will likely touch on areas of state control over the economy. In addition, new trade rules are needed to address China’s economic practices not covered by its WTO commitments, including in areas such as state-owned enterprises (SOEs), certain subsidies, and digital trade. These issues also come at a time of increasing US concern over the national security risks China presents, particularly with respect to technology access. All of these matters underscore the complexity of US-China bilateral negotiations as well as the stakes at play. Resolving US-China differences in a meaningful way will take time. This policy brief assesses the state of the US-China trade relationship by first looking at the economic impact on the US The policy brief then looks at why the Chinese economic model is so concerning. Despite the challenges the US has had at the WTO, the policy brief argues that the WTO should be central to resolving US-China trade tensions. We outline a multi-prong strategy, including bilateral, multilateral, and unilateral actions as well as working with allies that together would constitute positive next steps for this critical economic relationship. In taking this multifaceted approach, the US needs to stay true to its values and not accept short-term gains or “fig leaf” deals. In particular, creating a managed trade relationship with China would not be a constructive outcome. Instead, the US should work with China to agree on long term solutions. The resulting deal should address the real issues at hand in a free market manner and strengthen the multilateral global trading system and rule of law that the US has championed in the post-World War II era.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Bilateral Relations, Economy, and Trade
- Political Geography:
- China, Asia, North America, and United States of America
107. A golden opportunity for a US-Taiwan free trade agreement
- Author:
- Dan Blumenthal and Michael Mazza
- Publication Date:
- 02-2019
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
- Abstract:
- The United States and Taiwan can create a free trade agreement (FTA) that serves the interests of both sides. Taiwan should seek to set the gold standard in economic openness, as well as in the legal, regulatory, and standards frameworks that will govern emerging technologies and industries such as 5G, the internet of things (IOT), artificial intelligence (AI), and the future industries to be built upon them. In pursuit of the United States’ vision for a “free and open” Indo-Pacific, it would be wise for the US to enlist in its effort countries that are, themselves, already free and open. Taiwan should be considered a crucial partner in the Trump administration’s strategy. This monograph serves to provide a framework for a US-Taiwan free trade agreement (FTA), outlining areas of concern for the United States, in addition to areas that provide opportunities for closer bilateral cooperation. Importantly, such cooperation could give greater impetus for free trade negotiations, advance the Trump administration’s Indo-Pacific strategy, and bolster the United States’ National Security Strategy. In order to deepen economic ties and to, at the same time, advance the Indo-Pacific strategy, the United States should prioritize a free trade agreement (FTA) with Taiwan. The US has not completed or ratified a free trade agreement since the U.S.-Korea deal. It is now negotiating with Japan and the Philippines. But, as this paper will show, an FTA with Taiwan would have substantial strategic benefits and would, moreover, be far easier to conclude than other agreements under discussion.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Bilateral Relations, Free Trade, and Trade
- Political Geography:
- Taiwan, Asia, North America, and United States of America
108. The US-China economic relationship: A comprehensive approach
- Author:
- Neena Shenai and Joshua P. Meltzer
- Publication Date:
- 02-2019
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
- Abstract:
- The US–China economic relationship has reached a critical juncture. Over the past year, the US has imposed tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese imports and China has retaliated, raising tariffs on a similar amount of US exports. At the G-20 leaders’ summit in November 2018, Presidents Trump and Xi agreed to resolve the trade dispute within 90 days—by March 1, 2019, though this deadline has been recently extended. The US concerns that underpin these bilateral trade tensions stem from specific practices endemic to China’s economic model that systematically tilt the playing field in favor of Chinese companies domestically and globally. Progress on specific trade issues will require China to comply with its World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments and to make certain reforms that will likely touch on areas of state control over the economy. In addition, new trade rules are needed to address China’s economic practices not covered by its WTO commitments, including in areas such as state-owned enterprises (SOEs), certain subsidies, and digital trade. These issues also come at a time of increasing US concern over the national security risks China presents, particularly with respect to technology access. All of these matters underscore the complexity of US-China bilateral negotiations as well as the stakes at play. Resolving US-China differences in a meaningful way will take time. This policy brief assesses the state of the US-China trade relationship by first looking at the economic impact on the US The policy brief then looks at why the Chinese economic model is so concerning. Despite the challenges the US has had at the WTO, the policy brief argues that the WTO should be central to resolving US-China trade tensions. We outline a multi-prong strategy, including bilateral, multilateral, and unilateral actions as well as working with allies that together would constitute positive next steps for this critical economic relationship. In taking this multifaceted approach, the US needs to stay true to its values and not accept short-term gains or “fig leaf” deals. In particular, creating a managed trade relationship with China would not be a constructive outcome. Instead, the US should work with China to agree on long term solutions. The resulting deal should address the real issues at hand in a free market manner and strengthen the multilateral global trading system and rule of law that the US has championed in the post-World War II era.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Globalization, Bilateral Relations, and Trade
- Political Geography:
- China, Asia, North America, and United States of America
109. The Effects of US Sectoral Shocks through the World Input-Output Network
- Author:
- Minsoo Han
- Publication Date:
- 12-2019
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)
- Abstract:
- In this paper, I estimate the global effects of hypothetical 1% changes in US sectoral productivity. To do that, I formulate a multi-sector Armington trade model with import tariffs, trade in intermediate goods, sectoral heterogeneity, and input-output linkages. Because a closed form for changes in welfare is not available in the model, as opposed to Ossa (2015), I solve for equilibrium to conduct the counterfactual exercises. In particular, knowing that the gravity equations in this model are identical to Caliendo and Parro (2015) once we calibrate the trade elasticity and industry level productivity to the corresponding data, I modify their computation approach to estimate the counterfactual productivity changes. The model predicts that the primary channel through which the sectoral shocks affect welfare is terms of trade. I also find that both US productivity’s direct effect and effects through export prices are substantial for countries such as the US, Canada, Chile, and Mexico. On the other hand, changes in volume of trade are small and their directions of changes are also mixed across countries.
- Topic:
- International Trade and Finance, Economic Policy, and Trade
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
110. Supporting Prosperity and Competitiveness by Approving the New USMCA
- Author:
- Earl Anthony Wayne
- Publication Date:
- 03-2019
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- The Ambassadors Review
- Institution:
- Council of American Ambassadors
- Abstract:
- On November 30, the leaders of the United States, Canada and Mexico signed a new trade agreement to succeed the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement. The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) modernizes the 25-year-old NAFTA, but the legislatures in all three countries must still approve it.[1] The new USMCA will preserve the massive trading and shared-production networks that support millions of jobs in the U.S., Mexico and Canada and the ability of North America to compete effectively with China, Europe and other economic powers. Approving USMCA this year is very much in the national interests of all three countries given the $1.3 trillion in trade between them and the many businesses, workers and farmers that depend on the commerce and co-production that interlinks North America. These economic relationships also strengthen the rationale for maintaining strong political relationships among the three neighbors. There was widespread agreement to update NAFTA to reflect the changes in trade practices and in the three economies since 1994.[2] NAFTA does not cover Internet-based commerce, for example. Other areas required modernization, including trade in services, protection of intellectual property rights (IPR), environment and labor, which is a priority for U.S. unions.[3] Mexico, Canada and the U.S. tried to accomplish this NAFTA update with negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, but in January 2017 President Donald Trump pulled out of TPP, preferring to renegotiate NAFTA.[4] Approval of USMCA by the U.S. Congress remains uncertain. A number of Democrats are asking for stronger enforcement commitment particularly regarding labor. Others express concern that USMCA provisions may keep some prescription medical costs high.[5] Business and agricultural associations are urging approval of USMCA because it will provide certainty to continue the cross-continental collaboration that preserves vital intra-North American markets for manufacturing, agriculture and services and helps them out-perform global competitors. In response to democrat and union concerns, USMCA’s advocates argue that it includes significantly stronger labor provisions and enforcement.[6] Before the agreement moves ahead, however, the three countries must also find a solution to the tariffs the U.S. put on steel and aluminum from Canada and Mexico in 2018 for “national security” reasons. In response, those countries imposed equivalent tariffs on a range of U.S. exports, spreading economic pain across all three countries.[7] Mexico and Canada, as well as key members of Congress, want this problem resolved before approving USMCA.[8] The U.S. International Trade Commission must also assess USMCA’s economic impact. This report is due in mid-April. The administration must also propose implementation legislation (and guidelines) before Congress formally considers the agreement. Congress will then have a limited time to act on USMCA under existing legislation, but members of Congress could drag the process out.[9] The political window for U.S. congressional approval will close this year, however, given the 2020 U.S. elections.[10] President Trump, USTR Lighthizer and others have begun lobbying for approval, as have Mexico and Canada more quietly. The months ahead will thus be vital for trade and long-term relationships in North America and for the continent’s ability to weather well future international competition. Given the enormous economic benefits of approving USMCA, the U.S. Congress, the Administration and the non-government stakeholders should engage intensively to find ways to address concerns raised and find a “win-win” way to approval. Fortunately, the United States public increasingly views trade in North America as positive. According to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, for example, those seeing NAFTA and now USMCA as “good” for the U.S. economy have grown significantly, rising from 53 percent in 2017 to 70 percent seeing USMCA as “good” this year. This is a solid foundation for rapid approval of USMCA.[11]
- Topic:
- Regional Cooperation, NAFTA, Trade, and USMCA
- Political Geography:
- United States, Canada, North America, and Mexico