Search

Begin New Search Topic Trade Policy Political Geography North America

21. Rebuilding a Bipartisan Consensus on Trade Policy

Author:
Phil Levy
Publication Date:
04-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Abstract:
Once upon a time, there was centrist, bipartisan support for US leadership in crafting an open global trading system. Over recent decades, though, as trade grew more complex, the share of US workers in manufacturing fell, and China emerged as an economic power, that consensus dissolved. By the 2016 election, both major party presidential candidates opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement central to US economic and foreign policy. Lest this opposition seem to represent a new consensus, it ushered in the recent period of political discord over trade. While some praised aggressive US actions to address trade deficits and national security concerns, others worried about the fraying of the global trading system and international markets lost to retaliatory barriers. This book provides the non-specialist reader with the background to understand the debates about trade. It begins by briefly tracing the history of US support for trade, as well as the shifts in the manufacturing sector that helped inspire calls to “make America great again.” It also considers the particular challenges posed by China’s emergence as a trading power while calling into question popular thinking on the resultant “China Shock” to US manufacturing. The book also offers an accessible guide to many of the esoteric topics that underlie today’s trade debates. It starts with tariffs, but proceeds to tackle issues such as trade deficits, intellectual property rights protection, rules of origin for goods, antidumping procedures, labor and environmental protections, and sovereignty. Finally, the book offers ways to move beyond the impasse that had emerged by 2016. Rather than focusing on a specific agreement such as the updated NAFTA (USMCA), it looks at whether deals should be bilateral or multilateral, and just how transparent negotiations need to be. It divides some particularly contentious issues into those that are easily addressed, those that might be feasible with work, and those that are nonstarters. While most of the work to restore a consensus would be difficult, the rewards would be great. The book concludes with a warning that the penalties for not restoring US leadership on trade could be severe.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Economy, Trade Policy, and Political Parties
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

22. Trade Policy on the 2020 Trail: The First Debate

Author:
William Alan Reinsch, Jack Caporal, Beverly Lobo, and Catherine Tassin de Montaigu
Publication Date:
06-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Abstract:
Trade policy is a signature issue for the Trump administration. With the 2020 election campaign shifting into high gear, candidates are being forced to talk about trade whether they want to or not. The president’s frequent comments about trade, along with his imposition of tariffs, are driving the American public to think more deeply about trade and raise their level of understanding of trade policy. For trade wonks, this is a good thing—more people talking and thinking about their favorite subject. For presidential candidates, however, it creates a dilemma: how to criticize the president without alienating the voters who seem to like his trade policy.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, Elections, Trade Policy, and Domestic Policy
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

23. Trade Policy on the 2020 Trail: The Second Debate

Author:
William Alan Reinsch, Jack Caporal, Jonathan Robison, Beverly Lobo, and Catherine Tassin de Montaigu
Publication Date:
08-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Abstract:
As the race to be the Democratic nominee for president heats up, the second round of debates between the 20 candidates offered the American public a glimpse of the different candidate’s trade policies and their values around the issue. Already we are seeing some trends emerge and divisions widen within the group on trade, which remains in the background compared to hot button policy issues like health care or immigration. Nonetheless, as President Trump continues his trade wars, trade will certainly be a topic of further debate and discussion for the election.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, Elections, Trade Policy, and Domestic Policy
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

24. Does the United States Renegotiate Its Trade Agreements after They Are Signed?

Author:
William Alan Reinsch and Catherine Tassin de Montaigu
Publication Date:
09-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Abstract:
With House members pushing for changes to the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement’s (USMCA) legal text and Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) directing working groups of Democratic members to work with U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Robert Lighthizer on changes to address their concerns, the question of whether a trade agreement can be reopened and renegotiated after signing has been raised. In an effort to inform that debate with some facts, CSIS reviewed trade agreements the United States entered into after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and examined whether any of them were modified after signing. In brief, we concluded that of the 12 agreements reviewed, six were subject to subsequent modification. In all six cases, new side letters were signed after the agreement was signed. In three cases, the text of the agreement itself was reopened. Below are the details of our conclusions. Agreements post-NAFTA are set out in the order by which they entered into force. The “days in between” calculation refers to the number of days between the agreement’s signing and its entry into force, which in most cases was well after the date of final congressional approval. In addition, links are provided to the text of each agreement and any side letters that were added.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Trade and Finance, and Trade Policy
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

25. CSIS Brief: Beyond the Brink: Escalation and Conflict in U.S.-China Economic Relations

Author:
Matthew P. Goodman, Dylan Gerstel, and Pearl Risberg
Publication Date:
09-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Abstract:
As the United States and China mark their 40th anniversary of formal diplomatic relations in 2019, the world’s most important bilateral relationship is increasingly defined by mistrust, competition, and uncertainty. After four decades of deepening economic integration, the talk in Washington today is about the extent to which the two economies will “decouple” over the years ahead. In a recent study, the CSIS Simon Chair drew on several different academic disciplines to model how an economic conflict between the United States and China could escalate and eventually de-escalate. Our findings suggest that economic conflict is likely to be an enduring feature of the U.S.-China relationship for many years to come. Until perceptions of relative costs in the two countries shift, Washington and Beijing seem set on a path of continued escalation, no substantial trade deal, and at least partial decoupling of their economies.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, Conflict, Trade Policy, and Economic Cooperation
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

26. The Sino-U.S. Phase One Trade Deal Is an Imperfect Painkiller. What's Next?

Author:
Jude Blanchette and Qiu Mingda
Publication Date:
09-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Ambassadors Review
Institution:
Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:
After two days of intense talks with United States Trade Representative (USTR) Robert Lighthizer, Chinese Vice Premier Liu He and his delegation crossed the street to the White House on the afternoon of October 11th to meet with President Donald Trump for the first time since the negotiations collapsed in May. The visit marked the 13th round of the bilateral trade talks and concluded with an announcement from the Oval Office of a “phase one” agreement. According to President Trump, this included China’s commitment to purchase $40-50 billion of U.S. agricultural products and a pledge to strengthen its intellectual property protection regime domestically. Moreover, Beijing would make still-unknown adjustments to how it manages its currency, the renminbi. For its part, the United States delayed a scheduled tariff hike on $250 billion of Chinese goods from 25% to 30% on October 15th. In addition, the Treasury Department would potentially review its previous decision to designate China a currency manipulator. All in all, it seemed to mark a turning point in the bilateral tensions. According to a tweet from President Trump two days later, this was the beginning of a larger deal that would be spread over three phases and that would benefit American farmers and potentially put an end to the trade hostilities between the two nations. In short, he tweeted, “the relationship with China is very good.” Though he acknowledged that the actual terms of any deal are still being worked out, the President repeatedly expressed optimism that he and Chinese leader Xi Jinping could ink a deal by mid-November during their meeting at the upcoming Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in Santiago, Chile. Unfortunately, such confidence is misplaced. The decided lack of details on the scope, timing and mechanics of the phase one announcement is an indication of just how preliminary the agreement is. Second, Beijing remains unwilling to make more substantive concessions on core structural issues, ranging from its preferential treatment of its state-owned enterprises to a credible commitment that it will protect the intellectual property of foreign companies. Finally, even if phase one comes to fruition, this won’t do much to reduce the uncertainty that likely will define the U.S.-China relationship for years to come, as both countries begin to openly acknowledge that they are entering a period of prolonged strategic rivalry.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Cooperation, International Trade and Finance, and Trade Policy
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

27. EU Trade Policy amid the China-US Clash: Caught in the Cross-Fire?

Author:
Felipe González and Nicolas Véron
Publication Date:
08-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE)
Abstract:
China's rapid rise and unique economic system and the increasingly aggressive and disruptive US trade policy are posing an unprecedented threat to the global rules-based trading and economic system. The European Union has critical interests at stake in the current escalation, even as it has so far been comparatively spared from US trade policy belligerence and China's reactions. In this context, the European Union should adopt an independent and proactive stance, building on recent efforts and going beyond them. The European Union, even more than the United States or China, has a strategic interest in the preservation of the global rules-based order embodied by the World Trade Organization (WTO). It must play a leading role in steering WTO reform and modernization, working closely with broadly aligned third countries such as Japan and other players. It should expand its outreach beyond its immediate negotiating counterparts in both the United States and China, and leading European officials at both the EU and member state levels should work at better understanding China. While strengthening its domestic policy instruments to address new challenges, such as the screening of foreign direct investment for security purposes, the European Union must also resist its own temptations of protectionism and economic nationalism. In support of these objectives, the European Union should prepare itself for difficult decisions, which may involve revising some of its current red lines in international trade negotiations. Conversely, the European Union should stand firm on principles such as refusing one-sided agreements and rejecting abusive recourse to national security arguments in trade policies. The European Parliament, in working with the European Council and the European Commission, will have a critical role to play in steering the European Union through these challenging times.
Topic:
International Relations, Economics, Trade Wars, and Trade Policy
Political Geography:
China, Europe, Asia, North America, United States of America, and European Union

28. EU Trade Policy amid the China-US Clash: Caught in the Cross-Fire?

Author:
Ana González and Nicolas Véron
Publication Date:
08-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE)
Abstract:
China's rapid rise and unique economic system and the increasingly aggressive and disruptive US trade policy are posing an unprecedented threat to the global rules-based trading and economic system. The European Union has critical interests at stake in the current escalation, even as it has so far been comparatively spared from US trade policy belligerence and China's reactions. In this context, the European Union should adopt an independent and proactive stance, building on recent efforts and going beyond them. The European Union, even more than the United States or China, has a strategic interest in the preservation of the global rules-based order embodied by the World Trade Organization (WTO). It must play a leading role in steering WTO reform and modernization, working closely with broadly aligned third countries such as Japan and other players. It should expand its outreach beyond its immediate negotiating counterparts in both the United States and China, and leading European officials at both the EU and member state levels should work at better understanding China. While strengthening its domestic policy instruments to address new challenges, such as the screening of foreign direct investment for security purposes, the European Union must also resist its own temptations of protectionism and economic nationalism. In support of these objectives, the European Union should prepare itself for difficult decisions, which may involve revising some of its current red lines in international trade negotiations. Conversely, the European Union should stand firm on principles such as refusing one-sided agreements and rejecting abusive recourse to national security arguments in trade policies. The European Parliament, in working with the European Council and the European Commission, will have a critical role to play in steering the European Union through these challenging times.
Topic:
Bilateral Relations, Economy, Trade Wars, and Trade Policy
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, United States of America, and European Union

29. The Economic Importance of the KORUS FTA: A Case Study of the Korean Beef Market After Renegotiations

Author:
Jin Kyo Suh
Publication Date:
05-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
Beef trade was a major sticking point between the United States and South Korea in ratifying the KORUS FTA. The outcome of the renegotiations that led to the March 2018 agreement in principle did not impact sections pertaining to beef in the agreement, though looking at how beef trade would have been affected should the talks have failed highlights the importance of the agreement to both countries, but particularly the United States. This paper estimates the demand for imported beef in South Korea by source and product by using the production version of the Rotterdam demand system and assesses what the potential impact of U.S. withdrawal from the KORUS FTA would have been on beef trade between the U.S. and South Korea. The results suggest U.S. withdrawal from the KORUS FTA would have resulted in a considerable increase in Australian beef exports to South Korea, largely at the expense of U.S. beef. This is because there is significant price competition between beef imports from the United States and Australia. Furthermore, Korean consumers substitute American beef for Australian beef when the relative price of U.S. beef rises.
Topic:
Economics, Treaties and Agreements, Exports, and Trade Policy
Political Geography:
Asia, South Korea, North America, Korea, and United States of America

30. Political Signals: Why Are Some Countries Abandoning the Dollar in Their Foreign Trade?

Author:
FARAS
Publication Date:
10-2018
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Future for Advanced Research and Studies (FARAS)
Abstract:
Several Middle Eastern countries, such as Turkey and Iran, have been recently shifting into international currencies or local currencies, instead of the US dollar, in their foreign trade. This shift comes amid the US economic sanctions on Iran in tandem with its souring relations with Turkey. What is striking in this regard is that there is an international acceptance of other currencies, especially the Chinese yuan, with the pricing of some oil contracts in the same currency. This move seems to have a particular political significance, namely rejecting the impact of the US dollar on the trade of these countries rather than its economic feasibility, amid the sharp fluctuations in the local currencies of Iran, Turkey, and India in the past period.
Topic:
Economics, International Trade and Finance, Currency, and Trade Policy
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Iran, Eurasia, Middle East, North America, and United States of America