Search

Begin New Search Political Geography United States of America

881. The Development of U.S.-China Trade and the Result of Conflict

Author:
Ma Tao
Publication Date:
06-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Abstract:
The very success of globalization has flourished since World War II. The benefits of economic globalization are not evenly distributed among countries, especially among different groups within a country. Before the financial crisis in 2008, as the major promotors of globalization, developed countries intensified their internal contradictions. So populism, protectionism and isolationism are rising in many developed countries, which are the main features of anti-globalization. Brexit happened against the polls in 2016, in large part, because of the migrant crisis tipping the British towards protection of its borders. In the beginning of his presidency, Donald Trump declared to withdraw from TPP, build Mexican border wall, renegotiate NAFTA and so on. Trump’s protectionism policies may be gradually implemented in 2017. Going on like these, the tide of anti-globalization may be further strengthened in the future.
Topic:
Globalization, Bilateral Relations, Foreign Direct Investment, Trade Wars, and Trade
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

882. Who Can Win the Possible China-US Trade War?

Author:
Li Chunding
Publication Date:
06-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Abstract:
This paper uses a multi-country global general equilibrium (GE) model to numerically simulate the effects of possible China-US trade wars. We introduce an endogenous trade imbalance structure with trade cost into the model which helps to explore both tariff and non-tariff trade war effects. Our simulation results show that China will be significantly hurt by the China-US trade war, but negative impacts are affordable. The US can gain under unilateral sanction measures to China, but will lose if China takes retaliation measures. Comparing the effects under mutual trade war, China will lose more than the US. Introducing non-tariff barrier trade wars will intensify the negative effects, and comparatively negative effects to China are larger than to the US. Mexico’s involvement in trade war with the US will strengthen the negative effects and comparatively hurt the US more. Under non-cooperative and cooperative Nash bargaining equilibrium, the US can gain more than China in trade war negotiation, which means the US has stronger bargaining power than China. Additionally, trade wars between China and the US will hurt most countries and the world especially in GDP and manufacturing employment, but benefit their welfare and trade.
Topic:
Economics, International Trade and Finance, Tariffs, and Trade Wars
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

883. Can We Prevent A Full-Blown Trade War Speech Delivered at CF40-PIIE Conference

Author:
Yu Yongding
Publication Date:
05-2018
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Abstract:
On March 8, President Trump fired the first shot of a trade war by threatening to impose 25 percent of tariff on steel imports. On March 22, the Trump administration released the report of Section 301 investigation into China’s trade practices, and on the same day President Trump signed a memo slapping China with tariffs on some1300 Chinese products, totaling about $50 billion. On April 4, US Trade Representative (USTR) published the list of 1333 Chinese products of $50 billion that will be subject to the additional 25% tariffs. On April 16, US Ministry of Commerce declared a ban on U.S. companies selling goods and software to Chinese telecommunication equipment maker ZTE for 7 years. Trade friction has been a serious problem between China and the US for long time. But few people had expected that the friction would escalate to a trade war. So how did we get to this point, and can we turn back before it’s too late? This is the biggest question currently we are facing.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, Business, Tariffs, and Trade Wars
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

884. The Drums of Trade War

Author:
Yu Yongding
Publication Date:
04-2018
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Abstract:
With Chinese President Xi Jinping willing to make some concessions to the US, the world may yet avoid a trade war. But the reason Sino-American relations have soured is the Trump administration's worldview, not external balances. BEIJING – Last month, US President Donald Trump’s administration fired the opening salvo in what is quickly shaping up to become a full-blown trade war. While trade friction has long been an issue in the Sino-American relationship, few expected such an escalation, not least because economists widely view trade wars as damaging to all parties. So how did we get to this point, and can we turn back before it’s too late? ...... According to the USTR report, the problem is that the policy tools the Chinese government is using to achieve the goals of Made in China 2025 “are largely unprecedented, as other WTO members do not use them.” Moreover, they “include a wide array of state intervention and support designed to promote the development of Chinese industry in large part by restricting, taking advantage of, discriminating against, or otherwise creating disadvantages for foreign enterprises and their technologies, products, and services.” Yet the report fails to identify those interventions, which is not surprising, given that the State Council has not yet specified the policy tools it will use. And while America’s grievances regarding IPR issues are understandable, they could be addressed through the WTO. The fact that the Trump administration has taken the approach it has suggests that it does not merely want to ensure that China complies with existing rules; it wants to prevent China from catching up to the US technologically. This is obviously not acceptable to China.
Topic:
International Relations, Trade Wars, and WTO
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

885. Trade Disputes With China Shoot US In The Foot

Author:
Li Chunding
Publication Date:
04-2018
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Abstract:
US-China trade friction has intensified, and one excuse that the Trump administration has used for trade protectionism against China is that China has been stealing US jobs, especially in the manufacturing sector. But bilateral trade has nothing to do with unemployment in the US. China itself or trade with China is merely scapegoats. The US is being a fault finder without realizing that the real reasons are internal, and the trade conflict will jeopardize manufacturing jobs on both sides.
Topic:
Bilateral Relations, Trade Wars, Trade, and Unemployment
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

886. China will further open up but not due to US pressure

Author:
Dong Yan
Publication Date:
04-2018
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Abstract:
China will take measures to further open up to the outside world, Xi said in his highly-anticipated keynote address at the Boao Forum for Asia. But amid the escalating China-US trade conflict, some people have wrongly assumed Xi made the remarks with the Trump administration's accusations in mind. But a review of China's policies shows the country will deepen reform and opening-up because of its practical development needs, not because of any other country's demand or coercion. As for the expansion of imports, China shifted its focus from exports to striking the right balance between imports and exports long ago, because the increase in imports will offer more choices to Chinese consumers and help improve their living standards, aside from giving foreign companies easier access to the Chinese market.
Topic:
Markets, Trade Wars, and Imports
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

887. U.S.-China Trade Imbalance and the Results of Trade Conflict

Author:
Ma Tao
Publication Date:
04-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Abstract:
The very success of globalization has flourished since World War II. The benefits of economic globalization are not evenly distributed among countries, especially among different groups within a country. Before the financial crisis in 2008, as the major promotors of globalization, developed countries intensified their internal contradictions. So populism, protectionism and isolationism are rising in many developed countries, which are the main features of anti-globalization. Brexit happened against the polls in 2016, in large part, because of the migrant crisis tipping the British towards protection of its borders. In the beginning of his presidency, Donald Trump declared to withdraw from TPP, build Mexican border wall, renegotiate NAFTA and so on. Trump’s protectionism policies may be gradually implemented in 2017. Going on like these, the tide of anti-globalization may be further strengthened in the future.
Topic:
Globalization, Economy, Trade, and Protectionism
Political Geography:
China, Asia, United States of America, and North America

888. Trump creating trouble for US firms

Author:
Su Qingyi
Publication Date:
03-2018
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Abstract:
China has urged World Trade Organization members to uphold the multilateral trading system, and oppose the use of Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 by the United States as it severely violates WTO rules. Three experts share their views with China Daily on the developments and consequences of the Donald Trump administration's protectionist moves. Generally speaking, how international trade would develop, now that China has been forced to take up the gauntlet thrown down by the Trump administration, mainly depends on the US. Once the US ceases fire and returns to the negotiating table, China would be more than happy to hold talks with it. With successful and fruitful negotiations, the ongoing trade conflict would be resolved. But if the US refuses to resolve the issue through dialogues, the trade conflict would most likely prolong to the agony of both sides.
Topic:
Trade Wars, Trade, and Donald Trump
Political Geography:
China, North America, and United States of America

889. Who Can Win the Possible China-US Trade War?

Author:
Li Chunding
Publication Date:
03-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Abstract:
This paper uses a multi-country global general equilibrium (GE) model to numerically simulate the effects of possible China-US trade wars. We introduce an endogenous trade imbalance structure with trade cost into the model which helps to explore both tariff and non-tariff trade war effects. Our simulation results show that China will be significantly hurt by the China-US trade war, but negative impacts are affordable. The US can gain under unilateral sanction measures to China, but will lose if China takes retaliation measures. Comparing the effects under mutual trade war, China will lose more than the US. Introducing non-tariff barrier trade wars will intensify the negative effects, and comparatively negative effects to China are larger than to the US. Mexico’s involvement in trade war with the US will strengthen the negative effects and comparatively hurt the US more. Under non-cooperative and cooperative Nash bargaining equilibrium, the US can gain more than China in trade war negotiation, which means the US has stronger bargaining power than China. Additionally, trade wars between China and the US will hurt most countries and the world especially in GDP and manufacturing employment, but benefit their welfare and trade.
Topic:
Bilateral Relations, Trade Wars, and Trade
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

890. European strategic autonomy: Policy Brief Going it alone?

Author:
Margriet Drent
Publication Date:
08-2018
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Clingendael Netherlands Institute of International Relations
Abstract:
With the boost that has been given to the EU’s defence policy, some of the St. Malo reflexes have reoccurred in Washington. Mostly, there are some misgivings in the United States about the exact meaning of ‘European strategic autonomy’, as it featured in the 2016 EU Global Strategy. But also in Europe, it is not clear what strategic autonomy means. In light of the increasing uncertainty among the EU and European NATO-members about the solidity of the American security guarantees, strategic autonomy gains a new quality. If Europe were forced ‘to go it alone’, what would that take, both in terms of conventional and nuclear capabilities? In her latest Policy Brief author Margriet Drent concludes that European countries face a dilemma: they have to simultaneously invest in their strategic autonomy and in keeping the United States committed to their security.
Topic:
International Relations, Defense Policy, European Union, and Autonomy
Political Geography:
Europe and United States of America