Number of results to display per page
Search Results
62. 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
63. 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
64. Managing Global Disorder: Prospects for U.S.-China Cooperation
- Author:
- Council on Foreign Relations
- Publication Date:
- 04-2018
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Council on Foreign Relations
- Abstract:
- Emerging challenges to international order require cooperation between the United States and China, two countries that share a common interest in preventing the world from becoming more dangerous and disorderly. U.S.-China relations are becoming more strained and antagonistic, however, and the prospects for cooperation appear to be receding. To explore whether there are still grounds for cooperation on issues of common concern between the two countries, in March 2018 the Center for Preventive Action (CPA) at the Council on Foreign Relations convened a group of fifteen experts from the United States and China for the workshop “Managing Global Disorder: Prospects for U.S.-China Cooperation.” CPA partnered with Peking University’s School of International Studies in Beijing for the workshop and also met with experts at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations in Beijing and the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies in Shanghai. During the workshop, President Donald J. Trump announced plans to impose about $60 billion in new tariffs on Chinese imports. While trade was a major topic of discussion, it was by no means the only area discussed. Workshop participants assessed conflicting views of the sources of global disorder and examined areas of global governance such as international trade, development, the environment, and the future of various multilateral institutions. They also discussed the most pressing security challenges in East and Southwest Asia. Participants highlighted the need for a greater understanding between the United States and China on the evolving international order. No major transnational problems will be solved without some cooperation between the two powers. It is therefore imperative that the two countries avoid a further deterioration of the relationship and instead identify areas of potential cooperation.
- Topic:
- International Cooperation, International Trade and Finance, Tariffs, and Social Order
- Political Geography:
- United States, China, Asia, and North America
65. A Quantitative Trade Model with Unemployment
- Author:
- Kyu Yub Lee
- Publication Date:
- 10-2018
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)
- Abstract:
- Over the last decade, quantifying the welfare effects from tariff changes has become one of the main challenges among international trade economists. There are a number of quantitative trade models with micro-foundations which emphasize demand-side (Anderson and Van Wincoop 2003), supply-side (Eaton and Kortum 2002), Bertrand competition (Bernard et al. 2003), extensive and intensive margin (Chaney 2008), etc, and conclude that trade liberalization with tariff reductions leads an economy to reach a higher level of welfare compared to pre-liberalization (Costinot and Rodriguez-Clare 2014). While elegant, these models inducing gravity equations share the common assumption, a perfect labor market. Quantitative trade models with full-employment developed so far have not taken account of labor market frictions when evaluating the welfare effects from tariff changes. This paper aims to fill the gap in the trade literature by explicitly considering labor market frictions. I employ search-and-matching to a multi-country and multi-sector Ricardian model with input-output linkages, trade in intermediate goods, and sectoral heterogeneity, in order to quantify the welfare effects from tariff changes. The paper shows that labor market frictions can be a source of comparative advantage in the sense that better labor market conditions contribute to lower cost in production. Labor market frictions play a critical role in determining the probability of exporting goods to trading partners, and interact with bilateral trade share, price, expenditures, etc. Unemployment and changes in unemployment rates due to tariff reductions contribute welfare changes across countries, implying that welfare effects based on quantitative trade models with full-employment are likely to be biased. I confirm the biased welfare effects by revisiting Caliendo and Parro (2015), who conduct an analysis of the welfare effects from the NAFTA from 1993 to 2005. I show that the welfare gap between theirs and mine has a positive correlation with changes in observed unemployment rates across countries. With the constructed model, I further conduct counterfactual exercises by asking what would happen if China’s tariffs remain unchanged from 2006 to 2015. It turns out that there are mild welfare effects to trading partners in the world trading system.
- Topic:
- Tariffs, Economic Policy, Trade, Unemployment, and Welfare
- Political Geography:
- China and Asia
66. Trading the Global Future Part III: Bad Consequences
- Author:
- Dan Steinbock
- Publication Date:
- 09-2018
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Georgetown Journal of International Affairs
- Abstract:
- The Trump administration’s ‘America First’ policies come at a critical time in the global economy. These bad policies will have adverse consequences in international trade. In the absence of countervailing forces, they could unsettle the post-2008 global recovery and undermine postwar globalization.
- Topic:
- Globalization, International Trade and Finance, Economy, and Tariffs
- Political Geography:
- China, Asia, North America, and United States of America
67. Prospects for ‘Lisbon to Vladivostok’: Limited by a double asymmetry of interests
- Author:
- Michael Emerson
- Publication Date:
- 06-2018
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS)
- Abstract:
- Since the question of the EU opening official relations with the Eurasian Economic Union may soon become more topical, it is worthwhile considering the politics and economics of a hypothetical agreement. But on both accounts, there are basic difficulties for one party or the other. The forthcoming Austrian Presidency of the EU Council in the second half of 2018 is reportedly intending to propose an opening of a dialogue between the EU and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU)[1]. In a related vein, the new Italian government says it will block any renewal of EU sanctions against Russia. The question of how the EU might relate to the EAEU may thus become topical, and so it is worth giving some thought to the conceivable content of such interactions. Of the EAEU’s competences, the most relevant for the EU are tariffs and non-tariff barriers, notably technical product regulations and standards. The EAEU also has an extensive agenda for the development of a single market, whose chapter headings are all familiar to the EU. Some of these are operationally important, notably for the movement of people, while others are works in progress at this stage, but in general they are internal measures, rather than a matter for international agreements. For years, President Putin has been making speeches about the case for a common economic space from ‘Lisbon to Vladivostok’, without being specific about its possible content. If one is to take the slogan at face value, however, it would seem to imply at least a free trade agreement (FTA), whose core features might involve the cutting of tariffs and non-tariff barriers. Business interests in the EU are supportive of such a proposition and have undertaken some lively lobbying efforts along these lines. But is an FTA between the EU and the EAEU plausible on political and economic grounds for each side?
- Topic:
- European Union, Tariffs, Trade, Strategic Interests, and Regional Politics
- Political Geography:
- Europe
68. Toward a Consolidated Preferential Tariff Structure in East Asia: Going beyond ASEAN+1 FTAs
- Author:
- Sio Yue Chia
- Publication Date:
- 05-2012
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA)
- Abstract:
- ASEAN countries are discussing a possible template for trade in goods chapter of so-called ASEAN++ FTA (also known as RCEP). Analyses of tariff structures under the current ASEAN+1 FTAs give insights on possible approaches as well as challenges in this discussion. To meet 90% or 95% tariff elimination thresholds, both ASEAN countries and their FTA partners should make further efforts. When a "common concession" approach, which we advocate in this paper, is applied, the challenge becomes even larger as member countries should focus their policy discretion on a more limited number of sensitive products. These challenges, on the other hand, mean room for additional gains for potential users of the new agreement despite the existence of ASEAN+1 FTAs.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, International Cooperation, International Trade and Finance, and Tariffs
- Political Geography:
- Asia and Southeast Asia
69. What do the COMESA Customs Union and COMESA-EAC-SADC Tripartite Free Trade Area mean for Zambia’s import trade and trade tax revenue?
- Author:
- Caesar Cheelo, Njeleka Malata, and Joseph Tembo
- Publication Date:
- 02-2012
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Zambia Institute for Policy Analysis and Research (ZIPAR)
- Abstract:
- Zambia has participated actively in the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) and Southern African Development Community (SADC) regional integration programmes. Within SADC it is now reportedly a full participant in the SADC Free Trade Area (FTA), granting duty-free and quota-free access to goods originating from the SADC region. It is also a founding participant in the COMESA FTA and is now looking ahead to participate in the establishment of the COMESA Customs Union. The country is also committed to participate in the recently announced Tripartite FTA, which will establish a free trade area and then eventually a customs union, consolidating the regional economic communities of COMESA, SADC, and the East African Community (EAC). Quite often the actual or potential short-term or transitional impacts of the tariff reforms associated with regional integration are not well known. This is the case with respect to Zambia’s commitments to further integration under the forthcoming COMESA Customs Union and Tripartite FTA. ZIPAR therefore undertook a study to assess the potential effects for Zambia of the forthcoming trade reforms implied in both the COMESA Customs Union and the Tripartite FTA. The study made two starting-point observations: on the one hand, the Tripartite FTA is expected to consolidate the internal markets of the three regional economic communities and facilitate duty- and quota-free trade within the common market, subject to rules of origin. This means the Tripartite FTA will define Zambia’s internal trade policy position with other member states. On the other hand, the COMESA Customs Union, with its Common Tariff Nomenclature, Common External Tariff structure and common Customs Management Regulations, will define Zambia and other COMESA Member States’ common external trade policy position. Given Zambia’s ratification of these trade arrangements, it is important for policy-makers to understand the significance of the trade policy reforms implied in both the COMESA Customs Union and the Tripartite FTA. This paper therefore seeks to determine the implications for Zambia of the trade reforms that the country will undertake. It applies the following methods of ex-ante analysis: (1) Import trade and tariff profiling using simple descriptive statistical analysis of trade for the period 2000-2010 and of tariff structures in 2010; (2) Analysis of required trade policy reforms; and (3) Analysis of revenue implications and economic effects using the World Bank’s Tariff Reform Impact Simulation Tool (TRIST). Trade and customs data as well as other data were obtained from authentic national and international sources including the Zambia Revenue Authority, COMESA Secretariat, Central Statistical Office, Ministry of Finance, World Trade Organisation and World Bank, among others. The paper’s reference period is 2010.
- Topic:
- Treaties and Agreements, Tariffs, Trade, and Customs
- Political Geography:
- Africa and Zambia
70. Trade Facilitation in the ASEAN Economic Community
- Author:
- Christopher Findlay
- Publication Date:
- 11-2009
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA)
- Abstract:
- Trade facilitation refers to the reduction of costs in the trading system. Significant cost reductions are possible, but policy reform and international cooperation are required to capture those gains. ASEAN has a key role to play in that work. Suggestions for the ASEAN scorecard are to reinforce or add commitments to, and then monitor the implementation of (a) National Single Windows as a prerequisite to the ASEAN Single Window, (b) a web-based databank of trade regulations that is regularly updated, (c) streamlined and harmonized procedures, starting with the Customs declaration (or 'SAD') form, and (d) mutually recognized technical standards. In terms of performance measures it is recommended to (1) have ASEAN customs authorities report regularly and in a comparable manner on clearance time through customs, (2) maintain and report updates of a logistics restrictiveness index for all countries in each year which has been developed in this project, and (3) recalculate adjusted cif/fob ratios as measures of trade costs, using the methodology developed in this project.
- Topic:
- Economics, International Cooperation, International Trade and Finance, World Trade Organization, World Bank, and Tariffs
- Political Geography:
- Asia and Southeast Asia