Search

Begin New Search Topic Tariffs Publication Year within 10 Years

21. US tariff measures may boomerang

Author:
Dong Yan
Publication Date:
07-2018
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Abstract:
US President Donald Trump has launched a tariff war not only against China but also against some other economies and threatened to undermine the multilateral trading system. Apart from China, quite a few other economies have also taken countermeasures to Trump's unilateral and protectionist moves. For instance, Russia plans to impose 25-40 percent tariff on US industrial goods, including equipment for road construction, oil and gas, and mining in response to the US tariffs on Russian metals.
Topic:
Multilateralism, Tariffs, Trade Wars, and Donald Trump
Political Geography:
Russia, China, and United States of America

22. EU, China Have Common Interests to Cope With US Protectionism” - Analyst

Author:
Su Qingyi
Publication Date:
07-2018
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Abstract:
The Chinese government has announced plans to implement retaliatory duties on $34 billion worth of US goods following the introduction of similar measures by Washington. Sputnik has discussed the issue of the looming trade war with Qingyi Su, Senior Research Fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS).
Topic:
Economics, Tariffs, and Trade Wars
Political Geography:
China, Europe, Asia, North America, and United States of America

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. The African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AfCFTA)

Author:
Michael Asiedu
Publication Date:
05-2018
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Global Political Trends Center
Abstract:
On 21 March, 2018, 44 African heads of state and government dignitaries signed a historic African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AfCFTA) at the 10th Ordinary Session of African Union (AU) Heads of State Summit held in Kigali, Rwanda. The AfCFTA is the largest free trade area since the World Trade Organization (WTO) was established in 1995. The Session was under the theme: “Creating One African Market,” and falls under AU’s Agenda 2063 Initiative. The AfCFTA is also one of the biggest free-trade areas with regards to the number of countries, thus, encompassing 1.2 billion people with over $4 trillion in combined consumer and business spending should the remaining 11 AU member countries join the Agreement (Signe, 2018). The AfCFTA would additionally become effective 30 days subsequent to ratification by the legislative houses of at least 22 African countries; countries that signed the Agreement have 120 days for its ratification. This paper seeks to outline the significance of the Agreement, its aims, challenges and the continuous work needed to sustain it going forward with potential impact it may have on third country agreements with AU member countries.
Topic:
Treaties and Agreements, Economy, Tariffs, Free Trade, and African Union
Political Geography:
Africa

27. Investment Challenges in Zambia’s Electricity Supply Industry: A Cursory Assessment

Author:
Mwanda Phiri and Francis Ziba
Publication Date:
05-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
During the tide of economic liberalisation in the 1990s, Zambia’s electricity market was liberalised with the aim of stimulating private sector participation. More than 20 years after market liberalisation, the power crisis in 2015 revealed that the industry had failed to attract the envisaged private sector investment required to expand and diversify energy generation sources and meet the increasing demand for electricity over the years. It became apparent that the various reforms taken to liberalise the industry, increase private sector participation and promote competition had fallen short of meeting these objectives. Zambia’s electricity supply industry still remained a semblance of a monopoly dominated by one large vertically integrated state-owned corporation responsible for the generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity. Given the important role of electricity in driving economic growth, this paper illuminates the barriers to entry in the ESI and the factors limiting competition. Drawing mainly on secondary sources, the study finds that at the very start, limited access to finance for energy projects potentially prevents the commencement of energy projects. Exacerbating the entry barriers are the below-cost electricity tariffs, the monopoly power held by ZESCO and its vertical integration and an inadequate regulatory framework to promote competition and prevent undue political interference. These findings justify the partial unbundling of ZESCO and the provision of legal reforms that support policy consistency, multi-year tariff adjustments and open and nondiscriminatory access to the transmission and distribution grids.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Regulation, Neoliberalism, Tariffs, and Electricity
Political Geography:
Africa and Zambia