Global EditionASIA 中文雙語Fran?ais
    USA

    US' protectionist measures fail

    By Chen Weihua in Washington | China Daily USA | Updated: 2017-08-25 12:37
    Share
    Share - WeChat

    US protectionist measures, including Section 301 of the US Trade Act of 1974, have not only imposed huge costs on American consumers and its own economy, but also failed to achieve their primary policy aims, according to a report published this week.

    Scott Lincicome, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, surveyed academic literature throughout US history - from the founding of the US to its entry into the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1947; from the GATT's early years to the creation of the World Trade Organization in 1995; and the current World Trade Organization (WTO) era.

    "The surveys show that, contrary to the fashionable rhetoric, American protectionism has repeatedly failed as an economic strategy," he said.

    While most trade specialists and economists agree that US protection measures are costly and not effective, the fact that these measures produce winners and losers is exploited by politicians, according to Lincicome, who is an international trade attorney.

    He explained that winners are concentrated, with concentrated benefits, while losers are very diffuse and have diffuse costs.

    "So, there is clearly this area for political gain by President Obama or by President Trump to pursue trade measures for political gain despite the potential economist cost," Lincicome told China Daily on Thursday.

    A Peterson Institute for International Economics analysis cited in the study shows that threats of retaliation through Section 301 failed to achieve even partial success more than half the time, with actual retaliation working less than 20 percent of the time.

    "These outcomes would likely be worse if similar policies were implemented today, owing to increased American integration into the global economy, the proliferation of global supply chains, the rise of other economic powers, and the creation of the WTO," Lincicome wrote in the paper.

    The US launched a Section 301 investigation on China over technology transfer and intellectual property last week.

    Lincicome believes it's far better for the US to go to the WTO, but it's also too early for people to react much.

    "I would agree that in terms of rhetoric, President Trump's rhetoric is easily the most protectionist of any president in the last several decades. On actual policy, the jury is still out," he said.

    According to the study, US antidumping law, including measures against Chinese imports, has repeatedly been found not only to hurt US consumers and many large American exporters but also to improve only rarely the state of the protected industry. Instead, what often lies in the wake of

    this protection is the bankruptcy of the very firms that lobbied for it.

    The paper cited the high cost of protectionism in Obama's imposition of "special" safeguard duties on Chinese tire imports from 2009 to 2011. The US tariffs imposed $1.1 billion in additional costs on US tire consumers in 2011, and the cost per manufacturing job saved was at least $900,000 that year.

    Most moves did not benefit US workers, but foreign producers in countries such as Thailand, Indonesia and Mexico, which replace Chinese imports. The US tariffs also killed 2,351 jobs in retail and other industries.

    In response to the US tire tariffs, the Chinese government retaliated against US exporters of chicken parts, costing that industry about $1 billion, according to the study.

    Lincicome noted that the US has struggled in recent years to adapt to significant economic disruptions due to trade, automation, innovation or changing consumer tastes, and it is legitimate to discuss policy ideas in response.

    "What should not be up for debate, however, is whether protectionism would help to solve the country's current problems," he said. "History is replete with examples of the failure of American protectionism; unless our policymakers quickly relearn this history, we may be doomed to repeat it."

    chenweihua@chinadailyusa.com

    (China Daily USA 08/25/2017 page1)

    Today's Top News

    Editor's picks

    Most Viewed

    Top
    BACK TO THE TOP
    English
    Copyright 1995 - . All rights reserved. The content (including but not limited to text, photo, multimedia information, etc) published in this site belongs to China Daily Information Co (CDIC). Without written authorization from CDIC, such content shall not be republished or used in any form. Note: Browsers with 1024*768 or higher resolution are suggested for this site.
    License for publishing multimedia online 0108263

    Registration Number: 130349
    FOLLOW US
    人妻丰满熟妇aⅴ无码| 亚洲免费日韩无码系列 | 一区二区中文字幕| 国产网红主播无码精品 | 日韩a级无码免费视频| 国偷自产短视频中文版| 亚洲AV日韩AV永久无码久久 | 超清无码无卡中文字幕| 成人无码小视频在线观看| 亚洲午夜福利AV一区二区无码| 天堂最新版中文网| 中文字幕 亚洲 有码 在线| 国产亚洲人成无码网在线观看| 国产成人无码精品久久久性色 | 免费无码H肉动漫在线观看麻豆| 亚洲一区二区中文| 中文无码不卡的岛国片| 狠狠精品干练久久久无码中文字幕| 亚洲VA成无码人在线观看天堂| 天堂中文字幕在线| 亚洲电影中文字幕| 无码精品A∨在线观看中文| 中文 在线 日韩 亚洲 欧美| 免费a级毛片无码| 久久久久久无码国产精品中文字幕| 国产精品无码久久久久久| 无码精品一区二区三区在线| 亚洲VA成无码人在线观看天堂| 亚洲中文字幕无码久久综合网| 久久久久av无码免费网| 中文无码不卡的岛国片| 亚洲中文字幕无码一去台湾| 最好看的电影2019中文字幕 | 台湾无码AV一区二区三区| 中文字幕视频在线免费观看| 亚洲乱码中文字幕综合234| 在线天堂资源www在线中文| 久久久久av无码免费网| 亚洲av无码av制服另类专区| 久久亚洲精品成人av无码网站| 成人免费无码H在线观看不卡|