USEUROPEAFRICAASIA 中文雙語Fran?ais
    World
    Home / World / Americas

    Study: Past US protectionism a failure

    By Chen Weihua in Washington | China Daily | Updated: 2017-08-26 07:16

    US trade protection measures, including Section 301 of the US Trade Act of 1974, have not only imposed huge costs on consumers in the United States and on the country's economy but have 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. He examined three periods - the founding of the US to its entry into the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1947; 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," Lincicome said.

    While many trade specialists and economists agree that US protection measures are costly and ineffective, the fact that the measures produce winners and losers is exploited by politicians, according to Lincicome, an international trade attorney.

    Study: Past US protectionism a failure

    He explained that winners are concentrated, with concentrated benefits, while losers are 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 economic cost," Lincicome told China Daily on Thursday.

    An analysis by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, which was cited in the study, found that threats of retaliation using Section 301 failed to achieve even partial success more than half the time; and even actual retaliation worked 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 report.

    The US launched a Section 301 investigation against China, targeting technology transfers and intellectual property. Lincicome believes it's far better for the US to go to the WTO, but said it's 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 anti-dumping laws, including measures against Chinese imports, have repeatedly been found not only to hurt US consumers and many large exporters but also to improve only rarely the state of the protected industry. Instead, what often comes in the wake of the protectionism is the bankruptcy of the very firms that lobbied for it.

    The report cited the high cost of protectionism in Obama's imposition of "special" safeguard duties on Chinese tire imports from 2009 to 2011. 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, it said.

    Most tariffs did not benefit US workers but did help foreign producers in countries such as Thailand, Indonesia and Mexico, which replaced 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 said the US has struggled in recent years to adapt to economic disruptions driven by automation, innovation or changing consumer tastes, and it's 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

    Most Viewed in 24 Hours
    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
    亚洲av无码一区二区乱子伦as| 亚洲va中文字幕无码| 无码人妻少妇色欲AV一区二区| 亚洲精品无码AV中文字幕电影网站| 色婷婷综合久久久久中文字幕| 免费a级毛片无码| 国产精品多人p群无码| 亚洲日本中文字幕天天更新| 无码日韩精品一区二区人妻| 久久最近最新中文字幕大全| 国产成人无码精品久久久免费| 亚洲中文字幕无码不卡电影| 久久国产高清字幕中文| 久久中文精品无码中文字幕| 未满小14洗澡无码视频网站| 寂寞少妇做spa按摩无码| 最近中文字幕免费mv在线视频| 亚洲?V无码乱码国产精品| 无码精品人妻一区二区三区漫画 | 亚洲视频中文字幕| 国产a v无码专区亚洲av| 日日麻批免费40分钟无码| 国内精品人妻无码久久久影院导航 | 无码国产福利av私拍| 今天免费中文字幕视频| 无码专区久久综合久中文字幕| 精品无人区无码乱码大片国产| 少妇精品无码一区二区三区| 一本一道av中文字幕无码| 精品久久亚洲中文无码| 亚洲动漫精品无码av天堂| 台湾无码AV一区二区三区| 久久久久成人精品无码中文字幕 | 亚洲AV无码久久精品狠狠爱浪潮| 无码区日韩特区永久免费系列| 久久有码中文字幕| 亚洲欧洲中文日韩av乱码| 久久久无码精品亚洲日韩京东传媒 | 潮喷无码正在播放| 国产乱妇无码大片在线观看| 久久久精品人妻无码专区不卡 |