Search

Begin New Search Political Geography China Content Type Policy Brief Publishing Institution Peterson Institute for International Economics Publication Year within 10 Years Publication Year within 25 Years

1. Why the proposed Brussels buyers club to procure critical minerals is a bad idea

Author:
Cullen Hendrix
Publication Date:
05-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics
Abstract:
Concerned about critical mineral supply chains and its own strategic vulnerabilities, the European Union is advancing a buyers club to procure minerals critical to the clean energy transition, such as bauxite, cobalt, lithium, and nickel. The European Union is deeply dependent on imports of both raw and processed critical minerals and materials and thus highly exposed to global price volatility. The door appears to be open for the United States or other EU trading partners and like-minded countries to join this club. Decarbonization is not the only impetus behind the proposed Brussels buyers club. Both the European Union and United States view China’s dominance of critical mineral supply chains as a national security issue, because these minerals are key inputs to modern military technology. Hendrix agrees that supply chains for critical minerals desperately need widening to meet projected global demand and tackle climate change mitigation, but he warns that a purchasers club would not be a step in the right direction. A buyers club would be prone to free riding, set up distributive conflicts within the European Union, and reduce the share of climate mitigation benefits accruing to critical mineral–producing countries, many of which are developing and middle-income economies.
Topic:
Economics, National Security, European Union, Supply Chains, and Minerals
Political Geography:
China and Europe

2. Will China's impending overhaul of its financial regulatory system make a difference?

Author:
Martin Chorzempa and Nicolas Véron
Publication Date:
03-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics
Abstract:
China's reshuffle of its financial supervisory architecture announced in March, like previous changes, appears incremental rather than radical. It will not, however, resolve the main challenge hobbling China’s financial system, which is not linked to specific choices of supervisory architecture but rather to the unfinished transition from a state-directed to a market-based financial system and the way the Chinese Communist Party's pervasive role creates obstacles to good corporate governance of individual financial firms and to the independence of supervisory authorities. Too often, political authorities and sometimes the supervisors themselves intervene directly in financial firms’ decisions to allocate capital and credit, occasionally resulting in failures of risk control and risk management. The authors argue that Chinese reformers should aim at a clearer and more rigorous division of responsibilities, in which financial firms manage financial opportunities and risks, and supervisors are exclusively focused on their respective public policy mandates.
Topic:
Economics, Regulation, Finance, and Corporate Governance
Political Geography:
China and Asia

3. CHIPS Act will spur US production but not foreclose China

Author:
Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Megan Hogan
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics
Abstract:
The CHIPS and Science Act, export controls, and agreements with allied countries will accomplish many of their multiple objectives. More US semiconductor fabrication plants will be built, US R&D will be accelerated, and advanced chips and chip-making machines will be denied to China, Russia, and other adversaries. However, the Act will not make a material difference to US chip supplies in the next two or three years. Slower economic growth has already tipped the chips market in favor of ample supplies. While collective measures have inflicted considerable short-term pain on China, causing a sharp drop in the fortunes of its high-tech firms, China will respond by redoubling its self-sufficiency programs. The United States, however, should not mimic China in pursuing self-sufficiency, as US self-sufficiency is an illusion. The United States currently exports high-value chips and imports low-value chips, so increasing self-sufficiency would require the United States to prioritize basic chip production at the same time it is supposed to be competing with China in advanced chip production. Continuing to prioritize advanced chip production—where the United States has a clear advantage—is the most efficient course of action.
Topic:
Economics, Legislation, Exports, Production, and Semiconductors
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and United States of America

4. South Korea should prepare for its exposure to US-China technology tensions

Author:
Mary Lovely and Abigail Dahlman
Publication Date:
07-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics
Abstract:
The stated goal of the US-led Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF) is to create standards that enhance and elevate regional trade and investment flows, but it is clearly aimed at reducing the role of China in global supply chains. As China is Korea’s largest trading partner, US policy discouraging Chinese participation in supply chains has immediate detrimental implications for Korean manufacturers. The United States is the second-most important destination for Korean exports. Given the values of these triangular trade flows, Lovely and Dahlman assess South Korea’s exposure to US demands to remove or reduce Chinese participation in the manufacture of exports destined for the US market. The reliance of the proposed framework on certain standards will likely reduce Chinese participation in IPEF trade networks. Korea may benefit from this trend, but IPEF could also increase production costs for Korean companies, especially in the electronics sector, a problem that would worsen if China retaliates against these companies. To reduce these risks, Korea might find it prudent to reduce its reliance on intermediate goods from China for products it produces for export to the United States. The Korean government should also seek to better understand its exposure to US–China trade tensions and diversify its trade relations. Korean firms should start preparing for supply chain disruptions, perhaps by making investments at home. Korea could also help other IPEF members reduce supply chain disruptions while addressing security concerns over China.
Topic:
Economics, Science and Technology, Supply Chains, and Competition
Political Geography:
China, Asia, South Korea, North America, and United States of America

5. China's CPTPP bid spurs South Korea to act on Asia-Pacific trade pacts

Author:
Jeffrey J. Schott
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics
Abstract:
China’s sudden application to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) in September 2021 has broad implications for South Korea’s economic relations with China, Japan, and the United States. In the past, Korea frequently debated but invariably postponed deciding whether to participate in negotiations on the CPTPP, despite the substantial benefits to be gained from doing so. However, China’s application has prompted Korean officials to get off the fence and apply as well. As China moves to deepen its ties to regional partners, Korea needs to follow suit, complementing the ongoing implementation of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) with expedited negotiations to join the CPTPP and participation in the US-led Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF). Korean participation in the RCEP, CPTPP, and IPEF is desirable and mutually reinforcing and should allow Korea to sustain its strong commercial interests in both the US and Chinese markets.
Topic:
Economics, International Trade and Finance, Treaties and Agreements, and Trade
Political Geography:
China, South Korea, and Asia-Pacific

6. Collateral benefits? South Korean exports to the United States and the US-China trade war

Author:
Mary Lovely, David Xu, and Yinhan Zhang
Publication Date:
07-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics
Abstract:
This Policy Brief assesses the extent to which the United States increased its imports from South Korea after the US imposition of tariffs on Chinese exports. Korea benefited from this shift in US imports, although the increase was relatively small in most sectors. The authors use highly disaggregated US import and tariff data to examine adjustments in US purchases of manufactured goods from its trade partners. Their analysis indicates that Korea made a small gain in the US market following the levying of US tariffs on Chinese exports, with Korea’s share of overall US manufacturing imports rising 0.9 percent and its share of US manufacturing imports subject to trade war tariffs rising 1.0 percent. Gains were spread across a variety of manufacturing sectors—such as wood products, textiles and apparel, and machinery—reflecting both the choices made by US officials regarding which Chinese exports to tax and the nature of preexisting trade relationships between South Korea and the United States.
Topic:
Markets, Economy, Trade Wars, and Exports
Political Geography:
China, Asia, South Korea, and United States of America

7. Raising a caution flag on US financial sanctions against China

Author:
Jeffrey J. Schott
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics
Abstract:
China’s policies in Xinjiang, Hong Kong, and the South China Sea and its ongoing support for Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela pose major challenges for the United States, where bipartisan pressure is growing to ramp up punitive sanctions against leading Chinese firms and financial institutions. Financial sanctions freeze the US assets or bar US entry of the targeted individuals and firms and prohibit US financial firms from doing business with them. Schott explains why US officials should carefully weigh the risks to international financial markets and US economic interests before imposing punitive sanctions on major financial institutions engaged with China. The collateral costs of such sanctions would be sizable, damaging US producers, financial institutions, and US alliances. By restricting access of major banks to international payments in US dollars and barring use of messaging systems like SWIFT, tougher US financial sanctions would effectively “weaponize” the dollar; friends and foes alike would be pushed to seek alternatives to dollar transactions that, over time, would weaken the international role of the dollar. Instead of doubling down on current unilateral financial sanctions, US policy should deploy sanctions in collaboration with allies and calibrate trade and financial controls to match the expected policy achievements.
Topic:
Human Rights, Sanctions, Finance, and Economy
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

8. The unappreciated trend toward unilateral trade liberalization

Author:
Robert Z. Lawrence
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics
Abstract:
Afrequently voiced complaint from the Trump administration was that US firms have faced a competitive disadvantage in exports because the US market is open and US tariffs are low but US trading partners protect their markets with high tariffs. The administration used this concern to justify raising US tariffs whenever it could. Lawrence argues that these claims should be more nuanced and account for the extensive unilateral liberalization by many countries over the past 30 years and that the grievances that motivated the Trump trade policies are increasingly misplaced. Many developing countries have reduced their tariffs unilaterally to rates that are far lower than they applied three decades ago and far less than the bound rates reflected in their World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations. Globally, on average, tariffs were not raised during the global financial crisis of 2008 and continued to decline through at least 2018. Even when shocks from imports resulted in serious injury to domestic industries, several developing countries temporarily provided safeguard protection but at levels that were lower than their WTO bound rates. This evidence of import liberalization also suggests that rising protectionism was not responsible for the slow growth in world trade that has been evident since 2011. It remains uncertain whether countries will now respond to disruptions to global supply chains since 2018 caused by Trump’s trade policies and the COVID-19 pandemic by reversing their tariff liberalization stance, but the sustained enthusiasm for new megaregional trade agreements suggests many countries will not.
Topic:
Emerging Markets, World Trade Organization, Trade Wars, and Protectionism
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

9. Improving China's participation in resolving developing-country debt problems

Author:
Martin Chorzempa and Adnan Mazarei
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics
Abstract:
The COVID-19 shock has exacerbated the struggles of many emerging-market and developing economies (EMDEs) to repay their external debt. One of the most urgent challenges relates to debt owed to China, whose lending spree under its Belt and Road Initiative and other programs has played an outsized role in what amounts to a crisis for many countries. The scope of the problem is striking. China is owed more than $100 billion, or 57 percent of all debt owed to official creditors by the countries that need help the most. China is not a member of the Paris Club of official creditors, which coordinates, within a multilateral framework, the resolution of general sovereign illiquidity or unsustainable external debt of EMDEs. There is an urgent need to put in place more effective, long-term solutions to help durably lower the risks of prolonged debt difficulties in EMDEs. These problems could be partly addressed by creating creditor committees to coordinate debt relief with China. The Group of Twenty (G20) has taken some steps to include creditor committees in the context of the Common Framework for Debt Treatments beyond the Debt Service Suspension Initiative (DSSI), but only for low-income countries that qualify for the DSSI and only for official creditors. To better address debt distress, it needs to extend the approach, especially to middle-income debtor countries.
Topic:
Debt, Development, Emerging Markets, and G20
Political Geography:
China and Asia

10. Using purchasing power parities to compare countries: Strengths and shortcomings

Author:
Patrick Honohan
Publication Date:
12-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics
Abstract:
Good international economic policy requires good comparative data on national economic performance. In May 2020, the World Bank published the latest comprehensive update of purchasing power parities (PPPs), as part of the International Comparison Program. Produced for 176 countries, these PPPs are used to convert data (especially GDP and other quantities based on national income accounts) from national currencies to a common basis in a way that is meaningful for economic analysis. PPP-adjusted data are essential because the distortions caused by sharp exchange rate movements are significant, especially for times of macroeconomic turbulence. The newly released PPP data contain fewer surprises than those published in previous updates and are an invaluable tool, but Honohan explains why PPPs should be used with caution and an understanding of their limitations. Apart from removing distortions caused by market exchange rate movements, PPPs remove the impact of other factors affecting relative prices, especially productivity differences, which Honohan argues should not be removed if one wishes to compare the overall economic size or strength of a country or region. Adjusting for productivity, he finds that the United States retains its position as the world’s largest economy for the time being, and the European Union (even without the United Kingdom) is just ahead of China.
Topic:
World Bank, Economic Growth, Currency, Data, and Productivity
Political Geography:
China, Europe, and United States of America