Search

Begin New Search Content Type Policy Brief Publication Year within 5 Years

1161. Can EU carbon border adjustment measures propel WTO climate talks?

Author:
Gary Clyde Hufbauer, Armen Hovakimian, and Jeffrey J. Schott
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics
Abstract:
Reforms proposed in the European Union’s “Fit for 55” climate policy package are likely to sharply increase the cost paid by European firms for their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Recognizing that increased carbon prices would put European firms at a disadvantage in competing with imports from countries that produce without incurring these costs, the European Commission has proposed a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) requiring that the most carbon-intensive EU imports either incur comparable carbon charges as EU firms or pay the equivalent of a carbon-based tariff. The CBAM aims to deter carbon leakage, which could arise if firms shift carbon-intensive production out of Europe to facilities in countries that do not tax GHG emissions (or tax at a low rate) and then export the goods to Europe. European production and output would suffer and global climate efforts to reduce GHG emissions would be undercut. The loftier goal is to encourage other countries to follow the European example and strengthen their own national decarbonization policies, which in turn would exempt their goods from CBAM charges. The CBAM would cover five carbon-intensive industries: iron and steel, aluminum, fertilizer, electricity, and cement. Countries most affected by the CBAM include Russia, China, Turkey, the United Kingdom, Ukraine, South Korea, and India. Some are likely to contest the policy, claiming that the CBAM is a unilateral measure that violates World Trade Organization rules and bolsters protectionism while hampering rather than encouraging efforts in other countries to tackle climate change. A better and more feasible approach would be adoption of a CBAM moratorium while negotiations are conducted to promote carbon abatement policies that comply with the rules-based global trading system.
Topic:
Climate Change, European Union, Economy, Carbon Emissions, and Imports
Political Geography:
Europe

1162. How the rest of the world responds to the US-China split

Author:
Hung Tran
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
The election of Joe Biden as the forty-sixth US president is not expected to change the list of substantive issues dividing the United States and China, such as trade, investment, technology, geopolitical competition, national security, and human rights—except that the priority among them may change, with human rights concerns moving more to the forefront. However, the tone and modality of the unfolding of the US-China competition will change from Donald Trump’s unilateralism to Biden’s efforts to build alliances with “likeminded” countries in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere to deal with the challenges China has posed. In a way, Biden’s alliance-building approach may intensify pressure on the rest of the world to take sides. How countries respond to this challenge, unwelcome by most, depends on whether they see themselves as competitors to China, or as “price takers” in the international economic system.
Topic:
Global Markets, Regulation, Finance, Economy, Trade, and Digital Policy
Political Geography:
China, Europe, Asia, North America, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

1163. Biden and Belarus: A strategy for the new administration

Author:
Anders Åslund, Melinda Haring, John Herbst, and Alexander Vershbow
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
United States President Joseph R. Biden Jr. has an historic opportunity to bring Europe together and reverse the tide of dictatorship by building an international coalition to support democracy in Belarus. In 2020, Belarusians unexpectedly called Alyaksandr Lukashenka’s legitimacy into question in the country’s August presidential election. Lukashenka brazenly rigged the results, claiming that he took 80 percent of the vote, but neither the United States nor the European Union (EU) recognizes his victory. A months-long protest movement has coalesced that demands new elections under the supervision of the international community. Recent years have seen no better chance for US leadership to facilitate lasting positive change in Europe than the crisis in Belarus. But how to secure democratic change in Belarus is not simple given internal resistance and Moscow’s determination to prevent another “color revolution.” Lukashenka is likely finished, unable to restore any authority or legitimacy. But he is seeking to hang on despite Moscow’s efforts to arrange a pliable replacement who would preserve Minsk’s pro-Russian orientation. Managing Moscow’s efforts to prevent an aroused citizenry from choosing their own leader is no easy task. Russia remains the key geopolitical player in Belarus, often plays the long game, and may be willing to countenance military options that the United States cannot. Perhaps the key fact is that Belarusians have made it amply clear that they want accountable leaders that they can choose and dismiss for themselves. More than thirty thousand peaceful protesters have been detained since August, more than three hundred and fifty police officers have defected, and ordinary Belarusians are no longer afraid to voice their opposition to the regime. Kremlin support for the ongoing repression risks turning the Belarusian people—historically friendly toward Russia—in a pro-European direction. These changes in Belarus are something that Moscow cannot ignore, and the United States and its allies must nourish and strengthen them in consistent ways that avoid and deter a Kremlin overreaction. Biden, with his long experience promoting US values and interests and his determination to strengthen transatlantic relations, is ideally situated to promote clear support for the people of Belarus that does not directly challenge Moscow’s security interests.
Topic:
Economics, Human Rights, Sanctions, and Democracy
Political Geography:
Europe, Belarus, and United States of America

1164. Iraqi diaspora mobilization and the future development of Iraq

Author:
Oula Kadhum
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Iraqi diaspora mobilization and the future development of Iraq – authored by Dr. Oula Kadhum, explores Iraqi diaspora mobilization before and after the 2003 invasion and fall of the regime of Saddam Hussein. It looks at the ways members of the diaspora sought to help in the rebuilding of their country of origin, at both the elite and grassroots levels, as well as investigating changes over time. Importantly, it analyses the obstacles that have hindered diaspora mobilization since 2003 and argues that the Iraqi diaspora is a valuable, yet largely untapped resource for Iraq.
Topic:
Development, Diplomacy, Politics, Diaspora, Resilience, and Society
Political Geography:
Iraq and Middle East

1165. The Role of the Private Sector in Catalyzing Inclusive Economic Opportunities in the Northern Triangle

Author:
Maria Fernanda Bozmoski and Domingo Sadurní
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
As in every democratic country in the world, the private sector in Central America’s Northern Triangle (Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador) has a central role in generating employment, driving economic growth, and spurring innovation. But in a region plagued by one of the highest levels of economic informality, weak government institutions, and pervasive corruption, private enterprises—both decades-old industry behemoths and newer startups—can have a more positive influence in steering the Northern Triangle toward inclusive and sustainable economic development. This is not to say that business leaders in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador have been absent in unlocking growth and innovation in the countries, especially since the end of the civil wars in the late 1990s. But in this unique moment of global crisis and renewed attention from the United States, the Northern Triangle’s private sector should seize the opportunity to further position itself as a committed, trusted partner and galvanizing force for positive change. Seeking to address the root causes of unauthorized migration to the United States—including lack of quality economic opportunities, weak rule of law, and violence—the Biden administration’s four-year, $4-billion plan for the Northern Triangle seeks to implement a whole-of-society approach to improve the living conditions of Guatemalans, Hondurans, and Salvadorans. The plan comes at a time when Central America, already reeling from structural institutional challenges to its ability to govern and improve its economies, grapples with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and two back-to-back hurricanes. As conditions deteriorate on the ground and create additional push factors for would-be migrants, the US government should devote special energy and attention to laying the groundwork for strategic partnerships with private sector actors who are positioned—despite contending with pandemic-induced burdens of their own—to catalyze economic opportunities for their fellow citizens. The business community can be a pivotal player in long-term change that seeks to improve the rule of law, tackle corruption, and open new opportunities for inclusive economic growth. This issue brief takes a deep dive to unpack why a lack of sustained and inclusive economic opportunities—among the three main drivers of unauthorized migration—have eluded the Northern Triangle and how the private sector can help reduce informality, invest in employment-generating sectors, resolve the human capital paradox, and catalyze greater infrastructure investment and digital connectivity.1 While there is an emphasis on high levels of informality causing economic insecurity, it is also true that economic insecurity and lack of investment in economic development also drives informality. This is the first of three issue briefs as part of the Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center’s latest Central America initiative, in partnership with the DT Institute, to inform and mobilize key stakeholders at the national, regional, and international levels behind new policy solutions to tackle the Northern Triangle’s most pressing issues. This issue brief is the outcome of a meeting with the Center’s Northern Triangle Advisory Group, which met in February 2021, and will meet regularly during the first six months of 2021 to help inform the three issue briefs.
Topic:
Migration, Entrepreneurship, Economic Growth, Private Sector, and Inclusion
Political Geography:
Central America, Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador

1166. Partnering for Africa’s digital future: Opportunities for the United States, South Korea, and India

Author:
Aleksandra Gadzala Tirziu
Publication Date:
04-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Technological competition between the United States and China poses a special dilemma for African nations, whose prosperity depends on doing business with both Beijing and Washington. Although President Joe Biden is expected to assume a softer policy stance toward China—one couched in the language of human rights and liberal values, rather than power and strategic capabilities—competition will persist, driven by Beijing’s ambition to control the key technologies of the future. Rising US-China tensions may eventually force African nations to take sides. Speaking at the 2020 Munich Security Conference, then-US Defense Secretary Mark Esper warned allied nations that the use of Chinese company Huawei’s fifth-generation (5G) technology could compromise future intelligence cooperation with the United States. That’s a real problem for Africa because, together, Huawei and Chinese phone maker ZTE have built nearly 80 percent of Africa’s third-generation (3G) network infrastructure, while Huawei has built 70 percent of all fourth-generation (4G) networks and is competing to build all the future 5G networks in Africa. Chinese mobile-phone maker Transsion Holdings controls 64 percent of Africa’s feature phone market, and more than 40 percent of its smartphone market, and social media platforms such as TikTok and Vskit are fast becoming popular among Africa’s connected youth. For African leaders, disassociation from Beijing is becoming less and less feasible—or attractive. So too is closer alignment with the United States. Washington simply cannot match the large volumes of funding that Beijing extends to the continent. Recent conduct by leading US technology companies, including by Facebook and Google following the 2020 US presidential election, has additionally prompted a global pushback against US “big tech” that could make it harder for the US public and private sectors to compete and hold sway in African markets. Fortunately, there is a third way, both for African countries looking to avoid the crossfires of US-China competition, and for US policymakers seeking to bolster US competitiveness and influence in the region. The solution hinges on closer cooperation with emerging powers, notably South Korea and India, which have recently demonstrated their determination to better understand Africa’s challenges and prospects, and to figure out how their citizens could collaborate with African businesses and governments. For example, in his 2018 address to Uganda’s parliament, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi outlined “ten guiding principles for India-Africa engagement” that center on cooperation in digitalization, clean-energy technologies, and cybersecurity—a marked detour from the policies that have historically shaped India-Africa ties. South Korea-Africa relations under President Moon Jae-In have also entered a new phase, with an emphasis on commercial linkages and people-to-people collaboration. Both South Korea and India are rapidly expanding their technological capabilities, and their foreign policies also align well with US interests in the region, and vis-à-vis China. For Washington, cooperation with these emerging powers could keep the door open to US influence in Africa, and could help ensure that Beijing’s strategic foothold in the continent does not deepen. For African countries, such partnerships could help bypass the “either-or-ism” implicit in US-China competition, while encouraging greater diversity and agency in their foreign affairs. There is real opportunity for African states to realize the potential that such alliances could create, and to become significant multilateral actors, able to leverage their distinct assets and pursue their own interests. This report explores how.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Economy, Business, Space, and Innovation
Political Geography:
India, Korea, and Africa

1167. What choices remain for the United States in Syria?

Author:
Nate Rosenblatt and Jomana Qaddour
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Syria is home to one of the world’s most complex conflicts. The chaos caused by the Syrian regime and its allies — within Syria, across the Middle East, and beyond — poses immediate and enduring threats. Considering its foreign policy promise to defend democracy and human rights, the Biden administration does not have the luxury of ignoring what happens in Syria. Accepting that there are fewer options for the United States today than there were ten years ago does not mean normalizing the Assad regime or turning a blind eye to Russian and Iranian efforts to tip the balance of power in the region. In a new issue brief from the Atlantic Council’s Syria program, “What Choices Remain for the United States in Syria?,” Nate Rosenblatt and Jomana Qaddour describe the challenges the United States faces in Syria, including Russia’s attempt to expand the UN Strategic Framework as well the struggle to keep the UN humanitarian border crossings open in northern Syria. The memo then lays out the three potential strategies in Syria: one prioritizing the withdrawal of US forces, a second protecting humanitarian access and ensuring progress on limited, critical files, and a third maintaining US support for, as well as coordination with, partners to dial up the pressure on the Syrian government and its allies. The paper ultimately argues that the Biden administration should seize this opportunity to establish a clear strategy in Syria by aligning its defense, development, and diplomatic capabilities with those of its global allies and partners to shape a better outcome in Syria.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Human Rights, International Organization, Politics, United Nations, Syrian War, and Resilience
Political Geography:
Middle East, Syria, North America, and United States of America

1168. Poland and the United States: What’s right, what’s not, and what’s next

Author:
Daniel Fried and Jakub Wiśniewski
Publication Date:
07-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Around the time of President Joe Biden’s first trip to Europe in June 2021, US-Polish relations experienced a short, but intense, rough patch. Missteps on both sides caused the problems, including fears on the Polish side of a high-handed US attitude and a general lack of consultation on issues (like Nord Stream 2) that Poland regards as critical. Some Poles started questioning the good faith of their biggest ally. The US side, for its part, thought Poland was ignoring US overtures and assuming the worst of the United States. Draft legislation that would target the largest US investment in Poland (the TVN television network) generated US concerns about both the investment climate in Poland and political pressure on independent media. In short order, wiser counsel emerged on both sides, and top-level discussions may ease the sense of tension. 1 But, the episode suggests that problems have developed in what has been (and should remain) one of the closest transatlantic relations. Both the United States and Poland need to look hard at what this relationship can do for both countries and for the transatlantic relationship, and at the sources of problems.
Topic:
Security, Diplomacy, Politics, Bilateral Relations, and Resilience
Political Geography:
Eastern Europe, Poland, North America, and United States of America

1169. A strategic framework for countering China’s human-rights violations in Xinjiang

Author:
Jeffrey Cimmino
Publication Date:
07-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
China is engaged in a systematic campaign of repression against predominantly Muslim ethnic minorities in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) in northwest China. Through a combination of detention camps, mass surveillance, birth suppression, and other means, China is responsible for gross human-rights violations. In recent years, the international community has devoted an increasing amount of attention to China’s actions in Xinjiang. Earlier this year, the United States declared that Beijing’s behavior constituted genocide. More recently, the United States and several key partners announced multilateral sanctions on Chinese officials facilitating repression in the region. To build on these developments, the United States and its allies and partners should adopt a more strategic approach to addressing China’s human-rights abuses. This Issue Brief proposes a framework for such a strategy, articulating a multilateral approach for dealing with China’s repressive actions in Xinjiang. This Issue Brief argues that addressing China’s abuses in Xinjiang is of strategic importance. Ultimately, the goal of this strategy is to achieve an end state in which China has ceased its repressive activities; however, even if achieving this objective proves elusive, imposing costs on Beijing’s actions in Xinjiang can still serve broader strategic ends vis-a-vis China. China has chosen an assertive path to attaining global power and influence, and decades of economic growth and incorporation in the global economic system have not been enough to transform Beijing into a responsible stakeholder in a rules-based international system. The United States and its allies and partners will need to impose costs on Chinese behavior that violates international norms. Imposing costs on China’s human-rights violations in Xinjiang is a critical element of a broader strategy to dissuade Chinese Communist Party (CCP) behavior that undermines international norms and to push Beijing toward becoming a cooperative member of a rules-based international system.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Organization, Politics, Sanctions, Economy, and Uyghurs
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and Xinjiang

1170. Trusted connectivity: A framework for a free, open, and connected world

Author:
Kaush Arha
Publication Date:
08-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Global affairs are increasingly shaped by three important and overlapping trends: 1) the unprecedented and growing demand for trillions of dollars’ worth of global digital and physical infrastructure; 2) the ideological battle between democracy and autocracy for the best path forward to achieve peace and prosperity; and 3) the world’s response to changing climate. As democracies address the global demand for a free, open, and connected world while ensuring that local and global emissions targets are met, they need an organizing framework: the concept of “trusted connectivity.” Democratic governments and institutions function with intricate checks and balances to ensure public trust. Unchallenged aggregation of power is antithetical to democracies and instinctively distrusted by their citizens. While holding unimaginable promise, today’s advancements in digital and physical infrastructure also embody new opportunities for malign actors in general, and authoritarian governments in particular, to accumulate and wield this power. Malign influence or control over data, communications, trade routes, energy, and transportation, all of which becomes possible when countries accept infrastructure investments from authoritarian states, could open potential vectors for coercion, disruption, or attack in times of crisis or conflict. In order to deny malign actors this influence over other countries’ infrastructure, democracies need to work together to ensure that the benefits and terms for the host country in building a bridge, port, rail, road, or telecommunications network are equitable and transparent, thereby leading to greater trust and security in addition to economic prosperity. US President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., rallied the world’s leading democracies behind this cause at the Group of Seven (G7) summit in June 2021 in Cornwall, England. The G7 nations, comprising the world’s leading free economies and free societies, proclaimed that, as they aim to meet global infrastructure demand, among other goals, their efforts will be guided by shared democratic values. For China, the standard-bearer of an alternate, illiberal model, infrastructure investment serves a different purpose: to increase China’s global economic leverage for its political gain. To prevail in this competition, advance their values, and develop much-needed digital and physical infrastructure, the world’s leading democracies should adopt the principle of trusted connectivity.
Topic:
National Security, Infrastructure, Cybersecurity, and Connectivity
Political Geography:
China, Europe, Asia, and United States of America

1171. Addressing instability in Central America: Restrictions on civil liberties, violence, and climate change

Author:
Maria Fernanda Bozmoski, María Eugenia Brizuela de Ávila, and Domingo Sadurní
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Citizens across Latin America and the Caribbean are rising up in protest. Political frustration and economic stagnation are fueling social discontent exacerbated by the continued COVID-19 pandemic and the slow health response. In Central America, restrictions on civil liberties, high rates of gender-based violence and extortion, and worsening climate change are compounding the lack of economic opportunities and pervasive corruption seen in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. In the year of its bicentennial, can northern Central America chart a new path, in partnership with the United States, to tackle the sources of social instability that are forcing migrants to seek a better life? In July 2021, the Joseph Biden administration released the US Strategy for Addressing the Root Causes of Migration in Central America report. Three of its five pillars call for the United States and northern Central American countries to work together to respect human rights and a free press, counter violence at the hands of criminal organizations, and combat sexual and gender-based violence.1 To ensure a sustained and effective implementation of this strategy, especially on these three pillars, the United States will need to find new ways to work closely with northern Central American governments, domestic and international private sectors, and organized civil-society groups. Following consultations with the Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center’s Northern Triangle Advisory Group (NTAG), this brief highlights the importance of implementing a holistic, multisector approach to mitigate gender-based violence, protect civil liberties and human rights, and build climate resilience. This brief is the third in a three-part series by the Atlantic Council’s Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center and DT Institute that provides policy recommendations for the United States and its northern Central American partners to address the root causes of migration.
Topic:
Security, Climate Change, Diplomacy, Politics, and Partnerships
Political Geography:
Latin America

1172. The Special Role of US Nuclear Weapons

Author:
Matthew Kroenig
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
This issue brief is based on Dr. Matthew Kroenig’s written testimony at a hearing on “Nuclear Deterrence Policy and Strategy” before the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee of the United States Senate, conducted on June 16, 2021. US nuclear weapons play a special role in underpinning international peace, global security, and the US-led, rules-based international system. The nuclear threat to the United States and its democratic allies is growing: nuclear-armed, revisionist, autocratic powers (Russia, China, and North Korea) are relying more on nuclear weapons in their strategies, and they are modernizing and expanding their arsenals. In this new issue brief, the Scowcroft Center’s Matthew Kroenig explains why the United States needs to retain a robust, flexible, and modernized nuclear force to meet its national security objectives.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Nuclear Weapons, Science and Technology, Missile Defense, and Deterrence
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Iran, Asia, Korea, and United States of America

1173. Generational Dynamics of Economic Crisis and Recovery: Prospects for Younger and Older Persons

Author:
Nicole Goldin
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Economic shocks affect young and older age groups disproportionately and highlight the insecurity of the youth labor market and volatility of older people’s savings. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated youth labor market challenges and caused young people to either lose jobs or work fewer hours. It also undermined the financial security of older people who tend to own small businesses given that half of the small businesses either closed down or lost significant revenue during lockdowns. Furthermore, COVID-19 exacerbated the digital divide between generations. While younger people are more likely to be technologically savvy, older generations often lack digital literacy to adapt to online work or virtual communications platforms. Dr. Goldin argues that to alleviate the disproportionate suffering experienced by young and elderly age groups during the pandemic, policymakers should increase targeting of social-protection measures, facilitate private-sector investment in education and training, invest in improving digital services and infrastructure, ensure access to financial services, and collect age-disaggregated data on economic and COVID-related indicators.
Topic:
Women, Internet, Economic Growth, Youth, Resilience, COVID-19, Digital Policy, and Inclusion
Political Geography:
Africa, South Asia, Middle East, East Asia, and Latin America

1174. Nuclear priorities for the Biden administration

Author:
John Harvey and Robert Soofer
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
How can the administration of President Joseph R. Biden both address the deteriorating international security environment and follow through on campaign promises to reduce the role of nuclear weapons? Former nuclear deterrence policymakers John R. Harvey and Robert Soofer, from Democratic and Republican administrations, respectively, contend in this issue brief that the Biden administration can address the increasing nuclear threat to the United States, meet its commitment to reduce the role of nuclear weapons, and maintain bipartisan support for US nuclear policy.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Nuclear Weapons, Science and Technology, Nonproliferation, Missile Defense, and Deterrence
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Iran, Asia, Korea, and United States of America

1175. Judgments by the Court of Justice of the EU on the EU’s Trade with Israel’s Disputed Territories

Author:
Rachel Frid de Vries
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Mitvim: The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies
Abstract:
The EU is one of the largest trading partners of the Disputed Territories (DTs) in the world. The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) reaffirmed the EU’s differentiation policy between Israeli products from within or outside the DTs. This paper considers the aptness of the role played by the CJEU, the effects and effectiveness of the judgments, and their foreseeable significant implications for Israel.
Topic:
Territorial Disputes, European Union, Trade, and Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU)
Political Geography:
Europe, Middle East, Israel, and Palestine

1176. The Ministry of Regional Cooperation and Israeli-Palestinian Peacemaking

Author:
Nimrod Goren
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Mitvim: The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies
Abstract:
Among Israel’s many government ministries, one stands out in particular. It is small, its authority is limited, and many doubt its need. But it is tasked with realizing one of Israel’s greatest aspirations since its founding: Reshaping relations with the Palestinians and its other Arab neighbors through regional cooperation. The Ministry of Regional Cooperation was established in 1999 as a product of political bargaining. Then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak sought to find a job for Shimon Peres, the peace advocate whom he did not want as his foreign minister. Peres used the new ministry as a platform to advance his vision of a new Middle East, while Barak led an Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Government, Regional Cooperation, History, Domestic Politics, and Peace
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, and Palestine

1177. We Need to Talk Trade and Technology!

Author:
Lucian Cernat
Publication Date:
04-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
“It’s May 3, 2021. Don’t forget to upgrade the embedded software in your shoes before you go for a run!” This may sound like a commercial for the 1986 Puma Smart Sneaker[1], the first running shoe with embedded sensors and software in its heel. It could also be an opening line from an old sci-fi movie describing a distant point in the future. Sci-fi movies have a great track record of predicting the future, from video calls[2] to self-driving cars[3]. The former is a dominant part of our daily professional routine these days. The latter is no longer science fiction[4]. So, what if the growing interplay between goods and services is not about the future but a good description of the present? Nowadays we live in a world of connected objects that rely on sophisticated embedded software. Recently, the Volkswagen’s CEO[5] admitted that the only way for VW to remain a successful car manufacturer is to become a successful software company. And while he may be the latest CEO to recognise the business irrelevance of such a goods-services distinction, he certainly is not the only one. Apple understood it well before many other companies when designing mobile phones and their underlying software ecosystem without having any production facilities. Now Apple wants to produce cars[6]. And so do several Chinese telecom giants, like ZTE[7] or Huawei[8]. And the list is longer: Amazon, Tencent, Google, Baidu. All these corporate announcements are another way of saying that mode 5 services[9] are going to be one of the most important ingredients of global competitiveness in many sectors. Car companies are right to get interested in software. Future autonomous and electric vehicles are primarily software-driven products compared to traditional cars. Already in 2010, the General Motors’ Volt car[10] was dubbed as one of the most sophisticated IT products, with over 10 million lines of software code and its own IP address. So, in the future, car manufacturers might need to do software in order to produce cars successfully. Surely, along complex global supply chains with many suppliers scattered around the world. These headline announcements from global manufacturing companies entering the software market and vice-versa, confirm a simple truth: in order to stay competitive, companies can no longer see themselves just as a manufacturing firm, or a services firm. And this simple truth goes beyond the automotive sector. Underpinning this radical shift is a series of digital disruptive technologies, affecting everything from product standards, industrial design, intellectual property, and investment decisions. Such technological developments are game changers for many traditional manufacturing sectors.
Topic:
Science and Technology, European Union, Digital Economy, and Trade
Political Geography:
Europe

1178. Subsidising Balkanisation: What China’s 3G Subsidies Teach us about 5G Open RAN

Author:
Hosuk Lee-Makiyama
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
Open RAN is increasingly becoming the answer to how to diversify 5G networks and beyond, especially in the light of a potential exclusion of China’s participation in western networks. In recent times, the US and Japan have jointly pledged $4.5 billion to support its development. Much – or perhaps entirety – of this support is predesignated for the O-RAN Alliance, a closed-door and private industry consortium. State interventionism is back – in a sector hereto characterised by open western markets and free competition. The public support currently pledged to the O-RAN consortium bear many resemblances to the Chinese government’s attempt to support TD-SCDMA, a unique standard for the Chinese market that was designed to support local vendors. Its use was a pre-condition for public subsidies for R&D or public procurement. As recent as 2020, the US Trade Representative reported on China’s standard-setting practices and subsidies as one of the world’s worst trade barriers. Those who advocate similar support in the West are either indifferent or nescient about how EU and US trade negotiators worked to address subsidies and opaque standard-setting. It is an open question whether the US and Japan will offer a level-playing field to European vendors – or non-O-RAN members who may develop their own Open RAN variants. Nowadays, Chinese scholars and senior officials openly talk of “TD-style innovation” as a disaster for the nation that delayed China’s rollout of 4G and plunged the economy into a performance and innovation lag. A key lesson for policymakers today is how vendors that cannot survive without subsidies will not optimise the organisation for innovation but public grant-seeking. This is an eerie warning for the 5G debate in some western capitals.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Digital Economy, 5G, and Subsidies
Political Geography:
China and Asia

1179. Taxing Digital Services – Compensating for the Loss of Competitiveness

Author:
Erik van der Marel and Peer Schulze
Publication Date:
07-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
Several countries around the world have implemented a tax on digital services, commonly called Digital Services Tax (DST). This policy brief takes a closer look at why some European countries have imposed DSTs but not others. Surely, there are economic explanations behind the fact that Austria, France, Italy, Spain, and the UK have introduced DSTs – but not other countries in Europe. The five tax-imposing countries (here called DST5) have been losing trade competitiveness in digital services over the last 15 years. On the many trade competitiveness indicators we compute, the DST5 score lower values and show lower growth rates compared to other non-DST countries in Europe. Moreover, the differences between the DST5 and non-DST countries are stark, suggesting that digital services markets for the latter group of countries are a lot more dynamic and globalized. The difference between DST5 and other European countries in digital services competitiveness is striking. This is not to say that there should not be special taxes on digital services – that is a different issue – but it is important that the discussion about the DST starts from a better understanding of how such a tax relates to underlying patterns of digital service performance.
Topic:
European Union, Digital Economy, Tax Systems, and Economic Competition
Political Geography:
Europe

1180. China’s Public Procurement Protectionism and Europe’s Response: The Case of Medical Technology

Author:
Fredrik Erixon, Anna Guildea, Oscar Guinea, and Philipp Lamprecht
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
This paper concerns China’s market for medical technologies and how the Chinese state is assisting its own companies to gain greater sales at the expense of producers from Europe and other advanced manufacturing economies. The medical technology sector captures a variety of products, services and solutions which are essential to the provision of healthcare to citizens. Examples range from fairly simple technologies such as sticking platers, to complex ones, such as coronary stents, orthopaedics and pacemakers. In the last decades, Europe’s exports of medical devices to China have grown robustly. On the back of vibrant innovation, firms from Europe and elsewhere have not just followed the growth of Chinese demand for medical devices – they have also increased their share of Chinese imports. Now, however, this market is at risk of being gradually closed off for European firms as China doubles down on various policies that advantage local firms, while ultimately harming innovation and Chinese patients. China has recently introduced a new element in its industrial policy for its medical technology sector – a policy that builds on its long-term ‘made-in-China’ ambition to have local firms taking up the lion’s share of the market for medical devices by 2030. Beijing and provincial governments are using many different policies to provide support to the domestic industry and are in effect pursuing a policy for import substitution. Accessing the Chinese market for medical devices has never been easy but it has become increasingly challenging in recent years. Direct financial support, tax benefits, R&D support, local content requirements, opaque approval systems and other forms of advantages to domestic MedTech producers are now becoming major sources for the behaviour and development of the Chinese medical device market. China’s Fourteenth Five-Year Plan and the country’s new economic model of ‘dual circulation’ reinforces this trend. The Chinese market is becoming less open. Added to that is centralised state procurement – a new public procurement policy in China that was launched in 2019 for medical devices which has led to a grossly distorted procurement market. While this policy has reduced the price of medical devices in a drastic way, it has also paved the way for Chinese firms to take up a larger market share. This procurement policy is gradually squeezing European firms out of the Chinese market. Competition in China is becoming less fair. These policies follow a pattern. In several sectors, Chinese firms have grown their domestic market share through industrial subsidies and policies that restrict market access for foreign firms – or make it more difficult for foreign firms to compete in China. From their domestic market, these firms have then expanded abroad and taken a more prominent role outside of China. Backed by the Chinese state, these firms can squeeze market opportunities even more for otherwise-competitive European producers. Now this development is happening in the MedTech sector. It is urgent for Europe to respond to China’s procurement protectionism. MedTech manufacturers in Europe are often small and medium-sized enterprises, and they already struggle with getting into the Chinese market. China’s new procurement policy has also had a significant impact on Chinese imports of medical devices: a 1.3 billion euro trade deficit for China in medical technology products in 2019 turned into a 5.2 billion euro surplus in 2020. In Africa, Asia and Latin America, competitive European manufacturers are now confronted with competition from Chinese MedTech companies that have the backing of the Chinese state. The competitive distortions in the Chinese market now spill over to the global market – making European MedTech manufacturers even more disadvantaged. Europe should consider a case at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) against China’s policies which reduce European market presence for medical devices. Once agreed, a new International Procurement Initiative might be a useful instrument to wield pressure against the Chinese government to agree to free and fair competition. Europe can also negotiate with China – for instance in the framework of the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) or through the new initiative on trade and health that Europe proposed to the Ottawa Group in 2020. These responses should focus both on remedying China’s current policy for growing its domestic medical technology industry by distorting its market and setting out the core policies and rules that should guide the future market for medical technologies. Fredrik Erixon and Anna Guildea are Director and Research Associate, respectively, at ECIPE. Oscar Guinea and Philipp Lamprecht are Senior Economists at ECIPE. The authors are grateful to a number of experts in the private sector and from the European Commission, the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy in Germany, China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology that have taken their time to share their knowledge with us.
Topic:
Health, Science and Technology, European Union, and Public Procurement
Political Geography:
China, Europe, and Asia