Search

Begin New Search Topic Trade Political Geography United States of America Content Type Working Paper

1. The US-EU Trade and Technology Council: Assessing the record on data and technology issues

Author:
Juan Carlos Fernández-Rodríguez and Frances G. Burwell
Publication Date:
04-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
European Policy Centre (EPC)
Abstract:
Since its creation, the Trade and Technology Council (TTC) has endorsed a Declaration for the Future of the Internet (DFI), designed a Joint Roadmap for transatlantic cooperation on artificial intelligence (AI) and identified quantum technology as a high priority. While these achievements can be considered success stories, this Discussion Paper argues that the TTC is now facing a dilemma. Different approaches to technology and digital governance and the lack of regulatory autonomy make the TTC best suited to address emerging issues that do not require changes in legislation. Yet, this is precisely what stakeholders want it to address. So, how can the TTC ensure its continuity without regulatory authority? The Paper offers five key recommendations: Make AI a test case and build from the lessons of the Joint AI Roadmap; Engage in issues where there is an initial strong value alignment and no regulation; Work on moonshot ideas such as the “metaverse” or low-earth orbit governance; Take oversight over the special task forces it has created to tackle critical issues such as the US Inflation Reduction Act (IRA); Think more actively about how to push its efforts into multilateral forums with like-minded partners.
Topic:
Science and Technology, European Union, Trade, and Data
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America

2. The Effects of the United States-China Trade War During the COVID-19 Pandemic on Global Supply Chains: Evidence from Viet Nam

Author:
Duc Anh Dang and Ngoc Anh Tran
Publication Date:
08-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA)
Abstract:
The trade war between the United States (US) and China has affected their bilateral trade as well as that with other countries. This study investigates how Vietnamese firms performed during the COVID-19 pandemic under the shadow of this trade war. The change in the log of Vietnamese exports to the US from 2017 to 2020 is used to measure the impact of the trade war, and the change in the log of Chinese exports to the US is then used as an instrument for the Vietnamese export change during the same period. It is found that firms that faced more trade war exposure increased their investment, profit, and value added, which may be due to the market exit of unproductive firms. Moreover, the trade war impact is more pronounced for large firms. Foreign-invested firms gained less from trade war exposure. The pandemic weakened the trade war effect on firm performances; however, it exacerbated the trade tension effect on foreign-trade firms.
Topic:
Bilateral Relations, Investment, Trade, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

3. Not So Clear: Revisiting the Impacts of Cap-and-Trade on Environmental Justice

Author:
Michael Ash and Manuel Pastor
Publication Date:
06-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Political Economy Research Institute (PERI), University of Massachusetts Amherst
Abstract:
A recent article by Danae Hernandez-Cortes and Kyle Meng (HCM) suggests that the cap-and-trade program in California was accompanied by improvements in the degree of environmental inequity in the state. We note that that the model used to estimate this improvement is not well-designed to capture the variation in facility adjustment to the cap-and-trade program that is at the heart of the environmental justice debate about potential shifts in co-pollutant exposure. We also show that even if that were a proper approach, the estimates offered by HCM may be problematic due to data issues, including proper identification of facilities subject to the cap, shifting results when we require that facilities have observations both before and after the cap, and robustness when we apply their method estimates beyond their selected subsample to the broader range of facilities. As such, the environmental justice implications of California’s carbon market remain an unsettled empirical question.
Topic:
Inequality, Trade, Pollution, and Environmental Justice
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

4. The Digital Silk Road and China’s Influence on Standard Setting

Author:
Alex He
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation
Abstract:
China is striving to become a leader in international standard setting, and the Digital Silk Road, part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative to expand its global infrastructure and markets, is key to realizing this goal. Both roads depend on standard connectivity, fuelled by Chinese private companies that are the driving force behind China’s growing role as a leader in technology development and shaping standards in both domestic and global markets. However, China faces strong competition to gain more influence in international standard-setting bodies, which are dominated by the European Union and the United States.
Topic:
Infrastructure, Digital Economy, Trade, Digital Culture, Silk Road, and Digitalization
Political Geography:
China, Europe, Asia, North America, and United States of America

5. Mexico’s “Catch-22”: The Implications of Being a Trade and Climate Partner of the United States and the European Union

Author:
Simone Lucatello
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
Under the current global environmental governance and trade regimes, several initiatives, such as the new United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, the European Union’s European Green Deal, and regional free trade agreements the European Union has implemented with strategic partners like Mexico, are prompting a vibrant discussion on how trade agreements can be used as a potential mechanism to create enforceable cross-border commitments to tackle climate change. However, to cut greenhouse gas emissions within a few decades, a decisive departure from current trends in emission and trade policies is required by all countries, both developed and developing. As a result, politicians, scholars and experts around the world have looked to trade agreements as a possible tool for reaching global climate commitments, either related to or independent from the Paris Agreement. But how well do these agreements suit this purpose? Carbon-intensive products worldwide increased when tariff reductions were implemented, resulting in destructive practices for many countries, particularly those in the Global South. For countries such as Mexico, the nexus between trade and climate change is not easy to address: the country is trapped between its ambitions to play a role in global trade platforms as an industrial manufacturer and agricultural exporter and its desire to be recognized as a global actor in climate change policy and actions within the global community. Despite recent changes in climate and environmental politics under the administration of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (2018–2024), Mexico is a middle-income country with a long-standing tradition as climate champion and environmental leader in the Global South and needs to make clear where it stands under the new global environmental and ecological transition scenario imposed by the climate crisis and trade-related issues. The “entanglement” of global trade treaties and commitments under the current climate crisis, represents a major shift for Mexico. Caught between the new US–Mexico-Canada Agreement, the EU–Mexico Trade Agreement and the possible impacts of the European Green Deal, Mexico needs to define its role in trade and environmental terms alongside giant partners such as the United States and the European Union, while defending its role as a regional power. If the European Green Deal takes off as an international driver for deepening climate and sustainable development goals with European Union strategic partners, it remains to be seen how Mexico will respond to the challenge. In this paper we address the possible implications for Mexico under each of these instruments. We look at the interplay between them, explore the linkages and possible conflictual pathways, and “disentangle” the schemes in which trade and climate change are interconnected. Mexico may be trapped in a “catch-22” situation. Environmental provisions embedded in trade treaties provide critical benefits to the country, but this often comes at the expense of “unacceptable” environmental enforcement measures that can put at risk national development plans, especially at a time when the environment and climate change issues are not at the top of the current administration’s political agenda.
Topic:
Climate Change, Governance, European Union, Partnerships, Trade, and Green Deal
Political Geography:
North America, Mexico, and United States of America

6. After the CHIPS Act: The Limits of Reshoring and Next Steps for U.S. Semiconductor Policy

Author:
Vishnu Kannan and Jacob Feldgoise
Publication Date:
11-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
The U.S. Congress’s recent success in passing the CHIPS and Science Act (informally the CHIPS Act) shows that legislators are united on one point: the United States needs to manufacture more semiconductors at home. This idea gained traction during the worst days of the coronavirus pandemic, when global shortages of semiconductors halted the manufacturing of automobiles, traditional consumer electronics, and other products that use semiconductors, such as household appliances.1 As demand for these products soared during the pandemic, the world experienced painful price inflation, which amplified the acute geopolitical tensions between the United States and China.2 U.S. policymakers, already worried that dependence on Taiwan for the most sophisticated semiconductors could imperil national security and economic security, saw an urgent need to act.3 And together, rising prices and geopolitical competition underscored the need to invest in domestic economic revitalization. The CHIPS Act’s $52.7 billion investment in domestic semiconductor manufacturing (see table 1) aims to fulfill three main objectives: 1) reduce the likelihood that shocks abroad might disrupt the supply of chips, 2) boost American international economic competitiveness and create domestic jobs, and 3) protect semiconductors from being sabotaged in the manufacturing process. This paper argues that the CHIPS Act, by itself, will not fully accomplish any of these goals. The act is a major step forward, but it leaves multiple gaps that require additional government action.
Topic:
Industrial Policy, Legislation, Trade, and Semiconductors
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

7. Embedding Human Rights in European and US China Policy

Author:
Malin Oud
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
Europe and the United States share an interest in promoting human rights in China but often struggle to affect change in this regard. Because of ineffective approaches and low political commitment, human rights are a marginalized issue in transatlantic China policy and an afterthought to commercial interests. European and US policymakers have attempted to compartmentalize their approach to China, keeping human rights separate from commercial and other interests. This does little to advance human rights, and it only seems to encourage more assertive and coercive behavior by China. During the last few years, the Western assumption that trade and foreign capital would transform China into a more open and democratic society has been replaced by a disillusioned realization that its rise as a superpower is reshaping the international order. Under President Xi Jinping, China has evolved from its previous position as rule-taker and status quo-keeper at the UN to become an assertive rule-maker and international norm entrepreneur. Its vulnerability to external pressure has declined while its power to exert pressure and economic coercion on others has increased. China no longer presents its political and economic model merely as different from but as superior to that of the liberal democracies in the West. For several years now, European and US policymakers have declared an “end of naivety” in relation to China. After years of debating how to make the EU more resilient and robust, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has “given birth to geopolitical Europe,” in the words of its chief diplomat, Josep Borrell. It remains to be seen whether this moment of clarity will translate into a more principled defense of human rights and investment in democratic resilience. For this to happen, there needs to be a broader reckoning with how Western countries for decades mishandled the authoritarian challenge to the international order, often because they were pursuing stronger economic ties with the same governments they now see as systemic rivals.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Economics, Human Rights, Business, and Trade
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

8. Trump ended WTO dispute settlement. Trade remedies are needed to fix it.

Author:
Chad P. Bown
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics
Abstract:
Unhappy with the rulings of the WTO dispute settlement system, which disproportionately targeted US use of trade remedies, the United States ended the entire system in 2019. There are multiple hurdles to agreeing to new terms of trade remedy use and thus potentially restoring some form of binding dispute settlement. First, a change would affect access to policy flexibility by the now large number of users of trade remedies. Second, although China’s exports are the overwhelming target of trade remedies, exporters in other countries increasingly find themselves caught up in trade remedy actions linked to China. Third, critical differences posed by China’s economic model may call for new rules for trade remedies, but no consensus on those rules has emerged. Even some of the most promising reforms have practical limitations, create additional challenges, or may be politically unviable.
Topic:
Economics, Trade, Donald Trump, and WTO
Political Geography:
China and United States of America

9. Public responses to foreign protectionism: Evidence from the US-China trade war

Author:
David Steinberg and Yeling Tan
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics
Abstract:
America's recent turn toward protectionism has raised concerns about the future viability of the liberal international trading system. This study examines how and why public attitudes toward international trade change when one's country is targeted by protectionist measures from abroad. To address this question, the authors fielded three original survey experiments in the country most affected by US protectionism: China. First, they find consistent evidence that US protectionism reduces Chinese citizens' support for trade. This finding is replicated in parallel experiments on technology cooperation, and further validated outside of the China context with a survey experiment in Argentina. Second, they show that responses to US protectionism reflect both a "direct reciprocity" logic—citizens want to retaliate against the United States specifically—and a "generalized reciprocity" logic that reduces support for trade on a broader, systemic basis.
Topic:
Economics, Political Economy, Public Opinion, Trade, and Protectionism
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

10. The US–Italy Economic Relations in a Divided World

Author:
Adriana Castagnoli
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Istituto Affari Internazionali
Abstract:
In 2021, bilateral trade returned to the sustained pace it had prior to the Covid pandemic. Direct investment also grew – crucially, not just Italian investment in the United States but the other way round too. While Italy’s economic ties with Russia and China remain potential hotspots, Rome has never questioned its Atlantic orientation. Nevertheless, possible austerity policies following sanctions against Russia could spread social discontent that populist parties can exploit for consensus purposes in the 2023 general election, rekindling anti-Americanism rooted in different segments of Italian society.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Foreign Direct Investment, Economic Policy, Trade, and Energy
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Italy, and United States of America

11. Between a Rock and a Hard Place: How Should South Korea Manage its Relations with the United States and China?

Author:
Zhiqun Zhu
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
This paper deals with one of the most critical issues in contemporary international relations: how China’s rise challenges foreign policies of U.S. allies, with a focus on the Republic of Korea (ROK) or South Korea. South Korea has been carefully hedging between the United States and China, its traditional security patron and largest trade partner, respectively. Strategic rivalry between the two great powers has put South Korea in an awkward position as pressure grows from the two powers to pick a side. Using a modified dual-track economics-security nexus framework, this paper suggests that the United States and China each has a significant impact on South Korea’s security and economic policies, making it important but challenging for South Korea to simultaneously manage relations with the two great powers. So far, South Korea has maintained these two sets of relationships remarkably well, but it may be difficult to continue with business as usual in the years ahead. For its own national interests, South Korea must seek to preserve the status quo under which it can continue to benefit from good relations with both great powers. The paper also proposes that South Korea should form a “middle power coalition” with like-minded nations to deflect pressures and avoid the dilemma of having to choose sides.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Foreign Policy, Alliance, and Trade
Political Geography:
China, Asia, South Korea, and United States of America

12. Greek-American relations: what next?

Author:
George Tzogopoulos
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP)
Abstract:
With President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis scheduled to meet early this January, Dr. George Tzogopoulos, Research Fellow at ELIAMEP, outlines the course of Greek-American relations from 2015 onwards. Dr. Tzogopoulos argues that Athens and Washington DC have entered a period of strong cooperation that can be further consolidated in 2020. Defense, energy and trade are the main focal points. The agenda includes the need to create a new security environment in the Mediterranean – with Greece playing a key role. The excellent status of Greek-American relations creates new opportunities for closer bilateral cooperation on defense, energy and trade. The region of Northern Greece becomes of gradually higher significance for the US. US foreign policy towards Greece reflects its interest in restraining Russian influence. While anti-Americanism in Greece is declining, there is widespread concern in the domestic public sphere on whether the US will support Greece in the case of a crisis with Turkey in the Eastern Mediterranean. US support to the trilateral cooperation of Greece-Israel-Cyprus will be reinforced through the Eastern Mediterranean Security and Energy Partnership Act. The US-Greece Strategic Dialogue and NATO Mediterranean Dialogue are useful instruments for strengthening Greece’s role in the South, contributing towards a new security landscape.
Topic:
Security, Energy Policy, Bilateral Relations, and Trade
Political Geography:
Europe, Greece, North America, and United States of America

13. Export controls: America’s other national security threat

Author:
Chad P. Bown
Publication Date:
05-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics
Abstract:
While the public was transfixed by the Trump administration’s policies alleging that imports were a threat to America’s national security during 2017–20, there was a concomitant and more quiet US policy shift on the export side. Addressing the national security threat presented by exports posed different economic and institutional challenges from those associated with import policy, including the acknowledgment that export controls for legitimate national security reasons can be the first-best policy to confront the problem at its source. Yet, export controls could also be misused as a beggar-thy-neighbor policy to redistribute economic well-being across countries, even from one ally to another. This paper describes how US export control policy evolved over 2017–20, as well as the international institutions—first the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls (COCOM), then the Wassenaar Arrangement—historically tasked with multilateralizing US export restrictions used to protect national security. With the potential for US export control policy to brush up more frequently against WTO rules designed to limit the use of export restrictions, the paper also highlights new challenges for the WTO’s system of resolving trade disputes. Overall, a US failure to strike the right balance for its export control policy would result in it being ineffective at addressing national security risks, costly for the economy, and problematic for trade and diplomatic relations.
Topic:
Economics, Government, National Security, Exports, and Trade
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

14. Why Trump shot the sheriffs: The end of WTO dispute settlement 1.0

Author:
Chad P. Bown and Soumaya Keynes
Publication Date:
03-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics
Abstract:
On December 10, 2019, the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) 25-year-old system of resolving disputes broke down. This paper explains why. It describes the dysfunctional system that preceded the WTO, when the United States dealt with politically troublesome imports by using voluntary export restraints and increasingly resorted to the “aggressively unilateral” Section 301 policy to resolve trade concerns. The WTO was a compromise between the rest of the world and the United States, whereby the latter accepted some constraints with the expectation that the new system of binding dispute settlement would serve its interests. But although the creation of the WTO resolved some concerns about American unilateralism in the short term, its system of handling disputes turned out to be politically unsustainable.
Topic:
Economics, World Trade Organization, Trade, and Donald Trump
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

15. The U.S.–China Trade Imbalance and the Theory of Free Trade: Debunking the Currency Manipulation Argument

Author:
Anwar Shaikh and Isabella Weber
Publication Date:
03-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Political Economy Research Institute (PERI), University of Massachusetts Amherst
Abstract:
The U.S.–China trade imbalance is commonly attributed to a Chinese policy of currency manipulation. However, empirical studies failed to reach consensus on the RMB misalignment. We argue that this is not a consequence of poor measurement but of theory. At the most abstract level the conventional principle of comparative cost advantage suggests real exchange rates will adjust so as to balance trade. Therefore, the persistence of trade imbalances tends to be interpreted as arising from currency manipulation facilitated by foreign exchange interventions. By way of contrast, the absolute cost theory explains trade imbalances as the outcome of free trade among nations that have unequal real costs. We argue that a disparity in real costs is the root cause of the U.S.–China trade imbalance.
Topic:
Exchange Rate Policy, Free Trade, Trade, and Purchasing Power
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

16. Preferential Trade Agreements vs. Multilateralism: In the New Trump-World, Does Canada Face an Impossible Choice?

Author:
Judit Fabian
Publication Date:
03-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Canadian Global Affairs Institute (CGAI)
Abstract:
International trade is often framed in starkly divergent terms: either countries choose multilateral trade agreements (MTAs) and advance the cause of global economic liberalization, or they choose preferred trade agreements (PTAs) and put the entire system at risk. Canada has a long track record of pursuing PTAs and with the Trump administration’s opposition to multilateralism, and longstanding opposition in elements of the Republican and Democratic parties, this trend will likely continue. The question is whether progress will come at the expense of the global trade system. Some economists believe PTAs to be trade-diverting, reducing trade with more efficient producers outside the agreement. Others insist that PTAs can create trade by shifting production to lower-cost producers in one of the participating countries. One prominent contrary argument holds that PTAs lead to discontinuities in tariff regimes between countries and regions, increasing transaction costs, disrupting supply chains, creating opportunities for corruption and harming global welfare, especially in developing nations. While debate continues about the effects of PTAs, a closer examination suggests that worries are overblown about their negative impacts on global trade flows. Evidence indicates that they support rather than harm the international trading system. Countries shut out of PTAs are more motivated to seek out agreements in new markets, increasing liberalization overall. They may also seek a reduction in most-favoured nation (MFN) tariffs, which would deprive PTAs of their major tariff benefits. Studies have found complementarity between preferential and MFN tariffs, revealing that PTAs promote external trade liberalization. Even if a PTA reduces a given country’s incentive to push for multilateral liberalization, it raises the odds of that country liberalizing its trade to avoid getting left behind. PTAs are a response to the difficulties of securing sweeping multilateral agreements. The World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreements authorize them under GATT Article XXIV, GATS Article V, and the enabling clause, and the WTO facilitates a degree of governance over PTAs through its dispute settlement process. Over the past 25 years, countries have adopted these deals at a rapid pace. Between 1994 and 2005, the number of PTAs increased from 50 to 200. By April 2018, 336 were in effect. At the same time, global trade has increased significantly. Between 1994 and 2010, the volume of world merchandise exports more than doubled. The proliferation of PTAs has resulted in a rise in international trade governance, because the countries involved shape their relationships in line with the WTO agreements. This juridification makes PTAs subordinate to the international system rather than giving them room to dissolve it. Canada should therefore have no fear of pursuing PTAs within the larger framework of the effort to achieve multilateral trade liberalization.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, Multilateralism, Trade, and Donald Trump
Political Geography:
Canada, North America, and United States of America

17. Challenges and Prospects for the CPTPP in a Changing Global Economy: Taiwanese Accession and Canada’s Role

Author:
Hugh Stephens
Publication Date:
12-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Canadian Global Affairs Institute (CGAI)
Abstract:
In the past, Canada has had to deal with the matter of Taiwan very delicately. China considers Taiwan to be an integral part of the nation: a rogue province that must eventually be reunified with the mainland. Since Canada relies much more on trade with China than with Taiwan, the stakes have favoured policies that avoid engaging with Taiwan in ways that would unnecessarily irritate China. As a result, there has been little appetite here for negotiating a bilateral trade deal with Taiwan. That attitude is finally changing. One main reason is because China is already angry with Canada, and vice versa. Relations between the two countries are at an all-time low, and domestic support for accommodating China is minimal. As a result, Canada is freer than before to consider negotiating a trade agreement with Taiwan. At the same time, Taiwan is interested in joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), to which Canada is already a party. By supporting Taiwan’s accession to the CPTPP, Canada can achieve a free-trade agreement with Taiwan without having to negotiate one bilaterally. The ability to do so under the aegis of a multilateral agreement should serve to mitigate any remaining concerns that China might further retaliate against Canada directly. However, striking back at China is not a reason for Canada to support Taiwan’s accession to the CPTPP. We should do so because it is in the interest of Canada and the other members of the CPTPP to add to the strength of the organization by welcoming an economy that is an important global trader and a key player in global supply chains. In addition, Taiwan is a country that is clearly willing and able to accept CPTPP disciplines. Canada should move quickly and enthusiastically to support Taiwan’s accession. The benefits of having Taiwan join Canada in a free-trade agreement are obvious. The opportunity to make it a reality is finally here. The Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), which entered into force on Dec.30, 2018 for six of the 11 signatories that had completed ratification at that time (Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand and Singapore),1 is a beacon of hope in a dark, protectionist landscape. Along with the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) agreement, which was signed on Nov. 15, 2020, the CPTPP advances the trade and investment liberalization agenda at a time when protectionist measures by some major trading countries are threatening to undo decades of progress. The commitments and new disciplines of the CPTPP are particularly important because of malaise infecting the World Trade Organization, where the work of the Appellate Body has now ground to a halt because of actions by the United States, and to offset the negative impact of the U.S.-China trade war now underway.
Topic:
Government, International Trade and Finance, Partnerships, and Trade
Political Geography:
China, Canada, Taiwan, North America, and United States of America

18. Canada’s Historical Search for Trade Markets

Author:
David J. Bercuson
Publication Date:
08-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Canadian Global Affairs Institute (CGAI)
Abstract:
When U.S. President Donald Trump was elected in 2016 on a promise to cancel the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Canada risked losing the free-trade regime that it had enjoyed with the U.S. since the original U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement took effect in 1989. Those who came to Canada’s rescue, by persuading the Trump administration to eventually make a new deal, the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement, were Canada’s trading partners in the United States, whose interests were threatened: Nearly two-thirds of U.S. states now have Canada as their most important trading partner. This was indicative of a long-term trade pattern of an ever-increasing closeness in trade between the U.S. and Canada. It is a pattern that started since before Confederation and in spite of not a few attempts in Canada to diversify exports away from the U.S. However, that simply cannot happen in any meaningful way: The 170-year-old pattern of Canada-U.S. trade is now so permanent as to be utterly irreversible. Since the decision by Britain to end tariff preferences for its colonies in the mid-19th century, Canada has naturally sought to penetrate the U.S. market for its exports. The desire has not always been mutual: American protectionism has, at times, hampered the export of Canadian products to the U.S., although tariff barriers have failed to stop what is a seemingly natural and, in many ways, necessary north-south flow of goods and services. Even Canadian attempts to reorient its own trade emphasis to enhance domestic east-west trade, or to expand into countries beyond the United States have made little difference. The trading relationship between Canada and the U.S. has endured through wars and in peacetime, through Republican administrations and Democratic ones. It will only continue to grow. Fantasizing about some markedly different trading future is therefore a waste of Canada’s time and energy, which should instead be expended on further penetrating the American marketplace and solidifying ties with state and local governments, local manufacturing associations, Congress and new industries. Canada should take advantage of its new trade deal with the U.S. to integrate the Canadian economy as fully into that of the U.S. as possible. There may be others like President Trump or some like him in Canada, who try to disrupt the trade relationship. That even Trump eventually was persuaded to agree to free trade with Canada is evidence, however, that an ever-closer trading relationship is simply a reality that cannot be stopped.
Topic:
Markets, History, Trade, and Donald Trump
Political Geography:
Canada, North America, and United States of America

19. Russia in Africa: Is Great Power Competition Returning to the Continent?

Author:
Agnieszka Paczyńska
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
Since 2014 Russian economic, political and security engagement in Africa has grown significantly. This policy brief analyses the motives and recent changes in Russia's Africa policy, and discusses implications for German and European cooperation with Africa.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, International Cooperation, Power Politics, Investment, and Trade
Political Geography:
Africa, Russia, China, and United States of America

20. Economic Diplomacy in the 21st Century: Principles and Challenges

Author:
Linda Yueh
Publication Date:
08-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
LSE IDEAS
Abstract:
Economic diplomacy in the 21st century will face a different set of challenges stemming from the changed global economy, US-China tensions, as well as a backlash against globalisation, among others. Therefore, the conduct of economic diplomacy, i.e., how a country manages its foreign economic relations including trade and investment, must adapt. The framework for economic diplomacy should seek to balance commercial openness with strategic foreign policy aims, broadly defined. It should situate a country within the 21st century global economy with its new drivers, promote a rules-based system in order to mitigate Great Power tensions, and recognise that all foreign economic policy is ultimately also domestic. There is no one general approach but there are several principles, each with their own challenges, for governments to consider, which is set out in this Strategic Update.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Investment, Trade, and Economic Diplomacy
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

21. Britain's No-Deal Debacle? The Costs at Home and Likely Setbacks Abroad

Author:
John Ryan
Publication Date:
10-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
LSE IDEAS
Abstract:
For much of the past four years, and increasingly in the past few months, the United Kingdom has drifted in the direction of a No-Deal Brexit. In this Strategic Update, John Ryan explores the economic and political consequences for the United Kingdom of such a situation, as well as the domestic factors in Ireland and the United States that may provide unanticipated problems for the Johnson government.
Topic:
Economics, Government, Politics, Brexit, and Trade
Political Geography:
Britain, United Kingdom, Europe, Ireland, and United States of America

22. The Effects of US Sectoral Shocks through the World Input-Output Network

Author:
Minsoo Han
Publication Date:
12-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)
Abstract:
In this paper, I estimate the global effects of hypothetical 1% changes in US sectoral productivity. To do that, I formulate a multi-sector Armington trade model with import tariffs, trade in intermediate goods, sectoral heterogeneity, and input-output linkages. Because a closed form for changes in welfare is not available in the model, as opposed to Ossa (2015), I solve for equilibrium to conduct the counterfactual exercises. In particular, knowing that the gravity equations in this model are identical to Caliendo and Parro (2015) once we calibrate the trade elasticity and industry level productivity to the corresponding data, I modify their computation approach to estimate the counterfactual productivity changes. The model predicts that the primary channel through which the sectoral shocks affect welfare is terms of trade. I also find that both US productivity’s direct effect and effects through export prices are substantial for countries such as the US, Canada, Chile, and Mexico. On the other hand, changes in volume of trade are small and their directions of changes are also mixed across countries.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, Economic Policy, and Trade
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

23. The Embrace Between a Russian Bear and the Panda Bear. An Emerging Sino-Russian Axis

Author:
Jens Bastian
Publication Date:
06-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP)
Abstract:
During a three-day official visit to Moscow in June 2019 the Chinese President Xi Jinping described Russia’s Vladimir Putin as his “best friend”. While China-US relations are deteriorating over bitter trade disputes, the imposition of tit-for-tat tariffs and intellectual property rights, the Sino-Russian partnership is evolving and deepening in areas such as security and defense, bilateral energy cooperation as well as the Kremlin’s expanding participation in China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Both Beijing and Moscow are building an alliance shaped by shared grievances and based on mutual strategic convenience. Against this background the following report argues that the strategic realignment underway between the Kremlin and Beijing is not one of equal partners. Status matters between the leadership of both countries. Moscow cannot compete with China’s sweeping investment efforts and infrastructure projects in the context of the BRI. What is increasingly emerging in this relationship is a junior role for Moscow and senior status for Beijing. The trade balance is heavily tilted in China’s favor. Chinese banks are key lenders to Russia. The energy cooperation is defined by China being able to command prices from Russia below market rates. Most importantly, China’s BRI is a multi-decade vision, spacing continents and backed up by sheer unlimited financial resources which Russia cannot even contemplate to match. With Russia and China strengthening their cooperation across policy fields, individual countries and sub-regions in continental Europe are faced with new and challenging strategic choices. As Moscow consolidates its economic footprint in Serbia and Montenegro, Beijing expands its presence across Central and Eastern Europe in the context of the 17+1 network. Policy makers are thus faced with daunting options. Some see Beijing as the more promising alternative, while others are tempted to seeking accommodation with both Russia and China.
Topic:
Security, International Cooperation, Bilateral Relations, Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Trade, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Russia, China, and United States of America

24. US-China Trade Tensions: Impact on Mexico | Estados Unidos-China Tensiones Comerciales: Impacto en Mexico

Author:
COMEXI
Publication Date:
06-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Mexican Council on Foreign Relations (COMEXI)
Abstract:
For the mid- or long-term, no country in the world—and much less Mexico—benefits from a strained environment in which there is no adherence to international trade rules. However, for the short-term, a strained trade environment produces adjustments to the supply chains, which could benefit competitors of those economies that are currently in conflict. Mexico, the second supplier of the United States only behind China, could reassert its position as a credible competitor of the Asian economy in the US. Likewise, in the context of trade friction, or even just the threat of a conflict, Mexico could strengthen its trade positioning in China by replacing part of the US offering. /// En el mediano o largo plazo, a ningún país del mundo, y menos a México, le conviene que exista un clima de tensiones donde no se respeten las reglas del comercio internacional. Ahora bien, en el corto plazo, el clima de tensiones comerciales genera ajustes en las cadenas de suministro, lo cual puede beneficiar a los competidores de las economías en conflicto. México, el segundo proveedor de Estados Unidos sólo después de China, puede reafirmar su posición como competidor creíble de la economía asiática en Estados Unidos, así como fortalecer su posición comercial en China, al sustituir parte de la oferta estadounidense, en un contexto de fricciones comerciales o su amenaza.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Economy, Economic Growth, Trade Wars, Exports, and Trade
Political Geography:
China, Mexico, and United States of America

25. Did Trump's Trade War Impact the 2018 Election?

Author:
Emily Blanchard, Chad P. Bown, and Davin Chor
Publication Date:
12-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics
Abstract:
Republican candidates lost support in the 2018 congressional election in counties more exposed to trade retaliation but saw no commensurate electoral gains from US tariff protection. The electoral losses were driven by retaliatory tariffs on agricultural products and were only partially mitigated by the US agricultural subsidies announced in summer 2018. Republicans also fared worse in counties that had seen recent gains in health insurance coverage, affirming the importance of health care as an election issue. A counterfactual calculation suggests that the trade war and health care can account for five and eight of Republicans' lost House seats, respectively.
Topic:
Politics, Elections, Trade Wars, Trade, and Donald Trump
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

26. WTO'ing a Resolution to the China Subsidy Problem

Author:
Chad P. Bown and Jennifer A. Hillman
Publication Date:
10-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics
Abstract:
The United States, the European Union, and Japan have begun a trilateral process to confront the Chinese economic model, including its use of industrial subsidies and deployment of state-owned enterprises. This paper seeks to identify the main areas of tension and to assess the legal-economic challenges to constructing new rules to address the underlying conflict. It first provides a brief history of subsidy disciplines in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the World Trade Organization (WTO) predating any concerns introduced by China. It then describes contemporary economic problems with China’s approach to subsidies, their impact, and the apparent ineffectiveness of the WTO’s Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures to address them. Finally, it calls for increased efforts to measure and pinpoint the source of the problems—in a manner analogous to how the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development took on agricultural subsidies in the 1980s—before providing a legal-economic assessment of proposals for reforms to notifications, evidence, remedies, enforcement, and the definition of a subsidy.
Topic:
Economics, World Trade Organization, Tariffs, and Trade
Political Geography:
Japan, Europe, Asia, North America, United States of America, and European Union

27. Protectionism under Trump: The China Shock, Intolerance, and the "First White President"

Author:
Marcus Noland
Publication Date:
06-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics
Abstract:
In 2016, the United States elected an avowedly protectionist president. This paper uses US county-level electoral data to examine this outcome. The hypothesis that support for protectionism was purely a response to globalization is rejected. Exposure to trade competition encouraged a shift to the Republican candidate, but this effect is mediated by race, diversity, education, and age. If the turn toward protectionism is due to economic dislocation, then public policy interventions could mitigate the impact and support the reestablishment of a political consensus for open trade. If, however, the drivers are identity or cultural values, then the scope for constructive policy intervention is unclear.
Topic:
Economy, Trade, Donald Trump, and Protectionism
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

28. Trade in Trouble: How the Asia Pacific Can Step Up and Lead Reforms

Author:
Wendy Cutler, Peter Grey, Kim Jong-Hoon, Mari Pangestu, Yoichi Sozuki, and Tu Xinquan
Publication Date:
05-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Asia Society
Abstract:
The U.S.-China trade dispute has dominated headlines over the past year, disrupting trade and investment flows and increasing uncertainty at a time when the global economy is already facing headwinds. The conflict has left many countries in the Asia Pacific feeling caught in the crossfire seeking to navigate the tensions without alienating either country. While the World Trade Organization (WTO) would ideally help reduce the frictions, it has not been up to the task. The paralysis at the WTO points to a deeper problem: it’s inability to keep up with the pace of change or address the challenges of new developments in advanced technologies and the digital economy. Simply put, the trade regime is in trouble and in need of reform. At this dynamic and uncertain time in trade, the Asia Society Policy Institute (ASPI) convened a group of leading trade experts and former trade officials from across the Asia Pacific, led by ASPI Vice President Wendy Cutler. In this issue paper, the authors examine the major developments in the international trading system, including the U.S.-China trade dispute, FTA activity in the Asia Pacific, and efforts to reform the WTO. In this challenging environment, the authors find that the Asia Pacific is uniquely well-positioned to lead reforms to get the system back on track. This paper is the latest product of the ASPI initiative, “Building a High Standard and Inclusive Asia-Pacific Trade Architecture.” It builds on the work of two previous reports published in March 2017 and January 2018.
Topic:
Economy, Trade Wars, Trade, and WTO
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

29. Advancing the U.S.-Korea Economic Agenda

Author:
Wendy Cutler and Hyemin Lee
Publication Date:
01-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Asia Society
Abstract:
For nearly 70 years, the United States-Republic of Korea alliance has remained strong, built mainly on shared strategic and national security interests. While the North Korean nuclear threat has long dominated political discussions and media headlines, the economic pillar of the relationship is no less important. With amendments to the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS) now in place, it is an opportune time for both countries to look beyond KORUS and expand their bilateral economic engagement to new and evolving areas. This closer cooperation can serve as an engine for growth in a slowing Korean economy, as an opportunity for job creation in the United States, and as a vehicle for jointly writing the rules for the technologies of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. As policymakers in Washington and Seoul look to the future, the Asia Society Policy Institute (ASPI) charts a possible path forward in its newest issue paper, Advancing the U.S.-Korea Economic Agenda. This paper presents a range of concrete actions that the United States and South Korea can take to advance and strengthen their bilateral economic relationship in the areas of trade and investment, energy, digital economy and advanced technologies, infrastructure, and women’s economic empowerment. The recommendations included in this paper are based partly on two roundtables ASPI organized with South Korean and American experts in Seoul in June 2018, with support from the Korea Institute for International Economic Policy, and in Washington, D.C., in October 2018. The ideas are also based on discussions with government officials, business leaders, and think tank experts.
Topic:
National Security, Treaties and Agreements, Bilateral Relations, Alliance, and Trade
Political Geography:
Asia, South Korea, North America, and United States of America

30. Insights into China’s Developing Country Status

Author:
Tao Ma
Publication Date:
10-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Abstract:
As the international status of China as a rising power has been growing rapidly in the past 40 years, along with remarkable achievements in economic growth, China’s developing country status has been questioned by some Western developed countries. In January 2019, the US submitted to the WTO General Council the proposal An Undifferentiated WTO: Self-Declared Development Status Risks Institutional Irrelevance (WT/GC/W/757), presenting data arguing that China and some other developing countries had advanced to such an extent that they should be limited from being eligible for special and differential treatment and should give up their developing country status. During the WTO General Council meeting at the end of February, China and other developing countries hotly debated this issue with the US. China insisted that developing countries were confronted with mounting external tensions and their legitimate rights and interests in some international organizations and agreements had been constantly challenged. Against this background, it is critical to clarify China’s ongoing status as a developing country. Only after the real divide between China and developed countries has been clarified can China’s status as a developing country be secured.
Topic:
Development, Economics, and Trade
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and United States of America

31. US-Southeast Asia Trade is Increasing, but so are Deficits

Author:
Malcolm Cook
Publication Date:
10-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
Conventional narratives are either supported by facts or overcome them. Recent increased trade flows between the US and the ten economies of Southeast Asia suggest that the predominant narrative of the commercial displacement of the United States by China in Southeast Asia is incorrect. However, the United States’s growing trade deficits and shrinking surpluses with Southeast Asia do bolster an American mercantilist narrative that bilateral deficits are an economic loss for the US caused by Southeast Asian governments’ unfair trade policies.
Topic:
Global Markets, Economy, Trade, and Deficit
Political Geography:
Asia, Southeast Asia, and United States of America

32. Petro Dollar. Petro Yuan. Petro Rupee?

Author:
Amit Bhandari
Publication Date:
08-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations
Abstract:
Over the last two decades, every component of the global energy scenario has changed: demand, supply and energy-type. The only constant has been the U.S. Dollar as the currency of energy trade. Lately, the Chinese Yuan has emerged to challenge the Dollar. Can the Indian Rupee be a third player? India is now the world’s third-largest consumer and second-largest importer of energy. Its open market, transparent regulation and growing demand give it an opportunity to become the hub of a vibrant new oil market, simultaneously ensuring its energy security and raising the international profile of the Rupee. This paper explores the possibility the Rupee could be the third currency in which energy is traded, and the challenges and opportunities it presents.
Topic:
Security, Energy Policy, Markets, Oil, Currency, and Trade
Political Geography:
China, South Asia, India, Asia, North America, and United States of America

33. The Development of U.S.-China Trade and the Result of Conflict

Author:
Ma Tao
Publication Date:
06-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Abstract:
The very success of globalization has flourished since World War II. The benefits of economic globalization are not evenly distributed among countries, especially among different groups within a country. Before the financial crisis in 2008, as the major promotors of globalization, developed countries intensified their internal contradictions. So populism, protectionism and isolationism are rising in many developed countries, which are the main features of anti-globalization. Brexit happened against the polls in 2016, in large part, because of the migrant crisis tipping the British towards protection of its borders. In the beginning of his presidency, Donald Trump declared to withdraw from TPP, build Mexican border wall, renegotiate NAFTA and so on. Trump’s protectionism policies may be gradually implemented in 2017. Going on like these, the tide of anti-globalization may be further strengthened in the future.
Topic:
Globalization, Bilateral Relations, Foreign Direct Investment, Trade Wars, and Trade
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

34. U.S.-China Trade Imbalance and the Results of Trade Conflict

Author:
Ma Tao
Publication Date:
04-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Abstract:
The very success of globalization has flourished since World War II. The benefits of economic globalization are not evenly distributed among countries, especially among different groups within a country. Before the financial crisis in 2008, as the major promotors of globalization, developed countries intensified their internal contradictions. So populism, protectionism and isolationism are rising in many developed countries, which are the main features of anti-globalization. Brexit happened against the polls in 2016, in large part, because of the migrant crisis tipping the British towards protection of its borders. In the beginning of his presidency, Donald Trump declared to withdraw from TPP, build Mexican border wall, renegotiate NAFTA and so on. Trump’s protectionism policies may be gradually implemented in 2017. Going on like these, the tide of anti-globalization may be further strengthened in the future.
Topic:
Globalization, Economy, Trade, and Protectionism
Political Geography:
China, Asia, United States of America, and North America

35. Who Can Win the Possible China-US Trade War?

Author:
Li Chunding
Publication Date:
03-2018
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:
Bilateral Relations, Trade Wars, and Trade
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

36. The Security Dimension of a China Free Trade Agreement: Balancing Benefits and Risk

Author:
Gordon Houlden
Publication Date:
08-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Canadian Global Affairs Institute (CGAI)
Abstract:
In 2017, Canada engaged in several rounds of exploratory discussions for a potential free trade agreement (FTA) with the People’s Republic of China. It seemed probable that this exploratory phase would be followed by the opening of formal rounds of negotiations, to be announced during Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s visit to China in December 2017. An FTA appeared to be a priority for Trudeau since his government came into office in 2015 (Global Affairs Canada, 2017a; Lu, 2017; PMO, 2017); however, such negotiations were put on hold indefinitely, ostensibly due to irreconcilable differences on gender and labour issues. Despite this setback, it is likely that the Canadian government will continue to explore this option in the coming years, particularly with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in jeopardy. While there are many potential benefits of a Canada-China free trade agreement (CCFTA), there are also significant national security implications that will deserve particular attention. The security dimension will be the focus of this paper. Prospective CCFTA negotiations with China would be both complex and time consuming, in part due to the wide divergences between the Canadian and Chinese economies, as well as differences between Canadian and Chinese administrative and legal systems. Negotiations could therefore take several years to conclude, and might not be finished until well after the 2019 federal election. It took a full decade to sign and ratify the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement (ChAFTA), although it appears that the most difficult portion of the negotiations was wrapped up in the final two years. It is unlikely that a CCFTA will move as slowly as the Australian FTA did, in part because of the established Australian precedent and because of China’s increasing familiarity with FTA negotiations that involve advanced economies. For this reason, Canada would benefit from approaching a CCFTA after Australia, but before many other Western countries. Chinese and Canadian negotiators will be consumed with elaborating the principles of each side’s responsive FTA approaches, as well as the myriad of details involving thousands of products and services that a CCFTA’s provisions would affect. Canadian negotiators will seek a high-quality FTA that covers a large percentage of our export and import products with China, as well as an agreement that covers all key sectors and industries. There is also likely to be a Canadian focus on addressing China’s use of non-tariff barriers to trade which currently inhibit Canadian firms from taking full advantage of the massive China market. Such measures include the Chinese Ministry of Health’s 2013 changes to food safety standards which required all imported food products to list detailed nutritional components in Chinese. Procedural barriers such as this represent a significant hurdle for Canadian firms, and cause uncertainty among international exporters that want to break into the Chinese domestic market. In theory, the centralized Chinese economy lacks the regional complexity of the Canadian federal state, characterized by sub-national units, but in reality, China’s provinces and municipalities can, and often do, impose barriers to foreign imports, often to protect market share for local substantive industries. To date, China has FTAs with only a handful of developed countries. Australia, Korea, Switzerland, Iceland, Singapore and New Zealand currently have bilateral FTAs with China, and several others, such as Norway and Israel, are in FTA negotiations. China is also floating ideas for FTAs with developing countries, including India. China is far more trade-dependent than the United States, although by comparison China is not nearly as trade-dependent as Canada is.1 The balance of trade is currently in China’s favour: China exports US$46 billion to Canada, versus the US$16 billion that it imports from Canada (MIT, 2016a). However, it is important to note that China’s exports to Canada account for only 2.2 per cent of China’s total merchandise exports (MIT, 2016b).
Topic:
Security, Intellectual Property/Copyright, Free Trade, and Trade
Political Geography:
China, Canada, Asia, and United States of America

37. What Determined 2015 TPA Voting Pattern?: The Role of Trade Negotiating Objectives

Author:
Yeo Joon Yoon and Woong Lee
Publication Date:
12-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)
Abstract:
This paper analyzes 2015-TPA voting patterns in the Congress in the context of the trade negotiating objectives. By setting the trade negotiating objectives, the Congress lays out important trade agenda that the Administration is ex-pected to address when it is negotiating trade deals with foreign countries. Therefore setting the objectives is subject of heated debates in the Congress and an important part of TPA. LPM and probit models are used to evaluate the importance of each trade negotiating objectives in 2015-TPA voting deci-sions. It turns out that the objective on promoting U.S. agricultural exports by reducing unfair trade barriers positively affected the voting decision in favor of the TPA. The objective on enforcing strong labor standards on trade partners also had significant impacts. One other notable result is that how much each congressional region export to China was also an important de-terminant. This variable is meant to capture several negotiating objectives as well as growing worries of large trade deficits with China. This study docu-ments important issues that U.S. Congress is concerned about in making conducting and implementing trade policies. It may provide insights into the future course of U.S. trade policy and trade deals such as renegotiation of NAFTA and Korea-US FTA.
Topic:
Treaties and Agreements, NAFTA, Voting, and Trade
Political Geography:
Asia, South Korea, North America, and United States of America

38. What Should Canada’s Aims be in Any Renegotiation of NAFTA? (Win)

Author:
Sarah Goldfeder
Publication Date:
05-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Canadian Global Affairs Institute (CGAI)
Abstract:
On Jan. 23, the first Monday after being sworn in as president of the United States, Donald Trump signed a presidential memorandum that laid the groundwork for exiting the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The TPP was the elegant solution to a host of hold-over irritants from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) as well as a way to address wholly new issues of trade and commerce. In the wake of this decision, Trump also promised a wholesale reworking of NAFTA, in which everything would be on the table. In the days since, the Trump trade team has been off to a rocky start. Finally, after months of discussion, the notification incumbent for use of the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) was provided to Congressional leaders on May 18, 2017. Mexico has taken it all in stride, as it took almost immediate advantage of the blusterous U.S. rhetoric to outline its demands for any NAFTA discussion. Canada meanwhile plays the sphinx, open about its willingness to negotiate, but not much else. The U.S. may find that it’s less ready for this round of negotiations than it wanted to be, but its partners are well placed to unite and drive a hard bargain.
Topic:
NAFTA, Trans-Pacific Partnership, Trade, and Donald Trump
Political Geography:
Canada, North America, and United States of America

39. The Border/Perimeter Security Agenda in the Age of Trump: A Coping Strategy for Canada

Author:
Brian Bow
Publication Date:
09-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Canadian Global Affairs Institute (CGAI)
Abstract:
The security perimeter agenda is buried, but it’s not dead. U.S. President Donald Trump’s attitudes toward trade, immigration and international institutions make it difficult to work with his administration and may get Canadians thinking about looking for new international partners. At least in the short run, however, Canada has no choice but to try to maintain its bilateral relationship with the U.S., and a crucial part of that relationship is the ongoing effort to make the border more secure and efficient. Significant progress has been made on some of the key policy co-ordination challenges – travel, shipping, border infrastructure and law enforcement co-operation – but there is still a lot of work to be done. Given the priorities and problems of the Trump administration, Canada’s best bet is probably to try to work around the White House on these issues, engaging with other players in the U.S., like bureaucratic agencies, members of Congress, and state and local governments. The focus should be on finding and supporting transgovernmental (state) and transnational (society) allies in the U.S., and Ottawa’s approach should be low key, patient, problem-solving and opportunistic. The most urgent concern is to anticipate and prevent policy changes in the U.S. that might disrupt existing arrangements, but Canadian officials should also continue to look for ways to improve bilateral co-operation on border/perimeter security issues.
Topic:
Security, Immigration, Trade, Donald Trump, and International Institutions
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

40. After the TPP: What’s Next for Canada in Asia?

Author:
Hugh Stephens
Publication Date:
04-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Canadian Global Affairs Institute (CGAI)
Abstract:
The Trump administration’s arrival has scrambled the cards in the trade policy world. Not only will the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) be reopened with uncertain results, but President Donald Trump has scuttled the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) by announcing the United States’ withdrawal from the agreement. Canada, originally cool toward the TPP, pushed hard to be included in it. The TPP became the centrepiece of Canada’s Asia trade strategy, notwithstanding some public ambivalence on the part of the Trudeau government. With the TPP in its present form now in limbo, Canada still has options in Asia. First, it can keep an open mind with regard to the possible reconstitution of the TPP in another form, such as “TPP Minus One” (i.e., minus the U.S.). It should also push to reopen the bilateral negotiations with Japan that were suspended when that country joined the TPP negotiations. Canada is already exploring the possibility of an economic partnership agreement with China, perhaps on a sectoral basis, and simultaneously, it should actively pursue negotiation of a free trade agreement with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) community. This could in time provide Canada access to the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (RCEP) currently being negotiated among 16 countries in the Asia-Pacific region and would position Canada well in the eventuality that a Free Trade Area of Asia-Pacific (FTAAP) emerges. In the meantime, uncertainty regarding NAFTA’s future needs to be addressed. This uncertainty makes it more difficult for Canada to attract Asian investment but it also provides further impetus for Canada to diversify its trading relationships and to explore stronger relationships with Asian economies.
Topic:
International Affairs, NAFTA, Trans-Pacific Partnership, and Trade
Political Geography:
China, Canada, Asia, United States of America, and North America

41. After America, Canada’s Moment?

Author:
Ian Brodie
Publication Date:
02-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Canadian Global Affairs Institute (CGAI)
Abstract:
The last decade has seen serious setbacks to the global role of the United States. Iraq, Afghanistan and the 2008 economic crisis provoked deep partisan debates about American policy but little in the way of consensus on how to respond. Meanwhile, America’s rivals have gained strength and a new south-south economy of investment and trade has emerged. There is little disagreement that the U.S. has lost its relative power to influence developments around the world. Is this Canada’s moment to extend our global influence? Canada’s privileged geography gives us freedom to choose where and how to engage beyond North America. We have opportunities across the Atlantic and across the Pacific, as evidenced by our simultaneous negotiations at the CETA and TPP tables. But freedom of choice means we have trouble committing to relationships beyond North America. Unlike, say, Australia, which must engage in the Pacific, we face no natural imperative to be “all in” in Asia. Moreover, even though Canada does not have a history as a colonial power, we are often ambivalent about engaging with the new global south. We prefer to deal with emerging economic powers through clubs we already belong to - the G-20, the Commonwealth and the Francophonie. But as south-south institutions displace the influence of the “world America made”, the room for Canada to exercise global influence has declined. We were once welcome as a dependable joiner of international clubs, but we are having trouble joining newer, more dynamic clubs like the Pacific Alliance.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Military Affairs, Geopolitics, Economy, and Trade
Political Geography:
Canada, North America, and United States of America

42. Is Port Security Funding Making Us Safer?

Author:
Veronique de Rugy
Publication Date:
11-2007
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
The most terrifying security threat to security experts and the public alike is nuclear proliferation. Once the figment of Hollywood imagination, the ultimate nightmare scenario that is dis- cussed by some as inevitable is the detonation of a nuclear device on American soil. The majority of experts believe that the most likely way weapons of mass destruction (WMD) would enter the United States is by sea, hence a focus on port security.1 Ports offer terrorists vast opportunities to inflict damages. As the primary mode of transpor- tation for world trade goods, maritime commerce is essential to America’s economic vital- ity.2 Every year approximately nine million cargo containers—26,000 a day—arrive at U.S. ports from all over the world.3 The U.S. maritime system includes more than 361 sea and river ports with more than 3,700 cargo and passenger terminals and more than 1,000 harbor channels along thousands of miles of coastline.4 In FY 2007, President Bush requested $2.3 billion for port security out of a $57 billion government-wide budget for homeland security.5 However, the important question is not how much money is spent but rather whether the money is allocated toward the most cost- effective programs. In other words, is America getting the maximum level of protection in exchange for our tax dollars? A close look at port security allocation decisions indicates that spending occurs without regard for risk analysis let alone cost-benefit analysis, leading to a large array of misallocated spending. For instance, what should be the highest priorities—preventing terrorists from acquiring nuclear devices and material—receive less money than much less cost-effective policies such as nuclear detection in the ports or post-disaster response activities.
Topic:
Security, Maritime, Trade, and Port
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America