Search

Begin New Search Political Geography United States of America Publication Year within 3 Years Publication Year within 10 Years

61. Gaza: Israel’s Unwinnable War

Author:
Richard Silverstein
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Cairo Review of Global Affairs
Institution:
School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, American University in Cairo
Abstract:
Even if, for argument’s sake, it achieved its war goals, Palestinian resistance will exist wherever there are Palestinians—whether in Sinai, Beirut, Ankara, Tehran or Amman
Topic:
Israel Defense Forces (IDF), Axis of Resistance, 2023 Gaza War, and AIPAC
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, Palestine, Gaza, and United States of America

62. Why Trump's tariff proposals would harm working Americans

Author:
Kimberly Clausing and Mary Lovely
Publication Date:
05-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics
Abstract:
At the beginning of its history, the United States relied on tariffs—taxes on imported goods—as its major source of government revenue. That changed starting in the early 20th century, with the enactment of the federal income tax and the advent of a new consensus recognizing tariffs as regressive, burdening the working class while leaving untaxed much of the income accruing to the wealthy. At present, less than 2 percent of government revenue in high-income countries comes from import taxes. Today, however, the United States may be on the cusp of reverting to an antiquated approach to funding its government. Presidential candidate Donald Trump is proposing to reduce US reliance on income taxes while increasing our reliance on import tariffs. He proposes extending expiring tax cuts from 2017 and has also suggested possible new rounds of tax cuts. At the same time, he has proposed a ten percent "across-the-board" tariff and a 60 percent or more tariff on imports from China. Together, these policy steps would amount to regressive tax cuts, only partially paid for by regressive tax increases. The tariffs would reduce after-tax incomes by 3.5 percent for those in the bottom half of the income distribution and cost a typical household in the middle of the income distribution about $1,700 in increased taxes each year. If executed, these steps would increase the distortions and burdens created by the rounds of tariffs levied during the first Trump administration (and sustained during the Biden administration), while inflicting massive collateral damage on the US economy. This Policy Brief leverages recent research to provide approximate calculations for the cost of the higher proposed tariffs to US consumers, considering the distribution of these costs across US households and the consequences for US federal revenues. In sum, Trump's tax proposals entail sharply regressive tax policy changes, shifting tax burdens away from the well-off and toward lower-income members of society while harming US workers and industries, inviting retaliation from trading partners, and worsening international relations.
Topic:
Elections, Tax Systems, Trade Policy, Donald Trump, and Protectionism
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

63. The influence of gasoline and food prices on consumer expectations and attitudes in the COVID era

Author:
Joanne Hsu
Publication Date:
05-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics
Abstract:
Food and gasoline prices are extremely salient to consumers, who regularly purchase these goods, and these prices are highly visible. The shared experience of purchasing food and gasoline makes it no surprise that those prices have been blamed for the relatively dismal consumer views of the economy in 2023 amid strong economic indicators, including slowing inflation, low unemployment, and robust growth. At the same time, consumer inflation expectations have eased during this past year. This Policy Brief investigates the role food and gasoline prices play in influencing consumer inflation expectations and economic sentiment, as measured on the University of Michigan Surveys of Consumers, and focuses on the COVID inflationary episode. The author finds that, although consumer sentiment now appears to be more sensitive to inflation than prior to the pandemic, inflation expectations do not. Even though inflation has waned, consumers still spontaneously comment on the negative impact of high prices on their lives. That said, these persistently negative perceptions about inflation have not translated into persistently high inflation expectations.
Topic:
Inflation, COVID-19, Consumer Behavior, and Cost of Living
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

64. Climate action: Implications for factor market reallocation

Author:
Robert Z. Lawrence
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics
Abstract:
This paper considers climate policies, not from the perspective of their environmental impacts, but rather their likely effects on labor and investments. While the aggregate impact of the green transition on jobs and investment may be modest, it will require significant reallocation of labor and capital within and across industries. Although the green transition brings new opportunities for employment and investment in renewable technologies, many workers and communities tied to the fossil fuel industry may not benefit from these advances due to skills mismatch and geographic constraints. Both the United States and the European Union acknowledge the importance of achieving “climate justice” and “leaving no one behind” in their decarbonization efforts. However, current policies and resources in the United States may fall short, with inadequate assistance reaching too many communities and a narrow focus on green jobs. In Europe, while the Just Transition Fund complements existing programs, effective implementation of place-based policies remains challenging due to the need for specific, localized responses.
Topic:
Climate Change, Environment, Labor Issues, European Union, and Energy
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

65. The effect of lawful crossing on unlawful crossing at the US southwest border

Author:
Michael A. Clemens
Publication Date:
04-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics
Abstract:
An increasing number of migrants attempt to cross the US Southwest border without obtaining a visa or any other prior authorization. 2.5 million migrants did so in 2023. In recent years, responding to this influx, US officials have expanded lawful channels for a limited number of these migrants to cross the border, but only at official ports of entry. These expanded lawful channels were intended to divert migrants away from crossing between ports of entry, by foot or across rivers, thereby reducing unlawful crossings. On the other hand, some have argued that expanding lawful entry would encourage more migrants to cross unlawfully. This study seeks to shed light on that debate by assessing the net effect of lawful channels on unlawful crossings. It considers almost 11 million migrants (men, women, and children) encountered at the border crossing the border without prior permission or authorization. Using statistical methods designed to distinguish causation from simple correlation, it finds that a policy of expanding lawful channels to cross the border by 10 percent in a given month causes a net reduction of about 3 percent in unlawful crossings several months later. Fluctuations in the constraints on lawful crossings can explain roughly 9 percent of the month-to-month variation in unlawful crossings. The data thus suggest that policies expanding access to lawful crossing can serve as a partial but substantial deterrent to unlawful crossing and that expanding access can serve as an important tool for more secure and regulated borders.
Topic:
Security, Migration, and Borders
Political Geography:
North America, Mexico, and United States of America

66. The Evolving Landscape of U.S. Economic Security: The Confluence of Trade, Technology, and National Security

Author:
Andrea Viski
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
This paper examines the current evolution of U.S. economic security discourse to demonstrate the implications, challenges, and shortcomings of U.S. economic security tools and the catalyzing impact of technology. While component economic security considerations are broad and encompass issues from natural disaster planning to cybersecurity, this paper focuses specifically on the impact of trade and technology in the economic security context. It discusses the main influences and features of U.S. economic security policy as it relates to trade, technology, and the security of the supply chain. The paper includes sections on evolving notions of the dual-use concept; the need to manage and respond to technology flows with more effective strategies, and new foreign policy efforts and tools to strengthen economic security. The paper focuses on the trends forging the path for the United States to define economic security so closely with national security, and in exploring these trends, it delineates how the United States has implemented policies and adopted, reoriented, or created new policy tools designed to strengthen economic security. The paper also explores why the rapid evolution of emerging technologies has played such a defining role. Finally, the paper examines the effectiveness of the U.S. approach to economic security and its challenges and offers insights into how it can be strengthened in the future
Topic:
National Security, Science and Technology, Trade, and Economic Security
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

67. Is Economic Security National Security? Defining South Korea’s Economic Security for Future Industries

Author:
June Park
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
This paper explores how South Korea defines “economic security.” Amidst geopolitical turbulence, the framing of this concept by governments and policy circles around the globe is reflective of the changes in the global economy post-pandemic and the ongoing war in Ukraine, two critical junctures that have revealed the geo-economic impact of weaponized interdependence. While the Biden administration has laid out U.S. policy intent to combine national security with economic security, specifically on future industries of dual-use nature ranging from chips to EVs, batteries, and generative AI, countries that are on the receiving end of policy implementation are formulating their response to the shifting geoeconomics. This paper unravels South Korea’s framing of economic security and policy response by analyzing legislation on future industries that is critical to the country’s economic growth and standing and the concerted efforts by the state bureaucracy and industry in shaping the concept. The paper draws specifically upon semiconductors in addition to other future industries that are central to the South Korean economy and related legislation in the South Korean National Assembly. It argues that South Korea’s policy response and framing of its economic security has more to do with the protection of industries for the future amid geopolitical turbulence and the reshuffling of global supply chains than traditional security issues related to the U.S.-ROK alliance. Moreover, public anxiety on the pressures toward U.S.-driven trilateral cooperation reveals concerns on a possible backlash from China and the lagging potential of Japan in future industries.
Topic:
National Security, Geopolitics, Industry, and Economic Security
Political Geography:
Asia, South Korea, and United States of America

68. South Korea: Caught in the Crosshairs of U.S.−China Competition Over Semiconductors

Author:
Paul Triolo
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
This paper explores how countries with advanced semiconductor industries are caught in the middle of the growing U.S.-China competition in technology that is focused on advanced computing. Among them, South Korea and its national champions, Samsung and SK Hynix, have arguably incurred some of the most significant pressure. This paper explores how those firms have billions of dollars of sunk investment in China-based facilities producing cutting-edge memory, and the future of these facilities remains in doubt after a series of U.S. export control measures unleashed by the U.S. Commerce Department starting in October 2022. South Korean companies are also players in other parts of the global semiconductor supply chain, including semiconductor manufacturing tools, and China remains an important market for both components and electronic devices. This paper argues that each country caught between the United States and China in technology competition faces difficult trade-offs in determining how best to support its leading companies while navigating changing and often what is viewed as arbitrary decisions coming from Washington that have already significantly disrupted global supply chains. Finally, at the same time as U.S. export controls are having a major impact on the ability of South Korean companies to retain business operations and market access in China, major front-end manufacturers, particularly Samsung, are also looking to expand their operations in the United States and benefit from U.S. CHIPS Act funding. This paper argues that all of the above dynamics put South Korea in one of the more complex positions as the industry faces continued restructuring, buffeted by both export controls and industrial policies.
Topic:
Supply Chains, Economic Security, Semiconductors, and Economic Competition
Political Geography:
China, Asia, South Korea, and United States of America

69. Economic Security and U.S.-China Competition: The View from North Korea

Author:
Rachel Minyoung Lee
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
This paper argues that while North Korea does not discuss “economic security” in domestic contexts or have an established definition of the term, it thoroughly understands that the economy and national security are inseparable. North Korea is essentially unaffected by the typical economic issues that many major economies are grappling with in relation to economic security, but like other countries, it has closely tracked economic security developments and deepening U.S.-China strategic competition for potential political fallout and what opportunities and challenges that may generate. The paper shows that U.S.-China strategic competition has offered unique opportunities to North Korea, including China’s cover against fresh and existing sanctions against North Korea, and economic assistance. Moreover, deteriorating U.S.-China ties provide Pyongyang extra space to consider and put into motion alternative foreign and economic policy paths, namely, shifting away from its three-decade policy of nonalignment with China and normalization of relations with the United States. Also, China appears to be a factor in North Korea’s shift to a more conservative economic policy. Despite the opportunities presented by the U.S.-China divide, however, North Korea is wary of the risks of dependence on China and has tried to build economic resilience at home, for example by launching a national campaign on domestic production and recycling. North Korea’s somewhat cooler handling of China and its proportionately warm treatment of Russia since the Armistice Day celebrations in July is a clear example of North Korea’s China dilemma. This is where North Korea’s recent strengthening of ties with Russia comes into the picture. The paper contends that it is hard to conclude at this point whether North Korea’s moves are aimed at short-term, tactical gains or are part of a longer-term, strategic calculus, but we can be certain of this: it has just as much to gain or lose as any other country affected by economic security and U.S.-China strategic competition, though not in the same ways as other countries.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Strategic Competition, and Economic Security
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North Korea, and United States of America

70. Requirements for nuclear deterrence and arms control in a two-nuclear-peer environment

Author:
Gregory Weaver and Amy Woolf
Publication Date:
02-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
After decades of seeking to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in international relations, the United States is now grappling with a global landscape marked by intense strategic competition and the growing salience of nuclear weapons—problems that will likely persist for years to come. Over the past year, Russia compounded its aggression in Ukraine with nuclear saber-rattling, modernizing and expanding its nuclear forces over the past decade. Furthermore, Russia’s possession of a substantial inventory of theater nuclear weapons continues to threaten regional deterrence. Meanwhile, in Asia, Beijing is pursuing an unprecedented surge in its nuclear capabilities. If current trends persist, China is projected to possess about 1,500 nuclear warheads by 2035.1 While China was once viewed as a secondary nuclear power, its substantial investment in its nuclear arsenal—including the launch of a third ballistic missile early-warning satellite in 2022 and advancements in land-based ballistic missiles, aircraft, submarines, and hypersonic missiles—positions China to become a near-equal nuclear power in the coming decade. These trends mark a historic shift. For the first time in its history, the United States must face two near-peer nuclear competitors simultaneously. At the same time, Russia’s suspension of its compliance with the New START agreement in 2023 has significantly weakened the last strategic arms control framework established in the Cold War and post-Cold War eras. This move leaves scant provisions governing the future of nuclear capabilities among the United States and its adversaries. For over half a century, Washington and Moscow negotiated to establish treaties that imposed limits on their nuclear arsenals, aiming to manage their nuclear rivalry and mitigate the risk of nuclear conflict. This process served the national security interests of both sides by curbing weapons and activities that could jeopardize deterrence, safeguarding strategic stability, offering insights into nuclear capacities, and potentially steering military competition toward less perilous avenues. However, shifts in the global security landscape have altered this calculus. The Russian Federation, much like the Soviet Union before it, has insisted that future agreements factor in the nuclear capabilities of Britain and France. On the other hand, the United States now confronts a security environment featuring two nuclear-armed adversaries—Russia and China—whose forces will potentially pose significant threats to the United States and its allies. This evolving security landscape may prompt the United States to reevaluate its assessments of its deterrence and arms control requirements. But how should the United States approach this problem?
Topic:
Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, National Security, Nuclear Weapons, Science and Technology, and Deterrence
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Asia, Korea, and United States of America

71. Redefining US strategy with Latin America and the Caribbean for a new era

Author:
Jason Marczak, Maria Fernanda Bozmoski, and Matthew Kroenig
Publication Date:
02-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
The strategic interest of the United States and the countries of Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) lies in strengthening their western hemisphere partnership. Shared borders, economic interests, and security alliances bind these nations, along with a common goal for prosperity. However, the perception of waning US interest and the rise of external influences necessitate the rejuvenation of and renewed focus on this partnership. In May 2023, the Atlantic Council’s Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center and the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security established the US-LAC Future Strategy Working Group to redefine the US-LAC partnership. This strategy promotes mutual and inclusive economic growth, renewed cooperation through enhanced commercial and investment ties, a renewed paradigm on bolstering security and reducing migration flows across the region, and a focus on preparedness in the face of natural disasters and the energy transition. Acting on this strategy could significantly benefit US economic and security interests. The United States should capitalize on immediate opportunities, like promoting nearshoring as a means to growth and prosperity across the Americas, while maintaining a medium-term strategy tailored to each country’s specific needs. This strategy paper highlights the importance of adaptability and practicality, particularly as the global economic landscape evolves and power shifts foresee new leading economies by mid-century. In addition, the strategy advocates for the significance of the US-LAC relationship amid the recalibration of US worldwide interests.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Migration, Politics, Economy, and Energy
Political Geography:
Latin America, Caribbean, and United States of America

72. Sanctions have become a tool of first resort. But enforcement needs upgraded and updated resources.

Author:
David Mortlock and Alex Zerden
Publication Date:
03-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Enforcement remains a critical but underresourced element of economic sanctions. The US Congress and the Department of the Treasury should consider updates to its resources, public guidance, and policies to ensure the efficacy of sanctions enforcement as the use of the sanctions policy tool continues to expand. Economic sanctions are often described as the foreign policy tool of first resort. The Department of the Treasury acknowledged this reality in its “2021 Sanctions Review.” Through its Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the Treasury Department administers thirty-eight different, albeit overlapping, economic sanctions programs. With only a few hundred employees, OFAC has a nearly unparalleled national security mandate with oversight of the US economy and many other facets of global economic activities. OFAC develops policies for the use of sanctions, designates sanctions targets like individuals, entities, and jurisdictions, engages with the private sector to promote compliance, and civilly enforces apparent violations by US persons and others. This latter enforcement role represents a critical but often overlooked capability. For instance, the same “2021 Sanctions Review” does not even mention the enforcement function in its assessment. (However, it did seek to ensure that sanctions are “enforceable” in the context of sanctions implementation.) Resource constraints, a lack of attention, and the prioritization of policy crises hamper this enforcement function. In 2023, OFAC only undertook seventeen public enforcement actions, including its largest settlement to date with Binance, a global cryptocurrency exchange. For perspective, the Department of Justice terminated 63,419 civil cases in fiscal year 2022, according to the most recent public data. As the wider interagency continues to rely on sanctions as a critical tool and the United States seeks to expand partner sanctions capacity, US policymakers must fully support the sanctions enforcement function. Strengthening the internal controls for OFAC enforcement improves the rule of law through improved due process and protects OFAC from legal challenges that could existentially undermine its national security mission. OFAC enforcement urgently requires increased budgetary resources and an upskilled workforce from Congress, stronger internal procedures to avoid litigation risks, improved public guidance, and revised enforcement guidelines to promote consistency and improve compliance by industry.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Economics, Sanctions, Transparency, and Enforcement
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

73. Geoeconomic fragmentation and net-zero targets

Author:
Shirin Hakim and Amin Mohseni-Cheraghlou
Publication Date:
04-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
The second half of the twentieth century experienced significant economic integration. International trade, cross-border migration, capital flows, and technological diffusion increased per capita incomes across countries and reduced global poverty. However, events such as the global financial crisis of 2007 to 2009, Brexit, and the COVID-19 pandemic—all against the backdrop of escalating great power rivalry and tensions between the United States and China—have demonstrated the rise of geoeconomic fragmentation (GEF). Since the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, a growing numberof world leaders have addressed the impacts of GEF on global energy and agricultural markets. For one, higher and increasingly volatile food and energy prices have made it increasingly difficult for developing nations to prioritize environmental concerns and implement sustainable development initiatives.
Topic:
Climate Change, Environment, International Trade and Finance, Economy, Economic Growth, Inclusion, Energy, Geoeconomics, and Net Zero
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and United States of America

74. Who’s a national security risk? The changing transatlantic geopolitics of data transfers

Author:
Kenneth Propp
Publication Date:
05-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
The geopolitics of transatlantic data transfers have been unvarying for the past decade. European governments criticize the US National Security Agency (NSA) for exploiting personal data moving from Europe to the United States for commercial reasons. The US government responds, through a series of arrangements with the European Union, by providing assurances that NSA collection is not disproportionate, and that Europeans have legal avenues if they believe their data has been illegally used. Although the arrangements have not proven legally stable, on the whole they have sufficed to keep data flowing via subsea cables under the Atlantic Ocean. Now the locus of national security concerns about international data transfers has shifted from Brussels to Washington. The Biden administration and the US Congress, in a series of bold measures, are moving aggressively to interrupt certain cross-border data flows, notably to China and Russia. The geopolitics of international data flows remain largely unchanged in Europe, however. European data protection authorities have been mostly noncommittal about the prospect of Russian state surveillance collecting Europeans’ personal data. Decisions on whether to transfer European data to Russia and China remain in the hands of individual companies. Will Washington’s new focus on data transfers to authoritarian states have an impact in Europe? Will Europe continue to pay more attention to the surveillance activities of its liberal democratic allies, especially the United States? Is there a prospect of Europe and the United States aligning on the national security risks of transfers to authoritarian countries?
Topic:
National Security, Science and Technology, Cybersecurity, Geopolitics, Economy, and Digital Policy
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America

75. Intentionally vague: How Saudi Arabia and Egypt abuse legal systems to suppress online speech

Author:
Dina Sadek, Layla Mashkoor, Iain Robertson, and Andy Carvin
Publication Date:
06-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Egypt and Saudi Arabia are weaponizing vaguely written domestic media, cybercrime, and counterterrorism laws to target and suppress dissent, opposition, and vulnerable groups. Political leaders in Egypt and Saudi Arabia often claim that their countries’ judicial systems enjoy independence and a lack of interference, a narrative intended to distance the states from the real and overzealous targeting and prosecution of critics. Such claims can be debunked and dismissed, as the Egyptian and Saudi governments have had direct involvement in establishing and implementing laws that are utilized to target journalists and human rights defenders. Egypt and Saudi Arabia were selected as case studies for this report because of their status as among the most frequently documented offenders in the region when it comes to exploiting ambiguously written laws to target and prosecute journalists, critics, activists, human rights defenders, and even apolitical citizens. The two countries have consolidated power domestically, permitting them to utilize and bend their domestic legal systems to exert control over the online information space. Punishments for those targeted can involve draconian prison sentences, travel bans, and fines, which result in a chilling effect that consequently stifles online speech and activities, preventing citizens from discussing political, social, and economic issues. Both Egypt and Saudi Arabia enacted media, cybercrime, and counterterrorism laws with ambiguous language and unclear definitions of legal terms, allowing for flexible interpretations of phrases such as “false information,” “morality,” or “family values and principles.” The laws in both countries also loosely define critical terms like “terrorism,” thereby facilitating expansive interpretations of what constitutes a terrorist crime. Further, anti-terror laws now include articles that connect the “dissemination of false information” with terrorist acts. This vague and elastic legal language has enabled the Egyptian and Saudi regimes to prosecute peaceful citizens on arbitrary grounds, sometimes handing out long prison sentences or even death sentences, undermining respect for the rule of law in the two countries. This report explores the development of media, cybercrime, and counterterrorism laws in both countries, and demonstrates through case studies how Saudi Arabia and Egypt weaponize the laws to prosecute opposition figures and control narratives online. This report examines the relationship between criminal charges tied to one’s professional activities or online speech and how those charges can trigger online smear campaigns and harassment. In cases that involve women, gender-based violence is often used to harm a woman’s reputation. Though a direct correlation between judicial charges and online harassment cannot be ascertained, these case studies suggest that dissidents are likely to face online harm following legal persecution, even after they are released.
Topic:
Human Rights, Internet, Freedom of Expression, Rule of Law, Disinformation, and Digital Policy
Political Geography:
Middle East, Saudi Arabia, and United States of America

76. How Huawei Weathered the Storm: Resilience, Market Conditions or Failed Sanctions?

Author:
Hosuk Lee-Makiyama and Robin Baker
Publication Date:
02-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
Huawei is exhibiting stoic resilience in the face of US sanctions, economic downturns, and the slow pace of 5G investments. There is a narrative that the company has been propped up by the Chinese government, but the key to Huawei’s resilience is multifaceted. Through pre-emptive stockpiling and ingenuity, the company has continued to fulfil its base station orders and defend its market shares abroad. Concurrently, Huawei has made an autonomous business decision to reinvest its earnings and intensify R&D to secure its supply chains against political risks and diversify into new business areas. Successful forays into semiconductors, cloud services and energy grids have also been facilitated by a capital structure that lends itself to long-term planning. Huawei’s survival is not necessarily a lesson in the futility of sanctions to stifle technological progress. However, it does show that muddled political objectives and inconsistent implementation will yield potentially contrary outcomes. At the same time, factors that contribute to Huawei’s resilience also highlight the infighting and vulnerabilities of listed firms like Mavenir, Ericsson and Nokia.
Topic:
Markets, Sanctions, Digital Economy, Resilience, and Huawei
Political Geography:
China, North America, and United States of America

77. Calling on the EU-US Trade and Technology Council: How to Deliver for the Planet and the Economy

Author:
Oscar Guinea, Vanika Sharma, Philipp Lamprecht, Dyuti Pandya, and Oscar du Roy
Publication Date:
02-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
This Policy Brief proposes the establishment of an agreement on conformity assessment between the EU and the US that covers machinery and electrical equipment. The initiative aims to increase the number of European and US conformity assessment bodies authorized to test and certify EU and US machinery and electrical equipment for exports into each other’s markets, without recognizing the equivalency or otherwise altering the product requirements in regulation, standards, or other normative documents on either side. While this study focuses on the economic effects of an agreement on conformity assessment that includes machinery and electrical equipment, the scope of such an agreement could potentially be extended to several additional product categories, particularly those that are subject to requirements for mandatory third-party conformity assessment in both the EU and the US. The increase in the number of conformity assessment bodies is expected to reduce the costs and the time required to demonstrate conformity. If this policy succeeds as expected in achieving a reduction in trade costs between 2 and 6 percent, US exports to the EU are projected to increase between US$ 11 billion and US$ 32.5 billion while EU exports to the US are estimated to grow by between US$ 13.8 billion and US$ 42.2 billion. In percentage terms, US firms are anticipated to experience a larger increase in exports of machinery and electrical equipment than their EU counterparts. The increase in trade flows as a result of this agreement is estimated to be larger than the rise in trade flows achieved in other Free Trade Agreements signed by the EU or the US. Moreover, as an increasing number of EU regulations begin to mandate third-party conformity assessment, US firms will increasingly benefit from this agreement when exporting to the EU. Given China’s status as the largest supplier of machinery and electrical equipment to both the EU and the US, the implementation of an EU-US agreement on conformity assessment would not only improve conditions for transatlantic trade but also lead to reduced trade dependence for the EU and the US on China. The reduction in trade costs between the EU and the US on machinery and electrical equipment due to the agreement could lower Chinese exports to the EU and the US by between US$ 6.5 billion and US$ 19.4 billion. Importantly, machinery and electrical equipment are crucial inputs for some of the key technologies in which the EU and the US Administrations have identified trade dependencies on China. However, in contrast with other policies aimed at reducing reliance on Chinese imports, an agreement on conformity assessment for machinery and electrical equipment will not require public subsidies or impose any financial burden on taxpayers. This agreement also has the potential to benefit the environment. Machinery and electrical equipment are essential inputs for green technologies. Therefore, a reduction in the cost and time of conformity assessment in these industries will accelerate the adoption of green technologies. An agreement on conformity assessment between the EU and the US covering green goods and clean technologies could increase transatlantic exports between US$ 3.1 billion and US$ 9.2 billion. While this increase in exports is significant, broadening the scope of the agreement to include the entirety of machinery and electrical equipment, rather than just a subset, is projected to lead to trade effects eight times larger. Moreover, as green technologies rapidly evolve, an agreement on conformity assessment has the potential to serve as a dynamic instrument that evolves to accommodate future regulatory and economic developments on climate and the environment on both sides of the Atlantic.
Topic:
Science and Technology, European Union, Economy, and Trade
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America

78. Openness as Strength: The Win-Win in EU-US Digital Services Trade

Author:
Matthias Bauer, Dyuti Pandya, and Oscar du Roy
Publication Date:
03-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
The discourse surrounding the EU’s supposed over-reliance on digital services imports from non-EU countries, particularly the US, has been a recurrent topic among some political circles. However, this viewpoint tends to oversimplify and misrepresent the nuanced and complex reality of the EU’s status within the global Information and Communication Technology (ICT) sector and digitally enabled trade. A thorough analysis of trade data and trends clearly illustrates that the EU’s engagement with foreign (non-EU) digital services, notably from the US, represents a strategic economic advantage, bolstering Europe’s competitiveness and fostering productivity growth. Below we underline the critical importance of openness to foreign innovation and technology diffusion for the EU’s economic future.
Topic:
European Union, Digital Economy, Strategic Competition, Imports, and Productivity
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America

79. ICT Beyond Borders: The Integral Role of US Tech in Europe’s Digital Economy

Author:
Matthias Bauer and Dyuti Pandya
Publication Date:
03-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
Contrary to political assertions about the vulnerability of digital services provided by non-EU companies, the strong presence and sunk costs associated with US tech companies’ investments in data centres, skilled workforce development, and research facilities in Europe act as significant barriers to exit, highlighting the inherent symbiosis between US tech investments and Europe’s digital and non-digital sectors. These investments underscore a mutual inter-dependency that strengthens European economies, making the notion of “sudden cessation” of digital services by US companies implausible. Corporate data show a significant investment gap of approximately USD 1.36 trillion between US and EU ICT companies, attributing a competitive edge to US firms due to their heavy investment in ICT, cloud solutions, and R&D. Forecasted increases in ICT investments by US corporations outline a benchmark beyond reach for EU businesses. The notion of EU firms aligning with this growth path is rather fantastical, as it would call for immense government investment, ultimately draining financial resources from essential public services, such as healthcare, housing, and environmental policies. Substantial ICT investments across EU Member States together with a long-term commitment to the European market present an opportunity for the EU to leverage US continuous technological advancements, underscoring the potential for transatlantic collaboration to drive the EU’s digital transformation and innovation. EU-US partnerships not only fuel the EU’s digital transformation but also align with shared political values, reinforcing the significance of transatlantic collaboration in shaping a competitive and innovative digital future.
Topic:
Communications, European Union, Digital Economy, Investment, and Information Technology
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America

80. Time to Rethink Export Controls for Strengthened US-EU Cooperation and Global Trade Rules

Author:
Matthias Bauer and Dyuti Pandya
Publication Date:
04-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
The escalation of broad export controls by the US, under the guise of national security and the aim to curb technological transfers to potential adversaries,[1] marks a new epoch of bureaucratic oversight. The US push for broad export controls also underscores a critical juncture in US-EU relations and global trade rules. Broad export restrictions not only challenge the very foundation of free trade but also contribute to the erosion of Western technology leadership.[2] Unilateral export controls may start strong but eventually lose effectiveness and become counterproductive,[3] pushing non-US companies, particularly in the semiconductor sector, to find alternatives to US components.
Topic:
International Cooperation, European Union, Regulation, Exports, Trade, and Semiconductors
Political Geography:
Europe and United States of America