Round up the usual suspects. In any US presidential election campaign, you can be sure that protectionism will break in, as it has. But America's swing back toward protectionism started long before, with US President George W. Bush's steel tariff of 2001.
It was hard to understand what the underlying calculus was when the Bush administration imposed that tariff on steel imports. The tariff was bad economics: it made the US poorer. The tariff was bad mercantilism: it robbed more in profits and unionized jobs from steel-consuming industries than it gave to steel-making industries, and the former were at least as well-organized and vocal in Washington as the latter.
Finally, the tariff was also bad diplomacy: why should anyone enter into an agreement with a US government that appears eager to demonstrate that it will break its commitments for the tiniest of imagined domestic political benefits?
ILLUSTRATION: YU SHA
Unfortunately, the US' swing back toward protectionism did not stop there. It continued last year when the Bush administration, recognizing that it had no policies to boost employment, explored whether China's undervalued exchange rate might be blamed for closed factories in Ohio.
No surprise, then, that the Democratic Party has now picked up the protectionist baton. Its leading candidate for the presidential nomination, John Kerry, talks about how "Benedict Arnold CEO's" betray America by outsourcing jobs. Kerry's remaining competitor, John Edwards, talks about how the gap on trade between him and Kerry is wide and deep -- with Kerry on the free-trade side.
Trade agreements
The past three years have seen much less progress on freeing up world trade than almost any free-trade advocate would have hoped. Unless the swing of the pendulum in the US can be stopped, the rest of this decade will be as bad.
Neither the EU nor Japan can be counted upon to do anything more than allow themselves to be dragged kicking and screaming into trade liberalization agreements. Without aggressive US leadership -- which means a US executive and congress that believe in free trade -- trade liberalization simply will not happen, and there will be more "emergency" tariffs, "extraordinary" quotas and "voluntary" export restraints.
All of these steps will have minimal impact on the US. But they have the potential to cause countless disasters for emerging market countries that export to the US.
Can anything halt this swing of the pendulum? Absent a sudden, immediate, and strong boost in US domestic demand that turns into a durable boom with rapid employment growth, probably not. The fall over the past three years in the proportion of the working-age population with jobs in the US has been the biggest in percentage terms since the Great Depression.
American workers and voters are more anxious about job security and more willing to blame anything for job insecurity because they have seen the most profound deterioration in labor market conditions in the memory of anyone younger than eighty-five. That slack labor market is powering this swing of the protectionist pendulum.
So we probably must accept that protectionist sentiment will remain strong. But we should seek ways to diminish the time spent and the damage done at the protectionist end of this political cycle. There are two arguments and one economic shift that could accelerate a return to trade liberalization.
American jobs
The two arguments in favor of free trade are powerful, but by and large they have not been deployed. The first argument needs to be made by countries that export to the US: they should tell journalists, politicians, voters, and workers in the US about all the American jobs that would not exist without their exports to the US. Fear that expanded trade will destroy jobs and disrupt the US economy needs to be balanced by fear that reduced trade will destroy jobs and disrupt the US economy.
The second argument needs to be made by those who care about America's national security. The 21st century will see the world constantly at war against terrorism.
An important part of that war will consist of shaping the foes of terrorism into a durable alliance.? Increased world trade can be an important part of that alliance-building process.
An economic shift also needs to be carried out by Europe and Japan: a shift from deflation to reflation. Strong demand growth in Japan and Europe that produces a higher level of US exports would be the most powerful pro-trade liberalization force imaginable.
For too long, Europe and Japan have subordinated the quest for full employment to other goals, whether extremely low inflation (Europe) or avoiding the costs of a bubble economy (Japan). Convincing ordinary American voters that trade liberalization is a positive force will be easier when the US is not the only locomotive pulling world demand forward, and not the world's importer of last resort.
Bradford DeLong is professor of Economics at the University of California at Berkeley and was assistant US treasury secretary during the Clinton presidency. Copyright: Project Syndicate
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs