The US imposition of tariffs on imported steel has been greeted with a howl of protest around the world. But harsh words have not been followed by a strong counter-attack. Now is the time to confront America's hypocrisy, not to bluster.
The global financial crisis of 1997 and1998 -- mismanaged by the IMF, largely at the direction of the US Treasury -- led to an increased flow of steel imports. But that is part of the market adjustment process the US trumpets so loudly at other times.
ILLUSTRATION: YU SHA
The argument put forward by the US, that it was entitled to safeguard against a surge of imports -- utilizing safeguard measures that are part of the WTO -- is unlikely to past muster with a WTO panel when one is eventually convened, but the argument itself is disingenuous. Europe pushed to restructure its steel industry in the 1980s and early 1990s, and succeeded mostly. In America, many efficient new firms (mini-mills) were indeed created, but yester-day's lumbering giants stood still. They cannot compete with efficient steel mills elsewhere -- including (perish the thought) South Korea's state-owned steel company.
Many of America's problems are made in the US. America's deteriorating fiscal position is leading to a strong dollar, just as the deteriorating fiscal position of the US after former president Ronald Reagan's irresponsible tax cut of two decades ago did. While countries may pride themselves on a strong currency, a strong dollar is bad for exports and good for imports.
In a dynamic economy, if jobs are lost in one sector, new jobs are being created in another. Government's role is to facilitate the movement of labor from one to the other. It is a primary responsibility of government to maintain full employment. Both in assisting shifts in employment and in maintaining full employment, President George W. Bush's administration has failed.
Bush recognized that a fiscal stimulus was needed when he arrived in office, but rather than pushing for genuine stimulus, it pushed for regressive tax changes under the name of a fiscal stimu-lus. Aid to old economy firms that spent more on avoiding taxes than in restructuring took the form of a repeal of the alternative minimum tax, a tax provision designed to limit the extent to which firms could make use of loopholes in the tax code.
Lowering taxes for the rich -- under the Bush administration's original proposal, a family of four earning US$50,000 would have received zero -- yes zero -- benefits over four years, while a US$5 million-a-year family of four "struggling to make ends meet" would have received a whopping US$500,000!
The Democrats rightly resisted; the number of jobs that would have been created was miniscule. But the weaknesses in the economy as a result of this economic mismanagement mean that those who lose their jobs will face a tougher time.
While the US loses, Europe loses, many in the developing world lose, and much more is at stake. Globalization, well and equitably managed, can benefit all countries. But under globalization, as currently managed, many have not gained; and some of the poorest have lost out. Instead,
globalization is an unfair game, with the rules written by rich advanced industrial countries for rich industrial countries.
But the US believes that even this is not enough: it will interpret these rules in ways which suit its political interests, bending and breaking them at will, challenging those who do not like it to do something about it. The motto of the Bush administration seems to be,"trade is good, but imports are bad."
Think of the lessons that poor developing countries learn. Lowering import duties lead to a surge of imports. So, under the "new" US rules, that country is entitled to reinstate tariffs as "safeguards." If the US needs to worry about unemployment with an unemployment rate of less than 6 percent, what is a poor country with unemployment at 10 percent or
20 percent to say?
The US pleads for understanding; elections are coming in November and voters in West Virginia and other states must be "bribed" to accept a new round of trade negotiations. But democracies exist across the developing world, and their voters have even more legitimate concerns about the jobs that result from liberalization. The IMF -- in which the US is the only country with veto power -- shows little sympathy with such political concerns in the developing world. Why the double standard?
If the increase in steel tariffs were an isolated incident it would be bad enough. But, while preaching free market doctrines abroad, the US bails out its airlines and increases agricultural subsidies at home. Even before these increases, subsidies to agriculture by the advanced industrial countries were enormous -- exceeding the total incomes of sub-Saharan Africa.
The rich effectively close their markets to many goods that represent the comparative advantage of the poor. Argentina's economic position today, indeed, would be vastly different if the US and Europe opened their markets to its agricultural goods. The same can be said for country after country in the developing world.
Globalization entails increasing interdependence. Given the volatility in the global economy, this entails bearing some risks. Rich countries -- like the US -- are in the best position to bear those risks.
Much discussion has taken place of late of the advantages to be gained by the world adopting global standards, eg in banking. Inevitably globalization will entail adopting such standards. US actions over steel seem to suggest that the US embraces a double standard. This cannot be allowed.
Countries, particularly in Europe, that are capable of standing up to the US must oppose it here. Taking strong measures will be in their interests, will be in America's interest (even if it is not in the interests of particular special interests, or Bush's political interests), and will be in the broader interests of the world.
Joseph Stiglitz is a professor of economics at Columbia University and was formerly chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to former US president Bill Clinton and chief economist and senior vice president of the World Bank.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS