In an important speech to the Atlantic Council in April, US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen issued a welcome call to revitalize the world economic order.
However, she also generated headlines with a single sentence advocating what she called “friend-shoring.” That is, restricting the trade of key inputs to trusted countries to reduce risks to the supply chains on which the US and its partners rely.
This should worry us. Today’s global supply chains — made possible by reductions in tariffs and lower transportation and communication costs — have transformed production by allowing firms to manufacture goods wherever it is cheapest to do so.
This has generally meant that high-value-added inputs — such as research and development, design, advertising and finance — are sourced in advanced economies, while manufacturing moves to emerging markets and developing countries.
The benefits are obvious. Final products are significantly less expensive, so even the poorest people in rich countries can buy them. At the same time, developing countries participate in the production process, using their most valuable resource: low-cost labor. As their workers gain skills, their own manufacturers move to more sophisticated production processes, climbing the value chain.
As workers’ incomes rise, they buy more rich-country products. By 2017, for example, China had more iPhone users than any other country. Knowledge workers in rich countries then earn higher incomes as the market for high-value products grows.
Of course, even though trade yields net benefits, the distribution of gains and losses matters. Trade is not simply “win-win.” Hollowed-out small towns in the US midwest attest to the downside of off-shoring production.
It has ever been thus. Across advanced economies, today’s rust-belt towns and cities initially grew by putting traditional craft workers elsewhere out of work, but with the right policy support, trade need not leave people or communities behind. In Scandinavia, firms constantly focus on upgrading their workers’ skills so that they are ready for change.
These are the basic, Economics 101 arguments in support of free and fair trade, but global supply chains are showing new vulnerabilities. In their desire to maximize efficiency, companies have sometimes overlooked resilience. Climate disasters — floods, droughts, wildfires — and shocks such as COVID-19-induced lockdowns have highlighted the many chokepoints in “just-in-time” supply chains.
As a result, firms are considering whether they should increase their inventories as an additional buffer. They are also looking for ways to reduce chokepoints by diversifying production locations across countries, and to increase flexibility by making inputs more substitutable.
Such private-sector responses can preserve the viability of global supply chains, but resurgent protectionism — cloaked and augmented by new geopolitical rivalries — constitutes a more dangerous threat.
The tit-for-tat tariffs between the US and China during former US president Donald Trump’s tenure were the opening salvos. The West’s subsequent restrictions on the Chinese telecom giant Huawei’s sales, and China’s restrictions on Australian imports, added more policy uncertainty to the mix.
Now, Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine has introduced the possibility of an angry public broadening official sanctions beyond what policymakers intend.
If all that is not sufficient to make corporate CEOs rethink the value of their global supply chains, government advocacy of friend-shoring certainly can. True, national security can never be taken lightly.
It is legitimate for a country to ensure that goods and services essential to its national defense are produced domestically or by friendly neighbors. The problem is that “essential” is often broadened by protectionist interests to include even widely produced commodities such as steel or aluminum.
If any forthcoming friend-shoring mandates were to apply such a broad categorization, they would have devastating effects on international trade. After all, friend-shoring typically means trading with countries that have similar values and institutions. That, in practice, means transacting only with countries at similar levels of development.
The benefits of a global supply chain stem precisely from the way it connects countries with diverse income levels, allowing each to bring its comparative advantage to the production process — PhD researchers from one, for example, and unskilled assembly-line workers from another.
Friend-shoring would tend to eliminate this dynamic, thereby increasing production costs and consumer prices. While some labor unions would welcome the reduced competition, the rest of us would regret it.
Moreover, it is not even clear that on-shoring or near-shoring production helps to increase resilience or the reliability of supply. In the US, baby formula is supplied by a government-supported oligopoly of four domestic firms that are protected from foreign competition by high tariffs.
However, throughout last month, there was no baby formula to be had in some US states, owing to problems in just one facility. So much for building resilience through domestic production.
By the same token, concentrating production within a gated community of advanced economies would not necessarily increase the security of the community. As Brexit showed, friends do not always stay friends. Even countries as close in temperament as the US and Canada had serious disagreements during Trump’s presidency.
More to the point, existing economic interdependencies can make geostrategic rivals more reluctant to launch missiles at one another. Many observers have said that China is thinking twice about invading Taiwan now that it has seen the damage that sanctions are doing to Russia.
Yet if China were to prepare for an invasion, it would start by reducing its reliance on Western economies, a process that Western friend-shoring would inadvertently advance.
Economic entanglements might be messy, but they help keep the peace.
Finally, friend-shoring would tend to exclude the poor countries that most need global trade to become richer and more democratic. It increases the risk that these countries would become failed states — fertile ground to nurture and export terrorism.
The tragedy of mass emigration is likely to become more likely as chaotic violence increases. Friend-shoring is an understandable policy if it is strictly limited to specific items directly affecting national security.
Unfortunately, the term’s public reception already suggests that it could be used to cover much else.
Raghuram Rajan is former governor of the Reserve Bank of India and a professor of finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Speaking at the Copenhagen Democracy Summit on May 13, former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) said that democracies must remain united and that “Taiwan’s security is essential to regional stability and to defending democratic values amid mounting authoritarianism.” Earlier that day, Tsai had met with a group of Danish parliamentarians led by Danish Parliament Speaker Pia Kjaersgaard, who has visited Taiwan many times, most recently in November last year, when she met with President William Lai (賴清德) at the Presidential Office. Kjaersgaard had told Lai: “I can assure you that ... you can count on us. You can count on our support
Denmark has consistently defended Greenland in light of US President Donald Trump’s interests and has provided unwavering support to Ukraine during its war with Russia. Denmark can be proud of its clear support for peoples’ democratic right to determine their own future. However, this democratic ideal completely falls apart when it comes to Taiwan — and it raises important questions about Denmark’s commitment to supporting democracies. Taiwan lives under daily military threats from China, which seeks to take over Taiwan, by force if necessary — an annexation that only a very small minority in Taiwan supports. Denmark has given China a
Many local news media over the past week have reported on Internet personality Holger Chen’s (陳之漢) first visit to China between Tuesday last week and yesterday, as remarks he made during a live stream have sparked wide discussions and strong criticism across the Taiwan Strait. Chen, better known as Kuan Chang (館長), is a former gang member turned fitness celebrity and businessman. He is known for his live streams, which are full of foul-mouthed and hypermasculine commentary. He had previously spoken out against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and criticized Taiwanese who “enjoy the freedom in Taiwan, but want China’s money”
A high-school student surnamed Yang (楊) gained admissions to several prestigious medical schools recently. However, when Yang shared his “learning portfolio” on social media, he was caught exaggerating and even falsifying content, and his admissions were revoked. Now he has to take the “advanced subjects test” scheduled for next month. With his outstanding performance in the general scholastic ability test (GSAT), Yang successfully gained admissions to five prestigious medical schools. However, his university dreams have now been frustrated by the “flaws” in his learning portfolio. This is a wake-up call not only for students, but also teachers. Yang did make a big
RSS