Search

Begin New Search Topic International Trade and Finance Content Type Journal Article Publication Year within 25 Years Publication Year within 5 Years

31. The Future of Chinese Foreign Economic Policy Will Challenge U.S. Interests, Part 2: Renminbi Internationalization and International Economic Institutions

Author:
Sagatom Saha
Publication Date:
02-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
China Brief
Institution:
The Jamestown Foundation
Abstract:
Complications surrounding the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and the dangers of the “middle-income trap,” are not the only factors impacting the international economic policies of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Furthermore, poor capital efficiency is not the only feature of the Chinese economy that frustrates the country’s policymakers. China’s gross domestic product (GDP) has roughly doubled in the last decade, but Beijing’s pull in the international monetary and financial system remains lackluster. This lack of progress stems in part from the dollar’s centrality around the world, as well as U.S. dominance in international economic institutions. Beijing’s economic planners have long advocated against the dollar while attempting to increase the global role of the PRC’s own renminbi (RMB) currency. While past efforts stumbled, RMB internationalization and increased Chinese influence will directly confront U.S. economic and geopolitical interests.
Topic:
Economics, International Cooperation, International Trade and Finance, Hegemony, Conflict, and Rivalry
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

32. Limited Payoffs: What Have BRI Investments Delivered for China Amid the Coronavirus Outbreak?

Author:
Johan Van de Ven
Publication Date:
03-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
China Brief
Institution:
The Jamestown Foundation
Abstract:
The coronavirus outbreak, now declared to be a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO, March 11), offers a prism through which to assess how China interacts with the rest of the world in a time of crisis—one that was at first confined to China’s borders, but has since become a global emergency. Some commentaries on the connection between the COVID-19 coronavirus outbreak and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) have portrayed Xi Jinping’s centerpiece foreign policy program as a dangerous vector enabling the pandemic—even though China was engaged in international trade and transportation prior to the commencement of the BRI in 2013 (Foreign Policy, January 24). For its part, state media in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has linked BRI relationships to support for China amid the initial stages of the crisis, citing positive examples of support from media outlets in South Africa, Russia, and Pakistan (People’s Daily, February 20). More recently, as the spread of the disease has abated in China and increased elsewhere, Chinese authorities have sought to illustrate their support, via the “warmth” of the Belt and Road, for current hotspots such as Italy and Iran—while also criticizing the U.S. response to the crisis (Zhejiang News, March 12). Such developments in China’s foreign relations amid the coronavirus outbreak offer a window to assess the effectiveness of the BRI in one of its central goals: namely, expanding the soft power available to the PRC. Applying an understanding of soft power as a state’s ability to induce other states to take actions favorable to its own interests, available evidence across domains related to the initial phases of the COVID-19 pandemic—such as the issuance of evacuation orders, and restrictions on public transportation—indicates that BRI investments have had only modest success in building China’s soft power. International support for China was piecemeal and rhetorical, leaving China economically and politically isolated. Demonstrating the lack of soft power available to Chinese authorities, the state tabloid Global Times demanded on February 12 that countries that “have completely cut off traffic communications with China” should “reconsider and revoke these practices” (Global Times, February 12).
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, Infrastructure, Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Public Health, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
China and Asia

33. Global Supply Chains, Economic Decoupling, and U.S.-China Relations, Part 1: The View from the United States

Author:
Sagatom Saha and Ashley Feng
Publication Date:
04-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
China Brief
Institution:
The Jamestown Foundation
Abstract:
The trade war has defined the current adversarial relationship between the United States and the People’s Republic of China (PRC). While President Donald J. Trump has at times openly expressed admiration for Chinese Communist Party (CCP) General Secretary Xi Jinping, his administration has pursued policies consistent with economic and technological decoupling. These policies include reforms that strengthen the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS); greater usage of the export control system, especially the Entity List; and threatening the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to force U.S. companies back to the United States. These policies, taken to their logical end, would see the secular decoupling of the U.S. and Chinese economies and the rerouting of the global supply chains that bind them. The interim trade deal has done seemingly little to change the structural economic conflict between Beijing and Washington. If economic decoupling came to pass, it would portend a sweeping reorientation of the global economy that many analysts regard as lying outside the bounds of conventional analysis. Yet some Trump administration officials, such as Director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy Peter Navarro, have promoted economic decoupling as their desired aim (SCMP, June 20, 2018; Forbes, December 3, 2019). President Trump himself has “ordered” American companies to look for alternative suppliers outside of China, or to return production to the United States (Twitter, August 23, 2019). The Trump Administration’s trade and investment restrictions have not been limited to U.S. companies—they also include pressuring third-party countries and foreign companies to abide by U.S. restrictions. Chinese companies are also relocating their manufacturing capabilities abroad—in part because of secular economic trends, but U.S. actions are accelerating the process. Simply put, sustained U.S. policies on China can encourage economic decoupling, but only if global economic trends continue to cooperate. Those policies are nascent, but could likely become a structural feature of the U.S.-China economic relationship—especially since a harder stance towards China has gained traction among both major parties. This has been demonstrated by widespread criticism of Chinese trade practices in both parties, and in bipartisan votes on legislation antagonistic to Beijing, such as the Hong Kong Democracy and Human Rights Act or the UIGHUR Act (see further below). The Trump Administration has pursued a three-pronged approach in breaking down economic supply-chain links: 1) escalating tariffs, which discourages bilateral trade; 2) imposing investment restrictions and export controls that punish tech transfers; and 3) issuing threats to U.S. firms that do business in China under the IEEPA. These current policies preview what could become a new orientation in U.S. policy towards China, regardless of who leads the United States at the beginning of next year.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, Hegemony, Conflict, Trade Wars, and Supply Chains
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

34. The China-Myanmar Economic Corridor: Delays Ahead

Author:
Sudha Ramachandran
Publication Date:
04-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
China Brief
Institution:
The Jamestown Foundation
Abstract:
Although no new deals were struck during People’s Republic of China (PRC) President Xi Jinping’s trip to Myanmar on January 17 and 18, the visit was significant for several reasons. The visit was the first by a PRC president to Myanmar in 19 years, and the first by Xi to this country in his role as president. The visit was widely touted as marking the 70th anniversary of the establishment of relations between the PRC and Myanmar. However, Xi’s first trip abroad this year was aimed at expediting implementation of the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor (CMEC), a key component of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) (CGTN, January 17). During the visit, the two governments signed 33 agreements, memorandums of understanding, protocols and letters of exchange relating to railways, industrial and power projects, and trade. Several of these agreements firm up Myanmar’s commitment to the CMEC’s three central components: the Kyaukphyu Special Economic Zone (SEZ), which includes a deep-sea port, an industrial park and other projects; the China-Myanmar Border Economic Cooperation Zone; and an urban development plan for Yangon (The Irrawaddy, January 18). However, just weeks after Xi’s visit saw the two sides take steps to expedite CMEC projects, Beijing’s plans have run into new problems. CMEC projects are running late, and in an op-ed piece published on the eve of his Myanmar visit, Xi stressed the need for CMEC projects to be moved from “the conceptual stage to concrete planning and implementation” (New Light of Myanmar, January 16). The coronavirus pandemic has emerged as the latest challenge in the long list of obstacles that have slowed CMEC projects over the years. According to Khriezo Yhome, a New Delhi-based analyst of developments in Myanmar, it “may be too early to assess the impact of the coronavirus crisis on CMEC projects,” given that the pandemic is still only at an “initial phase” in Myanmar; however, there is “no doubt” that it “will slow down the implementation of CMEC projects in the short-term.” [1]
Topic:
Diplomacy, Economics, International Cooperation, International Trade and Finance, and Bilateral Relations
Political Geography:
China, Asia, Burma, and Myanmar

35. String of Pearls: Politics of Ports in Indian Ocean

Author:
Khalid Manzoor Butt, Sanwal Hussain Kharl, and Khizar Abbass Bhatti
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
South Asian Studies
Institution:
Department of Political Science, University of the Punjab
Abstract:
Regional security order which is a complex combination of actors and factors is no longer associated exclusively with political and military might. Asia has experienced significant changes in its regional preponderance like economic interdependence and interconnectedness. The phenomenal economic growth of some countries is attributed to its ascendance. The Asian region has become a cauldron of global economic and geopolitical transformation. In this regard, the specter of Maritime Silk Road China with regards to Pakistan Economic Corridor and China Myanmar Economic Corridor are glaring examples enclusively in this region. They have heralded metamorphosis in the pearls of the string by providing an alternate route making Indian Ocean a hub for trans-regional connectivity through multifold alternative routes. History is witnessed for the benefits of certain alteration in the routes such the Panama Canal and Suez Canal. To find such alternation of routes in Indian Ocean Region (IOR) has caused a competition between China and India which can have multiple effects.
Topic:
Security, Diplomacy, International Trade and Finance, Regional Cooperation, Peace, Regionalism, and Silk Road
Political Geography:
Asia and Indian Ocean

36. CPEC and Re-Orientation of China-Pakistan Relations

Author:
Muhammad Ikram
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
South Asian Studies
Institution:
Department of Political Science, University of the Punjab
Abstract:
The ̳One Belt One Road‘ term refers to ̳The Maritime Silk Road and the Silk Road Economic Belt. This mega initiative was announced by Chinese president, Xi Jiping, in September 2013 during his official state visit to Kazakhstan. Pakistan is most important pillar of this Chinese initiative. Under the One Belt One Road framework, several corridors will be built in future. Whereas, with the development of OBOR, regional economies will boost up to $2.5 trillion and more than 4.4 billion population will get benefits across 65 countries. The Silk Road Economic Belt will link China, Central Asia, Russia, and Europe through the Persian Gulf and South East Asia and Indian Ocean. However, China-Pakistan Economic Corridor will be built to connect the Pakistan's Port Gawadar with Chinese city of Kashagar in autonomous province Xinjiang. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor project is a game changer for the region and particularly for China and Pakistan, through the development of roads, railways, oil and gas pipe lines. Thus, the project brings wealth and prosperity across the region, particularly in Pakistan. But on the other hand, Pakistan is facing serious internal and external threats from terrorism and extremism since 2001. This work is an attempt to enlighten the prospects of China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and constraints in the way of this mega projects.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Cooperation, International Trade and Finance, Bilateral Relations, Infrastructure, Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Peace, Economic Development, and Silk Road
Political Geography:
Pakistan, China, and Asia

37. Impact of Gas Conservation on Aggregate Economy and Trade of Pakistan

Author:
Shahbaz Sharif, Muhammad Shakeel, and Qasim Saleem
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
South Asian Studies
Institution:
Department of Political Science, University of the Punjab
Abstract:
The present study assesses the gas-use based aggregate production framework to find out the co- integration among the variables and thereby estimate the error correction mechanism of the empirical models. Johansen’s based co-integration test has been applied with VECM based causality test to assess the long run and causal relationship for yearly time series data over 1980- 2014 for Pakistan. The empirical findings demonstrate a statistically significant co-integration to exist among real economic production/GDP, labor, capital and gas-use in both the models with and without exports. The findings of causality test depict long-run unidirectional relationship from labor, capital stock, gas-use and export towards the real GDP. The feedback connection between gas-use and real GDP is also found statistically significant in the short-term. The findings imply a warning for reduction of gas-use via energy conservation policies which may reduce exportable production. The reduction of gas use will downward curtail the economic growth, directly and via exports’ multiplier effect upon GDP, indirectly. Therefore, development of new energy technologies has been suggested to balance the supply-demand gap and thereby promisingly expanding the export-led sector for triggering the Economic output/GDP growth and sustainability of energy resources in the country.
Topic:
Energy Policy, International Trade and Finance, Natural Resources, Gas, Conservation, Renewable Energy, and Sustainability
Political Geography:
Pakistan and Middle East

38. Tariffs and Monetary Policy: A Toxic Mix

Author:
Michael D Bordo and Mickey D. Levy
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Cato Journal
Institution:
The Cato Institute
Abstract:
The ratcheting up of tariffs and the Fed’s discretionary conduct of monetary policy are a toxic mix for economic performance. Escalating tariffs and President Trump’s erratic and unpredictable trade policy and threats are harming global economic performance, distorting monetary policy, and undermining the Fed’s credibility and independence. President Trump’s objectives to force China to open access to its markets for international trade, reduce capital controls, modify unfair treatment of intellectual property, and address cybersecurity issues and other U.S. national security issues are laudable goals with sizable benefits. However, the costs of escalating tariffs are mounting, and the tactic of relying exclusively on barriers to trade and protectionism is misguided and potentially dangerous. The economic costs to the United States so far have been relatively modest, dampening exports, industrial production, and business investment. However, the tariffs and policy uncertainties have had a significantly larger impact on China, accentuating its structural economic slowdown, and are disrupting and distorting global supply chains. This is harming other nations that have significant exposure to international trade and investment overseas, particularly Japan, South Korea, and Germany. As a result, global trade volumes and industrial production are falling. Weaker global growth is reflected in a combination of a reduction in aggregate demand and constraints on aggregate supply.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, Monetary Policy, Economic Growth, Tariffs, and Industry
Political Geography:
Japan, China, Europe, Asia, South Korea, Germany, North America, and United States of America

39. The U.S.-China Trade War: Is There an End in Sight?

Author:
Simon Lester and Huan Zhu
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Cato Journal
Institution:
The Cato Institute
Abstract:
Donald Trump was a trade “hawk” long before he became president. In the late 1980s, he went on the Oprah Winfrey show and complained about Japan “beating the hell out of this country” on trade (Real Clear Politics 2019). As president, he has continued with the same rhetoric, using it against a wide range of U.S. trading partners, and he has followed it up with action (often in the form of tariffs). While many countries have found themselves threatened by Trump’s aggressive trade policy, his main focus has been China. As a result, the United States and China have been engaged in an escalating tariff, trade, and national security conflict since July 2018, when the first set of U.S. tariffs on China went into effect and China retaliated with tariffs of its own. In this article, we explore the U.S.-China economic conflict, from its origins to the trade war as it stands today. We then offer our thoughts on where this conflict is heading and when it might end.
Topic:
Economics, International Trade and Finance, Tariffs, Trade Wars, and Donald Trump
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

40. GEOGRAPHY, INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND INSTITUTIONS: AN ECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF THE BRICS

Author:
Marcelo Corrêa, Luiz Michelo, and Carlos Schonerwald
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Conjuntura Austral: Journal of the Global South
Institution:
Conjuntura Austral: Journal of the Global South
Abstract:
After two decades of intense debate about the determinants of economic development, with authors examining the variables that characterize geography, institutions and international trade, BRICS countries were left behind. Thus, in order to fill this gap, this paper uses econometrics of panel data to analyze the economic performance of these developing nations. Mainstream economists have run into serious problems to deal with these particular determinants within the traditional endogenous growth model, and they have not come up with an agreement, so they keep trying to figure out who is the “winner of this competition”. Empirical evidence shows that there is not a unique explanatorydeterminant, and recognizing which of them can provide the best understandingdepends on the particularities of each case (ROS, 2013).Examining BRICS as a group of countries demonstrates that these specific developing nations share some remarkable features. They are rapidly-growing nations with a vast amount of land and growing participation in international trade. So, empirical tests are feasible and desirable in order to understand their recent development. However, they are also different in many aspects, mostly in terms of institutional characteristics. Thus, our goal is to find out if the econometrics of panel data can shed some light on this ongoing debate.
Topic:
International Political Economy, International Trade and Finance, Trade, Trade Policy, Economic Cooperation, and Geography
Political Geography:
Russia, China, India, South Africa, and Brazil