Search

Begin New Search Topic Donald Trump Political Geography United States of America Content Type Policy Brief Publication Year within 3 Years

1. Biden and Trade at Year One: The Reign of Polite Protectionism

Author:
James Bacchus
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Cato Institute
Abstract:
As a presidential candidate, Joe Biden promised a change from the go‐​it‐​alone, my‐​way‐​or‐​the‐​highway approach to trade policy of Donald Trump. Disappointingly, during the first year of his presidency, Biden has instead largely embraced the failed Trump policy of unilateralism and protectionism in trade. He and his administration have done so politely, without Trump’s bluster and bombast. Yet, the results have been mostly the same: a turn toward more trade protection and managed trade, toward a proposed industrial policy that would add more restrictions on trade, and toward a destructive unilateralism that threatens to continue undermining the multilateral trading system overseen by the World Trade Organization. If Biden continues to pursue this misguided trade policy, American recovery and prosperity are at risk. There is still time—at least three years—for him to end this reign of polite protectionism by framing and pursuing a new trade policy that will benefit all Americans: a policy that will achieve more trade liberalization, stop managed trade, halt trade‐​restrictive industrial policy, renew trade multilateralism, and give restored and unflinching support to the international rule of law in trade.
Topic:
Tariffs, Trade, Donald Trump, Protectionism, and Joe Biden
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

2. Analysis of U.S. International Economic Policies and its Implications

Author:
Gu Sang Kang
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)
Abstract:
This study analyzes and evaluates the impact of foreign economic policies implemented during the Trump administration's four-year tenure, and aims to predict the direction of international economic policies under the Biden administration launched following the 2020 presidential election. The former President Trump put 'America First' as the slogan of economic policies and imposed import restrictions and tariffs on trading partners based on Sections 201, 232, and 301 of the U.S. trade acts. In addition, the Trump administration strongly promoted renegotiation, claiming that some existing trade agreements had been concluded unfavorably to the U.S. Furthermore, the Trump administration promoted the standardization of digital trade rules and the expansion of digital taxation in order to support the expansion of digital trade. Through the empirical analysis, we find that the Trump administration's tariff measures had a somewhat positive effect on the U.S. industrial employment, but it is difficult to say that the policy effect that President Trump initially expected was achieved as the measures also had a negative effect on industrial production. Moreover, we find that the tax reform had only a short-term effect in reducing the U.S. direct investment to foreign countries. Like the Trump administration, the Biden administration's international economic policy directions are showing strong protectionist perspectives such as maintaining tariffs on Chinese imports and reorganization of the global supply chains centered on the U.S. Based on our analysis, there are three policy implications. First, it is necessary to strengthen digital trade cooperation with middle power countries participating in the WTO e-commerce negotiations along with a detailed analysis and review of the economic impacts. Second, Korea needs to take advantage of the benefits provided by the U.S. federal government and strengthen cooperation in the supply chain based on norms with the U.S. Finally, Korea needs to reach an amicable agreement with the U.S. on trade remedies that have already been applied by raising the need to strengthen its supply chain with the U.S.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Digital Economy, Economic Policy, Trade Policy, Donald Trump, Industry, Protectionism, and Joe Biden
Political Geography:
Asia, South Korea, North America, and United States of America

3. Korea's Economic Presence in Iran under Trump and Its Prospects during the Biden Presidency

Author:
Shirzad Azad
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)
Abstract:
On July 14, 2015, when Iran and the 5+1 group (the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain, and Germany) ultimately agreed over the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the Republic of Korea (ROK) was practically one of the top three trade partners of the Persian Gulf country. In early May 2016 and only a few months after the nuclear deal was carried through, the then Korean President, Park Geun-hye, made an official visit to Iran where the two countries vowed to ratchet up their economic relations from roughly $6 billion to more than $18 billion in the years to come. Accompanied by “the largest business delegation in the history of Korean presidential trips,” Park’s high-profile trip to Iran persuaded many interested experts and observers to believe that the East Asian country was really determined to shore up its economic weight in Iran by drawing certain policies relevant to the long-term presence of Korean businesses in the Middle Eastern country (Choi 2016). Despite all those upbeat expectations about the ROK’s future economic and technological role in Iran, however, various data and statistics coming out indicate that over the past several years nearly all well-known Korean brands and products have increasingly lost their market share in the Mideast country to brands and goods supplied by other competitors. As a matter of fact, in the late 1990s and early 2000s the East Asian nation emerged as one of the Persian Gulf country’s top trading partners in the world, outstripping a number of Tehran’s traditional trading partners from the West. And while Korea managed to even expand its economic presence in Iran in the heydays of sundry international sanctions levied against the Middle Eastern country over its contentious nuclear program a couple of years before the JCPOA was eventually agreed in 2015, the ROK has been doing relatively poor in Iran during the past years (Azad 2018). Such lackadaisical performance, epitomized by abandoning the long-established pattern of significant trade in energy with Iran, has critically influenced a sharp decline in the total volume of two-way commerce between the two countries. While the plummeting share of Korean brands and goods in Iranian markets had indubitably something to do with certain policies pursued by the Moon Jae-in-led Korean government, however, the main culprit turned out to be the Trump administration’s unilateral withdrawal from the nuclear deal in May 2018. The crippling sanctions which Washington under Trump subsequently imposed on Iran played a pivotal role in reshaping the scope and size of Korean commercial connections to the Persian Gulf country, though some unprecedented diplomatic and political troubles involving Seoul and Tehran during the past years have also had a lot to do with those punitive economic and financial measures targeting the Iranians. How did then the Koreans respond to those unique circumstances rendered largely by Trump’s approach toward the Persian Gulf country? What are going to be the prospects of a Biden administration’s policy shift for Korea’s economic performance in Iran? This study seeks to shed some light on Trump’s Iran policy with regard to Korea, its repercussions for the East Asian nation’s economic relationship with the Middle Eastern country, and potential solutions to chip away at those impediments under a Democrat administration in Washington led by Joe Biden.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Economics, Donald Trump, JCPOA, and Joe Biden
Political Geography:
Iran, Asia, South Korea, and United States of America

4. Counterterrorism Under the Trump Administration A Fractured Response to a Diversified Threat

Author:
Matthew Levitt
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
The administration's achievements were counterbalanced by a striking lack of alignment among three U.S. national security strategies and the discouraging rapid rise of far-right extremism at home. The Trump administration has a mixed record on counterterrorism, overshadowed by troubling trends. On the positive side, it continued the Obama administration’s efforts to defeat the Islamic State on the battlefield while pressuring other jihadist groups in Syria and aggressively pushing back on Iran and its terrorist proxies. But these achievements were counterbalanced by a striking lack of alignment among the U.S. National Security Strategy, National Defense Strategy, and Counterterrorism Strategy, hobbling effective policy execution. Still more discouraging has been the rapid rise of far-right extremism at home, a development President Trump has refused to denounce and even stoked. The ninth volume of The Washington Institute’s Counterterrorism Lecture Series, edited by Matthew Levitt, covers the period November 2018 to March 2020. Its pages include the assessments of officials and experts seeking to understand the full scope of the CT challenge and develop sophisticated methods to address it.
Topic:
National Security, Counter-terrorism, Donald Trump, and Non-Traditional Threats
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

5. How the US Does Foresight: The United States’ difficulty in accepting multipolarity

Author:
Mathew Burrows
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Union Institute for Security Studies
Abstract:
The United States is a highly polarised society. Over the past decade, any consensus about how it views itself or its future has broken down despite the country having well-grounded capabilities on foresight which could help steer it towards a united vision and the steps needed to realise its desired future. It is unclear whether the Biden administration can project a vision that appeals to most Americans, binding together a nation deeply split in its view of America and its role in the world. At the tactical level, foresight tools and mechanisms remain in use throughout the bureaucracy even if they have not been able to reconcile contrasting societal perspectives. 2016 was a dramatic turning point in which the US Intelligence Community – the leading foresight practitioner in the US government – fell out of favour with the president and many of his senior advisors. Biden’s vision for the country embraces diversity and renewed US leadership in the world. Biden’s Secretary of State Antony Blinken talks about humility and confidence being “the flip sides of America’s leadership coin”,1 repudiating Trump’s America First stance.
Topic:
Intelligence, Donald Trump, Domestic Policy, Polarization, Joe Biden, and Future
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

6. The Biden transition

Author:
Simon Serfaty
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Robert Schuman Foundation (RSF)
Abstract:
During the grotesque years of the Trump administration, and after its extraordinarily contested departure, the admittedly romantic idea of the United States has turned into a thing of the past—no longer the do-good democracy it used to be, but now a country unpredictably reactive rather than preventive, vindictive rather than proactive, and exclusive rather than inclusive. In June 2020, the nation’s pride reached a 20-year low, with only 42 percent of the respondents “extremely proud” to be American, down from 69 percent in 2003. And according to a Wall Street Journal poll, four Americans in five found the country “out of control.” By year’s end, aberrant talk that military force might be used, and martial law imposed, for a targeted “rerun” of the election was historically unreal but left many afraid about the future of the nation. When votes which have been counted no longer count, integrity is dismissed, character no longer matters, alternative facts are deemed real, and feeling right takes precedence over being right, then there is nothing left to hold on to. As Bertolt Brecht sarcastically suggested in 1953—time “to dissolve the people and elect another.” Throughout, the world has watched in dismay. For much of the previous century, America was the country much of the world came to rely on for its promises, a country that not only counted but one that could be counted on decisively. But now, the trust is gone: wrote former Secretary of State George Shultz on his one hundredth birthday, “a belief that what [our] nation … commits to do will, in fact be done” and what it “says will happen is, in fact, capable of being done.” A September 2020 survey by the Pew Research Center in 13 nations, all wealthy democracies, showed America’s reputation and over all confidence in its president in steady decline, often at their lowest points since these surveys began twenty years before—with more confidence in Xi Jinping (19 per cent) and Putin (23 per cent) than in Trump (16 percent). Such findings have been repeated since—en pire.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Domestic Politics, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden
Political Geography:
United States of America