Search

Begin New Search Topic International Trade and Finance Content Type Special Report Publication Year within 10 Years

1. Trade Balances and International Competitiveness in Cyber-physical, Digital Task-intensive, ICT Capital-intensive and Traditional Industries

Author:
Alexandra Bykova and Roman Stöllinger
Publication Date:
05-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies (WIIW)
Abstract:
In this report, we analyse the international competitiveness of the EU in four industry groups over the period 1995-2018. The groups are delineated by specific factor intensities, where these intensities are assessed from digital tasks performed by labour services and ICT capital stocks. The EU’s positions relating to trade balances, revealed comparative advantages and unit value ratios are assessed relative to its main competitors, such as the US, China, Japan and South Korea. The trade specialisation patterns confirm EU advantages in traditional industries, which still represent the largest part of global trade, and in the group of digital task-intensive industries. In the cyber-physical group of industries, which are characterised by both high digital task and ICT capital intensities, the EU records a trade deficit, although this has been receding in recent years. Competitiveness indicators depict heterogeneity among EU countries. The loss of international competitiveness for some technology front-runners is a worrying sign. On the positive side, however, a reduction in trade deficits or an improvement in product quality and market shares is evident for certain EU countries, especially in the Central European region.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, European Union, Trade, Digitalization, and International Competition
Political Geography:
Japan, China, Europe, Asia, South Korea, and United States of America

2. Rewriting the Future of America’s Maritime Industry to Compete with China

Author:
Michael Roberts
Publication Date:
10-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
For decades, companies outside the United States have dominated the international commercial shipping and shipbuilding industries. At various times since World War II, Japan, Korea, and certain European countries have been able to leverage their export-driven manufacturing economies and government support to become world leaders in commercial shipbuilding and major players in international shipping. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has taken that strategy to a new level and now produces more than half the large commercial ships delivered annually, controls scores of seaports in dozens of foreign countries, and owns almost one-fifth of the global commercial fleet. American commercial shipbuilders and US flag shipping companies have long faced fierce headwinds in international markets and have seen support from the US government dwindle. The US reset its maritime policies in the 1990s when America was the sole superpower and the security benefits of a robust commercial maritime industry were in doubt. By the end of 2022, Americans owned only 3 percent of the 55,000 ships in the global commercial fleet, including just 178 large US flag cargo ships, 85 of which are committed to international trade (see tables 1 and 2 below for a breakdown of US and global commercial fleets). The emergence of the PRC as a challenger to America’s global leadership has forced sweeping changes in US policy and spending priorities to boost America’s economic and military security. This report recommends that the US reform its policies governing America’s commercial maritime industries because shipping and shipbuilding are core components of national power. These industries remain especially crucial in the twenty-first century, as international trade is more important to a healthy American economy today than ever before. Yet Americans have almost no control over the maritime logistics systems that feed the US economy. The pandemic-induced supply chain crisis showed how much damage can be done when those systems break down.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, National Security, Maritime, Industry, Domestic Policy, and Supply Chains
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

3. EU-Pacific Talks: Trade relations with the Indo-Pacific

Author:
Eliška Prostřední
Publication Date:
04-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Europeum Institute for European Policy
Abstract:
Overall, the debate focused on the diversification of global trading partners and how to achieve it. Speakers also discussed the threats associated with dependence on only a few strong countries, which can then take the position of rule makers. The whole debate was linked to the possibilities of global trade with countries that are part of the Indo-Pacific region. Writes Eliska Prostřední in her report on the debate "EU-Pacific Talks: Trade relations with the Indo-Pacific".
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, Partnerships, Diversification, Trade, Debates, and Economic Dependence
Political Geography:
Europe and Indo-Pacific

4. China/United States: Europe off Balance

Author:
Thomas Gomart and Marc Hecker
Publication Date:
04-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Institut français des relations internationales (IFRI)
Abstract:
As French President Emmanuel Macron (accompanied by Ursula von der Leyen) is on a state visit to China, some twenty Ifri researchers decipher the stakes of the U.S./China/Europe strategic triangle. This 16-text study follows Olaf Scholz’s visit to Beijing (November 2022) and precedes that of Emmanuel Macron (April 2023). It comes especially one year after the beginning of a geopolitical and geoeconomic shock of a rare magnitude: the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. The War in Ukraine or the Return of Bloc Geopolitics? The war in Ukraine has broken ties between the European Union (EU) and Russia for the foreseeable future, particularly in the field of energy, though not without consequences in the Middle East, Africa, and the Indo-Pacific. Furthermore, this war has become the main show of active indirect confrontation between the United States—which has provided military support to Ukrainians, with help from its European allies—and China, which has supported Russia politically and economically. In February 2022, Moscow and Beijing declared their “no limits friendship”; in March 2023, Xi Jinping offered his personal support to Vladimir Putin after the International Criminal Court issued a warrant for his arrest. In its position on the political settlement of the Ukraine crisis, presented in February 2023, China stated: “All parties should oppose the pursuit of one’s own security at the cost of others’ security, prevent bloc confrontation, and work together for peace and stability on the Eurasian Continent”. China is no more of a mediator than the United States: it would be unrealistic to believe so. We appear to be witnessing a return of bloc geopolitics, albeit in a starkly different context than that of the Cold War (1947-1991). Globalization has produced strong economic and technological interdependencies that make any prospect of decoupling very costly, if not impossible. Economic partners are no longer necessarily military allies, and vice versa. In other words, a gap is opening up between geopolitical perceptions and geoeconomic realities. The term “decoupling” is popular in the United States, though much less so elsewhere. The rejection of bloc geopolitics is particularly acute outside of the West, where a “pragmatic” approach to foreign policy is often promoted. The Saudi foreign minister summed this up during the World Policy Conference in December 2022: “Polarization is the last thing we need right now. […] We need to build bridges, strengthen connections, and find areas of cooperation”. A few months later, China pulled off an extraordinary diplomatic coup by brokering a deal to restore relations between Riyadh and Tehran. For the EU, the situation is particularly delicate: Europe is in the Western camp, but a severing of ties with Beijing would cause a crushing economic blow. In 2022, China accounted for more than 20% of the EU’s imports, while the United States accounted for around 12%. By 2030, the EU’s GDP is expected to rise to $20.5 trillion, compared to $30.5 trillion for the United States and $33.7 trillion for China. In January 2023, the President of the European Commission declared at Davos: “We still need to work and trade with China, especially when it comes to this transition. So, we need to refocus our approach on de-risking, rather than decoupling”. For its part, Beijing has encouraged European aspirations of “strategic autonomy”, understood in China as a form of detachment from the United States. At the same time, the EU is constantly strengthening its military, technological, financial and energy ties with the U.S. This collective study notes a hypothetical search for balance on the part of the Europeans, faced with a war on their territory (the Western peninsula of the heartland), who cannot escape Sino-American mechanisms, and who do not form a monolithic whole. It also analyzes the strategy of several important actors outside our continent, and shows that, from Ukraine to Taiwan, via Africa and the Middle East, Europeans have little room for maneuver. This is why the study proposes recommendations to try, at a crucial moment, to reinforce their positioning.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Climate Change, International Trade and Finance, Science and Technology, European Union, and Industry
Political Geography:
China, Europe, and United States of America

5. The Evolution of the Global Trading System: How the Rise of Asia and Next Generation Trade Will Shape the Future Economy

Author:
Shay Wester
Publication Date:
11-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Asia Society
Abstract:
Over the last seventy years, global trade flows have grown to an unprecedented level, facilitated by the lowering of tariffs and the creation of a shared set of rules. The Asia Pacific region has been central to this remarkable growth, with trade volumes nearly quadrupling in the last twenty years. Asian countries view trade as a critical tool to grow their economies, strengthen supply chain resiliency, create jobs, foster development, attract foreign direct investment, and promote innovation. As a result, they have been on the forefront of concluding trade agreements, and in the process tackling emerging issues through innovative approaches. In the meantime, many of the existing institutions, groupings, and approaches that have supported a strong rules-based trading system have not sufficiently stepped up to address emerging challenges. In particular, negotiating efforts at the World Trade Organization (WTO) have largely stalled with WTO members to date unable to forge consensus on pressing trade matters affecting climate, health, and digital, to name just a few. Additionally, as the scope of trade agreements has expanded over time, concluding comprehensive agreements has become more difficult. Finally, increased geopolitical tensions have impacted the multilateral trading system’s ability to function and thus respond effectively to new challenges. A new Asia Society Policy Institute (ASPI) report, The Evolution of the Global Trading System: How the Rise of Asia and Next Generation Challenges Will Shape the Future Economy, by ASPI's Shay Wester, explores next-generation trade challenges where new rules and new approaches will be needed. It concludes with observations on how these changes are reshaping the global trading system and examines how governments will need to adapt going forward.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, World Trade Organization, Economy, and Tariffs
Political Geography:
Asia

6. U.S. Strategy: Rebalancing Global Energy between Europe, Russia, and Asia and U.S. Security Policy in the Middle East and the Gulf

Author:
Anthony H. Cordesman
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
The war in Ukraine has already shown how dangerous it is for the U.S. to assume that it can rebalance its forces to one region and count on a lasting peace or detente in others. It now is all too clear that U.S. strategy must continue to focus on Europe as well as China. What is less clear is the extent to which the Ukraine War is an equal warning that the U.S. must have a truly global strategy – and one that continues to focus on other critical regions like the Middle East. The sudden escalation of the Ukraine crisis into a major regional conflict and the need for political and diplomatic support in the UN as well as for sanctions are warnings that much of the U.S. success in deterrence and defense lies in creating long-term global diplomatic and political support as well as true and lasting strategic partnerships.
Topic:
Security, Energy Policy, International Trade and Finance, Hegemony, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Middle East, Asia, North America, and United States of America

7. Economic and Social Impacts of FDI in Central, East and Southeast Europe

Author:
Doris Hanzl-Weiss and Branimir Jovanovic
Publication Date:
11-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies (WIIW)
Abstract:
This study assesses the economic and social impacts of foreign direct investment (FDI) in 17 economies in Central, East and Southeast Europe (CESEE). More precisely, we investigate how different FDI inflows have affected various economic and social indicators, such as GDP growth, labour market outcomes, and poverty and inequality, for the period since the fall of communism until 2020. We pay particular attention to FDI that originates from the EU, as well as FDI from Germany and Austria, in order to evaluate whether their effects are different from the effects of FDI from other places of origin. We also examine whether there are differences in the impacts of different types of FDI – equity capital, reinvested earnings and intra-company debt, as well as of FDI that goes to different sectors of the economy – the primary, secondary and tertiary sectors. We find that FDI inflows have had, in general, a positive effect on economic growth in CESEE, and that this effect has been particularly strong for German and Austrian FDI. For total FDI, higher inflows of 1 percentage point (pp) of GDP are associated with 0.19 pp higher GDP growth. For FDI from Germany and Austria, this effect is five times higher – FDI inflows of 1 pp of GDP have led to 0.9 pp higher GDP growth. The positive GDP effects have come from the higher consumption and exports that the FDI has induced. FDI inflows have also reduced unemployment and increased wages, but have had no effects on labour productivity. Total FDI has had only limited effects on inequality and poverty, but FDI from Germany and Austria has been found to reduce both inequality and poverty, likely because they have benefitted mainly lower-income persons. There are differences in the effects of the different types of FDI, with reinvested earnings and equity capital having in general more beneficial effects than intra-company loans. Also, FDI in different sectors of the economy has had different effects, with inflows to the secondary and tertiary sectors having greater effects than inflows to the primary sector. The policy implications of these results are that CESEE economies should not give up on their efforts to attract more FDI, but also that their endeavours should be more targeted, focusing on investments that have greater economic and social impacts. Moreover, foreign investment should not be criticised for the perhaps unsatisfactory economic and social performances of the economies from this region. Instead, the reasons for this should be sought in domestic factors and in the modest growth of the European Union during the past two decades.
Topic:
Development, International Trade and Finance, Poverty, Foreign Direct Investment, Inequality, Economic Growth, and Unemployment
Political Geography:
Europe, Eastern Europe, Germany, and Austria

8. The Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and Digital Trade in Southeast Asia

Author:
Andreyka Natalegawa and Gregory B. Poling
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
In October 2021, the Biden administration announced the development of an Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) with partner nations to “define our shared objectives around trade facilitation, standards for the digital economy and technology, supply chain resiliency, decarbonization and clean energy, infrastructure, worker standards, and other areas of shared interest.” Details on the framework are still being worked out, but it now seems that those six areas of focus have been distilled into four negotiating “pillars.” Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Sarah Bianchi said in early February that these would include “fair and resilient trade, supply chain resilience, infrastructure and decarbonization, and tax and anticorruption.” The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) will likely lead negotiations on the first, while it appears that the Commerce Department will take the lead on the other three. The details of each pillar will be worked out in the months ahead, but the Biden administration is certain to face challenges and trade-offs across each, given the diversity of economies and political constraints across the region. USTR has said the trade pillar will be “high-ambition” and include binding commitments. But this will be complicated by the fact that the administration plans to roll out the IPEF through executive action rather than as a traditional trade deal requiring congressional approval. This pathway will help the framework sidestep political obstacles that agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership faced before Congress, but it also means that the administration cannot offer increased market access or any other concessions that would require changes to U.S. law. Moreover, moving forward with the IPEF through executive action has led to concerns among partners that the framework could be vulnerable to U.S. domestic politics or that a future administration may well roll back or abandon the framework. Given these self-imposed constraints, the administration will face headwinds trying to convince countries to sign on to high-standard provisions on digital trade, labor, and environmental standards that might run counter to their perceived short-term political or economic interests. One possible solution would have been to make the involvement in the other three pillars, where there are likely to be more tangible benefits for other countries, contingent on an agreement in the trade pillar. But that would run counter to the desire to get as many countries on board as possible. So, the administration has instead indicated that countries will be invited to engage in each pillar a la carte. And while like-mindedness in and of itself does not immediately guarantee their support for the IPEF, the likely result is that only Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and perhaps South Korea—the most developed economies which already share U.S. standards on digital trade, environment, and labor—will engage with USTR on the trade pillar. But a wider array of economies will likely join the talks with the Commerce Department on the other three.
Topic:
Economics, International Trade and Finance, Digital Economy, and Economic Cooperation
Political Geography:
Asia, Southeast Asia, and Indo-Pacific

9. Securing Medical Supply Chains with Trusted Trade Partners

Author:
Meredith Broadbent
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
There is bipartisan consensus on Capitol Hill and in the Biden administration regarding excessive dependence on Chinese manufacturing and production. An extension of this is that diversification of supply chains for certain medical products will make U.S. citizens more secure in fighting future infectious diseases. The highly disrupted international economic environment, reeling from supply and demand dislocations unleashed by the pandemic, U.S.-China trade conflicts, and war in Eastern Europe, is prompting certain countries in the Western Hemisphere to seize the occasion to aggressively market themselves as attractive hosts for foreign direct investment looking to move closer to the U.S. market. It is an opportune time for the United States to shape some of the larger forces of global economic disruption, including the movement of investment and production capital. It is time to forge enhanced trade links and diversified supply chains with friends and allies to promote health security, stronger economic and diplomatic engagement, commitments to exchange of data on production, and best practices in fighting disease. This paper breaks down CSIS’s analyses on the capacity for nearshoring in Canada, Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, Manufacturing, Medicine, and Supply Chains
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

10. Multilateral Trade Arrangements and Climate Provisions

Author:
Emily Benson, Sparsha Janardhan, and William Alan Reinsch
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
This new paper from the CSIS Scholl Chair in International Business assesses sectoral standards bodies, evaluates environmental provisions in trade agreements, and explores opportunities for addressing climate concerns in newer trade arrangements, such as the recent announcement to negotiate a deal on green steel and aluminum between the European Union and the United States. As this paper seeks to demonstrate, binding agreements with clear enforcement mechanisms are best suited for ensuring that parties meet their climate change obligations as outlined in various bilateral or multilateral agreements. Since concluding agreements that are both binding and have clear enforcement capabilities are not always possible or politically desirable, pursuing a mixed approach—one based on best practices from a diverse set of trade architectures—may be the most viable approach that produces the most tangible outcomes. This paper evaluates climate provisions in trade architectures and makes recommendations for including climate provisions, including sectoral standards, in trade arrangements in a way that encourages increased multilateral collaboration in a WTO-compliant manner.
Topic:
Climate Change, International Cooperation, International Trade and Finance, and Multilateralism
Political Geography:
Global Focus

11. Convergence and Divergence: Multilateral Trade and Climate Agendas

Author:
William Alan Reinsch and Emily Benson
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
If the international community wants to make meaningful progress ahead of the 2030 deadline—which critics argue is still too late to avert global catastrophe—major global players should work together to reduce emissions at home and abroad. This paper discusses the politics of climate policy in the United States and how it is influenced by relationships with the European Union and China. It analyzes these international relationships through specific policies, namely subsidies, and assesses their reduction or removal in some cases and their reallocations in others. It also evaluates the politics and policy implications of carbon border adjustments, including their compliance with existing WTO rules. These trade policies allude to domestic industrial policies and how they can be adjusted to better combat climate change while complying with existing trade rules. In outlining policy options for the United States’ trade agenda, including how the European Union and China factor into these options, the paper assesses the probability that certain climate policies will ultimately materialize. The paper argues that unilateralism is insufficient and counterproductive in both trade and climate and that only through multilateral, legally compliant policy convergence can countries stave off environmental and economic collapse.
Topic:
Climate Change, Environment, International Trade and Finance, Multilateral Relations, and Multilateralism
Political Geography:
Global Focus

12. International Practice of Sanction Evasion and Circumvention Possibilities for Russia

Author:
Davit Shatakishvili
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
Sanctions play a special role in the economic and political life of the world. Historically, despite their various forms of use, sanctions have acquired an essentially functional substance in the 20th century. The goal of the sanctions is primarily to ensure global peace. In case of violation of market principles, military aggression, or disregard for the rules established between nations, the violator is sanctioned by specific countries and/or groups of states, who, in doing so, aim to bring it back to the norms of international law. Sanctions increase political and economic pressure on the target country, which are reflected in various dimensions and quantitative figures. Consequently, the country loses some of its political leverage and experiences tangible economic regress. For the sake of universal peace and global security, the policy of sanctions has not lost its relevance in the 21st century. As a result of Russia’s aggressive military intervention in Ukraine, the world community has applied an unprecedented package of sanctions against the aggressor, which has spread to almost every industry of the country and is still being added to. In this regard, Russia broke the anti-record and surpassed countries such as North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Venezuela. Over the decades, sanctioned countries have accumulated extensive experience on how to circumvent the imposed sanctions, so as to at least partially help the country overcome the economic difficulties. It is interesting which ways and schemes such countries use to circumvent the restrictions, and based on that experience, what opportunities there are for the Russian Federation to do the same and evade the sanctions imposed on it, a move which will not only limit but also further pave the way for its aggressive foreign policy and threaten world peace.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, International Trade and Finance, Oil, Sanctions, Global Markets, Cryptocurrencies, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia and Eurasia

13. Functional Specialisation in EU Value Chains: Methods for Identifying EU Countries’ Roles in International Production Networks

Author:
Aleksandra Kordalska, Magdalena Olczyk, Roman Stöllinger, and Zuzana Zavarská
Publication Date:
08-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies (WIIW)
Abstract:
Geographically dispersed production networks have allowed countries to specialise in different functions of the value chain. By making use of two methodologies for quantifying the magnitude of functional specialisation – one based on trade flows and one based on FDI flows – detailed profiles of the functional specialisations of EU member states are identified. The analyses are conducted at the country, industry and regional level. In line with the existing literature, they reveal that EU-CEE countries are predominantly specialised in the fabrication stage, that is, they serve as ‘factory economies’, while the Western EU countries are mainly performing knowledge-intensive pre-fabrication activities – a characteristic of ‘headquarter economies’. This dualism within the EU is confirmed by a cluster analysis. While functional specialisation patterns tend to be persistent, especially in the fabrication stage, there are also some signs of functional diversification in EU-CEE countries in more recent years. Still, these functional changes remain limited to a few industries. The dichotomy of factory and headquarter economies is also clearly discernible at the regional level. However, the fact that in most EU countries – mainly in the capital regions – there are some headquarter-type regions implies that a complete functional ‘lock-in’ in fabrication is less likely than suggested by the country-level patterns. Hence, while the results point towards major difficulties of functional diversification beyond the fabrication stage in the EU-CEE countries and regions, there are also several promising elements and trends discernible, in particular at the industry and the regional level.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, European Union, Economy, Value Chains, Specialization, and Competition
Political Geography:
Europe

14. Trade and Supply Chain Issues for Taiwan and Australia

Author:
Bryce Wakefield
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Australian Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
Covid-19 has disrupted supply chains around the world, while political movements in the United States and Europe that predate the pandemic have raised the prospect that we are once more living in a world where regionalism and nationalism trump global integration of trade. China, meanwhile, has made it clear that it sees trade as a tool in its political statecraft, a factor that has been keenly felt in the region. Nervous actors in the Indo-Pacific are looking to diversify their trade away from China, but do nations in the region have many choices? What does this mean for Taiwan-Australia trade relations? How does Taiwan’s ambiguous position in the international system relate to recent trade agreements? Where do Taiwan and Australia, as mid-level powers, sit within the global trading order?
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, Public Health, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
China, Taiwan, Asia, and Australia

15. China's Belt and Road: Implications for the United States

Author:
Jennifer A. Hillman and David Sacks
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Chinese President Xi Jinping’s signature foreign policy undertaking and the world’s largest infrastructure program, poses a significant challenge to U.S. economic, political, climate change, security, and global health interests. Since BRI’s launch in 2013, Chinese banks and companies have financed and built everything from power plants, railways, highways, and ports to telecommunications infrastructure, fiber-optic cables, and smart cities around the world. If implemented sustainably and responsibly, BRI has the potential to meet long-standing developing country needs and spur global economic growth. To date, however, the risks for both the United States and recipient countries raised by BRI’s implementation considerably outweigh its benefits. BRI was initially designed to connect China’s modern coastal cities to its underdeveloped interior and to its Southeast, Central, and South Asian neighbors, cementing China’s position at the center of a more connected world. The initiative has since outgrown its original regional corridors, expanding to all corners of the globe. Its scope now includes a Digital Silk Road intended to improve recipients’ telecommunications networks, artificial intelligence capabilities, cloud computing, e-commerce and mobile payment systems, surveillance technology, and other high-tech areas, along with a Health Silk Road designed to operationalize China’s vision of global health governance.1 Hundreds of projects around the world now fall under the BRI umbrella.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, Infrastructure, Hegemony, Conflict, Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and Regionalism
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

16. The Digital Decide: How to Agree on WTO Rules for Digital Trade

Author:
James Bacchus
Publication Date:
08-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation
Abstract:
After more than 20 years of unsuccessful negotiations, WTO member countries may be able to agree on global digital trade rules if they look to the new Digital Economy Partnership Agreement (DEPA) among Chile, New Zealand and Singapore as a model. As the first “digital only” trade agreement, the DEPA offers a modular approach that allows members to pick and choose which modules work best for them today while enabling them to adopt more legal commitments on digital trade in the future. As cross-border trade becomes increasingly digital, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, ensuring the free movement of goods and services is essential to the global economy.
Topic:
International Cooperation, International Trade and Finance, World Trade Organization, and Digital Economy
Political Geography:
Global Focus

17. Economic Cracks in the Great Wall of China: Is China's Current Economic Model Sustainable?

Author:
Thomas J. Duesterberg
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
Since Deng Xiaoping changed the trajectory of Chinese economic policy in 1978, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has amassed an impressive record of economic growth. Many economists and political analysts, however, have come to question whether the top-down, mercantilist economic system in the PRC is sustainable in the medium to long term. This report explores the long-term structural and short-term economic problems in contemporary China, and in particular considers whether the Xi Jinping regime can avoid a financial crisis and effectively manage a transition to a stable new equilibrium. Structural issues include a looming downturn in the population and in the workforce; associated problems with an underdeveloped and underfinanced social safety and welfare net; income and regional inequality; environmental degradation; and domestic shortages of raw materials, agricultural production, and energy resources. The acute economic problems analyzed in the paper are a real estate bubble, the accumulation of dangerous levels of debt, dependence on external markets and financing, a difficult transition to a more consumer-oriented and less investment-driven economy, a crackdown on dynamic digital and financial sectors, a return to dominance of low-productivity state-owned enterprises and manufacturing firms, and weak governance from an increasingly authoritarian and unaccountable regime. Many of these acute issues result from Xi’s changes in policy since 2013. Xi’s turn toward greater economic self-reliance while maintaining mercantilist trade relations signals an effective decoupling from the US and allied economies. Some historical examples of bubble economies and financial crises are discussed as possible analogies to the current situation in China. One conclusion is that the Middle Kingdom will see a much slower-growing economy, which makes addressing the structural issues much more difficult. Inability or lack of determination to address the large array of issues may also undermine the political legitimacy of the current regime, which has been buttressed since 1978 by a rapid growth model based on debt, real estate, and investment, including infrastructure. The concluding section of this report offers policy tools that the United States and its allies could deploy to induce China to be a more responsible stakeholder in the world economy and a more reliable contributor to global sustainability. The tools considered in the study include trade policy and export controls, expanded oversight of foreign investment (both direct and portfolio investment), cooperation with allies on China policy, and defense-related sanctions. The paper also suggests that deployment of these tools could be a factor in weakening China’s economy as well as a means to convince its leadership to pursue less mercantilist and authoritarian global strategies, which are harmful to the US economy and to global stability.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, International Trade and Finance, Finance, Economy, and Economic Growth
Political Geography:
China and Asia

18. Can the Biggest Emitters Set Up a Climate Club? A Review of International Carbon Pricing Debates

Author:
Carole Mathieu
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Institut français des relations internationales (IFRI)
Abstract:
The world’s largest emitting countries are reconsidering the role of carbon pricing instruments and increasingly looking at carbon border adjustment mechanisms (CBAMs) to address leakage concerns. This renewed momentum should trigger a broader discussion on how to make trade policies compatible with the climate agenda. With the Glasgow climate conference (COP26) approaching, the concept of putting a price on carbon is generating unprecedented interest in Canada and the United States (US), China and Japan. But the European Union (EU) still stands as an exception; it is the only regional trading bloc that is determined to leverage the full potential of its emissions trading system (ETS). To date, others have lacked the political backing to deploy nation-wide carbon pricing initiatives with a design sturdy enough to drive meaningful emission reductions. Canada has made significant progress with the adoption of a national framework for carbon pricing in 2018. The country’s draft regulations foresee the introduction of a federal ETS as of 2022 and a gradual increase in carbon prices, but its ambitions risk being upset by the lack of consistent efforts in the US, its largest trading partner. Given US political divides, a federal carbon pricing scheme is unlikely to materialize in the short run. In China, the long-delayed national ETS has finally been launched. However, its scope is restricted to the power sector for now, and it is likely to only have a modest impact on coal use with its current design. Several arguments may discourage China from fully extending its ETS as planned and rather argue in favor of introducing a complementary carbon tax. Japan has also engaged an expert debate on the benefits of introducing carbon pricing at the national level, but the government is struggling to find a balance between the risk of worsening competitiveness and the need to mobilize investment in clean technologies. For the EU, the upcoming reform of the EU ETS is an opportunity to introduce a truly demanding cap reduction for the 2023-2030 period and make this flagship instrument more robust, predictable, and fair. To initiate in-depth decarbonization of its industry, the EU will need to phase out free allowances. Therefore, other measures addressing unfair competition will have to be introduced and CBAM could be part of the solution. A unilateral application is however no panacea. The EU should move cautiously and start implementing the CBAM to a small set of sectors. This also means that the challenge of leveling the playing field with non-EU producers will remain largely unresolved. There is little chance that an international alliance on carbon pricing or “climate club” can be set up within a timeframe compatible with the climate emergency. Yet, the EU’s CBAM proposal can encourage trading partners to accelerate decision-making on carbon pricing, at least to obtain partial exemption. In addition, having a concrete anti-leakage proposal on the table leads to a sense of the inevitable mismatches between the global trade and climate agendas. Large emitters are starting to acknowledge the need for a multilateral discussion on how to decarbonize industries while maintaining a level playing field. The next step should be to kickstart an open discussion in all possible multilateral fora (G20, International Energy Agency, global industry associations, etc.) and mandate the World Trade Organization (WTO) to develop guidance on a wide range of instruments (including CBAM, but also eco-design labelling and standards, differentiated tariffs based on CO2 intensity, etc.) and including a common exemption approach for Least Developed Countries. Exploring a set of workable solutions should be more attractive to trade partners than pushing for a uniform solution, but results would still take time to materialize. Hence, establishing a level playing field with imports will likely require the EU – and all countries with an aggressive decarbonization agenda for their industries – to strengthen their financial and regulatory support to the deployment of innovative low-carbon manufacturing processes. Again, this almost-unavoidable resort to State aid would strongly benefit from a multilateral discussion.
Topic:
Climate Change, International Trade and Finance, European Union, Carbon Tax, and Carbon Emissions
Political Geography:
Japan, China, Europe, and Canada

19. Strategic Autonomy and the Transformation of the EU: New Agendas for Security, Diplomacy, Trade and Technology

Author:
Niklas Helwig
Publication Date:
04-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
The EU is caught up in a debate over whether to increase its autonomy with regard to the wider world. International developments and crises of recent years have raised the question of whether Europeans should be more capable of managing the risks stemming from their exposure to global trade and possible over-reliance on allies for their security. This report analyses how the pursuit of strategic autonomy transforms EU policies in the field of security, diplomacy, trade, and technology. The report makes recommendations on how the EU can advance strategic autonomy, while striking a balance between protectionist tendencies and the need to stay open to international engagement and cooperation. Instead of focusing on the divisive question of strategic autonomy from others, member states should pay attention to more constructive approaches and concrete actions to strengthen strategic autonomy. In each of the policy fields, the right mix of protection of European assets, provision of the economic and political basis, and the projection of European interests and values abroad will be vital.
Topic:
Security, Diplomacy, International Trade and Finance, Regional Cooperation, Science and Technology, European Union, Regionalism, Autonomy, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Europe

20. Thai-U.S. Bilateral Relations: Benefits and Challenges

Author:
Arunrat Chumroentaweesup
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
Arunrat Chumroentaweesup, Consulting Manager at Tractus Asia, explains that “American firms enjoy two significant benefits. First, US entities are permitted to maintain a majority shareholding or to wholly own a company, branch office or representative office located in Thailand. Second, US companies are permitted to engage in business on almost the same footing as Thai firms and are exempted from most of the foreign investment restrictions imposed by the Foreign Business Act.”
Topic:
Economics, International Trade and Finance, Bilateral Relations, and Business
Political Geography:
North America, Thailand, Southeast Asia, and United States of America