To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This Article critically analyzes seven elements of the Biden administration trade policy: (1) buy American; (2) tariffs; (3) World Trade Organization; (4) free trade agreements; (5) China; (6) technology; and (7) Russia. Although President Biden has made a clean break from Trump policies in many areas, this is not the case when it comes to international trade. Regretfully, Biden has chosen to keep in place most of the failed trade policies of his predecessor—the Trump tariffs and the China trade war. It is not too late to shift ground, to negotiate mutual abolition of the Trump tariffs, to open free trade negotiations with the EU and UK, to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership, to adopt a multilateral strategy with allies to check Chinese trade excesses, and to reengage with the World Trade Organization. Topping the list of needed reforms of the multilateral trading system are: (1) subsidies; (2) state-owned enterprises; and (3) forced technology transfer. These are best addressed through a WTO plurilateral agreement and/or preferential trade agreements. The Biden administration should prioritize these urgent reforms. Rather than promoting “free” trade and multilateral trade reforms, the Biden administration continues its predecessor’s nationalistic policies so that trade serves domestic political ends. Such state intervention in trade policy consists of the strategic use of tariffs, subsidies, “buy American” rules, and regional trade arrangements without regard to the rules of the multilateral trading system. These new policies represent a decisive retreat from globalization and openness to trade.
The Congress, directed by the Biden administration, has adopted a far-reaching industrial policy in the form of four laws that subsidize key sectors of the U.S. economy: American Rescue Plan Act ($40 billion); Infrastructure and Jobs Act ($1.2 trillion); Inflation Reduction Act ($369 billion); and Chips Act ($252.7 billion). This subsidization coupled with “buy American” protectionism constitute a departure from the free trade ideal that has characterized U.S. policy since the end of World War II.
Liberia’s declaration of independence in 1847 was motivated in part by the Liberian government’s dependence on revenue from trade. Previous histories of Liberia have argued that there was a dramatic shift from protectionist policies in the nineteenth century to a policy of "open door" from the interwar period onward. This conclusion was based on the restriction of foreign trade to specific ports through so-called ports of entry laws dating back to the 1830s, and not abolished until 1931. There were also active debates among the Liberian elite about how protectionist Liberia should be in contemporary political discourse. This chapter uses new data on Liberian tariff rates to compare its trade policy to that of countries in Latin America and Asia. It finds that Liberia’s tariffs were somewhere between the protectionism of Latin America and the free trade policies of Asia, but closer to the latter. Despite rhetoric about the "closed door," trade was too important to the incomes of Liberian elites to restrict it.
The American aircraft industry’s important role in the economic, military, and cultural expansion of the United States over the past one hundred years has been well documented by historians. But America’s twentieth century aerial dominance was not preordained. After World War I, the nascent American aircraft industry faced a concerted British effort to dump thousands of war surplus machines on the U.S. market. With aircraft outside of the nation’s tariff regime, members of the Manufacturers Aircraft Association turned to Congress for emergency protections in the face of what they considered an existential threat. Despite efforts to equate a strong industrial base for aviation with the national defense, aircraft antidumping legislation became mired in partisan debates over tariff policy and accusations of wartime corruption. In the absence of relief from Congress, the Wright patent served as a barrier against the importation of foreign surplus machines.
Born of confidence at the height of optimism for economic globalization, the WTO has failed so far to fulfill all the high hopes of its founders. WTO members have largely been unable to agree on new rules to meet new commercial needs, and global trade governance has been fragmented by a resulting proliferation of local and regional trade agreements. The rise of developing countries - and especially the rise of China - have transformed global trade negotiations. The return of economic nationalism in the United States and elsewhere has accelerated a retreat from multilateral trade liberalization and other global solutions in trade.
The pandemic has turned the world inward and toward such perennial false promises of self-sufficiency as localism and protectionism. The trade links made possible by global supply chains are being questioned along with all else that connects the global economy. Amid this questioning, in the ongoing battle to end the pandemic, tariffs and other barriers to trade in medicines and other medical goods must be eliminated; vaccine nationalism must be replaced by vaccine multilateralism; and trade restrictions on the global supply of food must be avoided.
New trade rules for the new pandemic world must begin with long needed rules that have yet to be agreed after decades of deadlocked multilateral trade negotiations. Trade must be freed in international trade in manufactured goods, agricultural goods, and services.
Chapter 2 discusses the notion of populism as approached in the political science, legal, and economic literature. It explains in detail how populism is understood in the book, what actions it is associated with, what its principal characteristics are, and what are the possible reasons behind the success of populist politicians. It analyzes the difficult relations between populism and liberal democracy and liberal markets. In particular, by studying the experiences of Hungary and Poland, the chapter provides the reader with two case studies which can be used in an analysis of how a populists’ government’s rule specifically affects liberal democracy and liberal economy. This discussion provides the reader with a concrete context within which the influence of populism on competition law systems can be studied. The chapter concludes with a finding that populism may work as a driver of illiberal change in democracy and the economy.
Competition law is designed to promote a consumer-friendly economy, but for the law to work in practice, competition agencies - and the courts who oversee them - must enforce it effectively and impartially. Today, however, the rule of populist governments is challenging the foundations of competition law in unprecedented ways. In this comprehensive work, Maciej Bernatt analyses these challenges and describes how populist governments have influenced national and regional (EU) competition law systems. Using empirical findings from Poland and Hungary, Bernatt proposes a new theoretical framework that will allow the illiberal influence of populism on competition law systems to be better measured and understood. Populism and Antitrust will be of interest not only to antitrust and constitutional law scholars, but also to those concerned about the future of liberal democracy and free markets.
Unlike the industrial policies of other countries, which are mostly guidelines, China’s industrial policy is more like a corporate strategy that approves/disapproves projects and mobilizes the country’s resources to help its firms achieve dominance. Due to its size, the effects of China’s industrial policy have a powerful global impact. The general pattern of its industrial policy is that the state identifies certain industries and determines them to be high priorities. Once an industry is designated as strategically important, the state will mobilize all necessary resources from across the country to develop this industry. The state will pick some domestic firms as national champions, and erects barriers to foreign firms entering the industry. With a large, protected domestic market, the designated firms will be able to quickly realize the necessary scale and to lower unit production costs. Once the designated domestic firm becomes efficient, the state will support it as it goes out and dominates the world market. The cases of electronic vehicle batteries, solar panels, and high-speed rail are used to show how China’s industrial policy helps its firms to gain global dominance.
This chapter contributes to understanding the possible impacts of China’s Cyber Security Law once that law is fully implemented, as it concludes that Chinese authorities conduct an ongoing cost–benefit analysis in evaluating data localisation policies and practices, and that this partly explains China’s delay in implementing the data localisation provisions within the law. This is also consistent with the longstanding practice of the Chinese government to create fuzzy logic laws in areas of rapid change in order to allow for flexibility in implementation depending on the milieu. The costs and benefits of data localisation vary over time, requiring continual re-evaluation; hence, the laws can be implemented and reinterpreted in line with fuzzy logic. In particular, what is meant by ‘important data’ can be changed according to the policy considerations outlined in this chapter.
The key provisions of China’s Cyber Security Law relating to data localisation and data exits still allow for competing interpretations by regulators, which makes compliance difficult, even in 2021. The further attempt to include ‘backdoor’ keys to encryption in this law is also noted, although foreign companies have managed to exert some influence on this point and other implementation issues. The Cyber Security Law is an important and high-profile development in Chinese cyber policy history. It created much more controversy than the Anti-Terrorism Law explained in the previous chapter. In recent years, China has gradually adopted a series of laws, regulations and macro policies in the field of cyber security and data protection aimed at turning the country into a ‘cyber superpower’ and boosting its digital economy. The Cyber Security Law, which came into partial effect from 1 June 2017 (with an official 18-month phase-in period for the data localisation provisions), is a milestone in the development of China’s legal framework for cyber security and data protection. The law also provides further evidence of the inherent tensions underlying the innovation policies described in Chapter 3. However, vague regulations allow regulators leeway to adjust their aims in response to broader economic and political trends by means of implementing rules. Finally, clarifying the vaguest provisions in the Cyber Security Law through more transparent rules may provide an opportunity for the Chinese government to decide which way it is heading: towards further innovation or further restriction beyond the ongoing US–China trade war.
What explains divides in the public’s support for trade protection? Traditional economic arguments primarily focus on individuals’ expectations for increased or decreased wages in the face of greater economic openness, yet studies testing such wage-based concerns identify a different divide as well: even after accounting for wage effects, women are typically more supportive of trade protection. We argue that trade-induced employment volatility and the resulting concerns for employment stability are overlooked factors that help explain the gender divide in attitudes. Due to both structural discrimination and societal norms, we theorize that working women are more responsive to the threat of trade-related employment instability than male counterparts. Using an experiment fielded on national samples in the USA and Canada, we find that most respondents have weak reactions to volatility, but volatility has a significant effect on women who are the most vulnerable to trade’s disruptive effects – those working in import-competing industries and those with limited education.
In 2017, the Chinese Communist Party began to pay close attention to the development of China’s artificial intelligence (AI) industry, likely motivated by rising tension between the USA and China. This chapter documents the suite of policies that followed and their impact on the evolution of the AI industry in China. First, the AI industry has become another policy tool for the ruling Chinese Communist Party, especially during national emergencies. Second, the AI push likely will further encourage vertical integration of the AI value chain, especially for lead firms. Third, rather than foster market or modular transactions along the AI value chain, Chinese government subsidies and preference for national champions will foster relational and even captive ties between actors along the AI value chain. Ironically, these policies may encourage fragmentation of data architecture in China instead of consolidation.
The Trump administration’s multi-front trade war dramatically escalated with the imposition of extraordinary tariffs on Chinese imports in 2018. Corporate America has responded with a concerted campaign of resistance. We document these efforts – through extensive participation in notice and comment and public coalition-building – and show that corporate opposition to the trade war is primarily a consequence of firms' sourcing and production linkages with China. In contrast, we find far weaker efforts by anti-trade firms to support the trade war, whether to insulate themselves from import competition or to confront Chinese trade practices. We therefore describe and empirically illustrate the politics of global production networks, and highlight that scholars of trade politics should not neglect opposition to the Trump trade agenda arising from globally integrated firms. Global order in the area of trade hangs in the balance in an ongoing fight between corporate globalism and populist nationalism.
Mathew Carey promoted the high tariff as a political expression of humane sentiments that relieved American workers of the misery caused by low wages and unemployment. This made him an early example of a state-builder working outside the state itself, building ideological frames and using emotional appeals to promote the expansion of state capacity. Although other aspects of his protectionism appealed to the republican tradition, Carey meshed his sentimental appeal with the liberalism. Later reformers integrated sensibility with liberalism by reference to the rights of vulnerable parties, but Carey added an appeal to an enlightened self-interest that allowed American manufacturers to profit while protecting workers. Although he became a well-known advocate for the organized provision of social welfare, his continued opposition to the widespread distribution of outdoor relief also suggests that he viewed the policy as a circumscribed federal social-welfare measure providing work rather than direct aid.
This letter provides firm-level evidence that policy makers tailor trade policy to suit selected firms. It argues that firms with higher levels of specific assets find it more costly to reorganize production, and are hurt more by international competition. In response, policy makers grant more trade protection to firms with fixed assets. Since protectionism is costly, firms compete for it, which creates diffusion dynamics in which the protection granted to one firm affects the protection granted to others. This claim is tested utilizing the special role antidumping duties (ADDs) play in international trade, and combining petitions for ADDs with financial data on the firms filing them in a unique dataset. Using spatial autoregressive models, the authors find that firms with specific assets are granted more protection. However, diffusion dynamics differ within and between groups of firms producing the same good. This suggests that firms can partly shape their own level of trade protection.
Local Content and Sustainable Development in Global Energy Markets analyses the topical and contentious issue of the critical intersections between local content requirements (LCRs) and the implementation of sustainable development treaties in global energy markets including Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, Latin America, South America, Australasia and the Middle East While LCRs generally aim to boost domestic value creation and economic growth, inappropriately designed LCRs could produce negative social, human rights and environmental outcomes, and a misalignment of a country's fiscal policies and global sustainable development goals. These unintended outcomes may ultimately serve as disincentive to foreign participation in a country's energy market. This book outlines the guiding principles of a sustainable and rights-based approach – focusing on transparency, accountability, gender justice and other human rights issues – to the design, application and implementation of LCRs in global energy markets to avoid misalignments.
It analyses the trade outcomes of the G20 Hangzhou Summit, by revealing its position on strengthening the multilateral trading system, advancing negotiations on Doha issues, ratifying the Trade Facilitation Agreement, opposing protectionism on trade and supporting plurilateral trade agreements like Environmental Goods Agreement. It points out that the G20 Hangzhou Summit will be beneficial to the development of both WTO and G20. It also discusses specifically the importance of including issues in regional trade arrangements, the possibility of establishing a World Investment and Trade Organization (WITO) and the role of China in this aspect.
Current explanations of demand for anti-dumping protections focus on the role of the business cycle, and fluctuations in real exchange rates. However, empirical evidence supporting these explanations is based primarily on the experience of industrialized countries. Here, we examine anti-dumping petitions in a broader sample of thirty-four industrialized and middle income countries from 1978–2015. We also propose a new determinant of demand for anti-dumping petitions—changes in the pattern of industrial production between developed and developing economies over this period have contributed to deindustrialization in advanced economies and premature industrialization some developing countries. These changes threaten established industries and motivate them to demand protection.
How did Irish and American diplomacy operate in Washington DC and Dublin during the 1930s era of economic depression, rising fascism and Nazism? How did the Anglo–American relationship affect American–Irish diplomatic relations? Why and how did Éamon de Valera and Franklin D. Roosevelt move their countries towards neutrality in 1939? This first comprehensive history of American and Irish diplomacy during the 1930s focuses on formal and informal diplomacy, examining all aspects of diplomatic life to explain the relationship between the two administrations from 1932 to 1939. Bernadette Whelan reveals how diplomats worked on behalf of their governments to implement Franklin D. Roosevelt and Éamon de Valera's foreign policies – particularly when Éamon de Valera believed in the existence of a 'special' transatlantic relationship but Franklin D. Roosevelt increasingly favoured a strong relationship with Britain. Drawing on a wide range of under-used sources, this is a major new contribution to the history of American and Irish diplomacy and revises our understanding of the importance of Ireland to a US administration.