krueger31_Jabin BotsfordThe Washington Post via Getty Images_trump china trade

特朗普的重大贸易失误

Sep 22, 2020 Anne O. Krueger

发自华盛顿特区—全球经济在二战后的表现远远超出了战后总设计师们原本的构想，在健康、教育、生活水平，脱贫和财富方面都取得了空前的成就。而其成功关键则是国际贸易的增长和自由化，如果没有美国对开放多边贸易体系创设和组织工作的领导，这一切都不会成为现实。

该体系——先后通过《关税与贸易总协定》和世界贸易组织确立——建立了全球商业的国际法治，贸易伙伴非歧视原则，以及一个谈判关税减免和取消其他贸易壁垒的论坛。世贸组织于1995年1月取代了关贸总协定，到2000年时发达经济体对制造商施加的平均关税约为2％，远低于1948年的水平，而国际贸易也从战后初期占全球GDP约20％增长到1990年的39％，进而到2018年的58％。

但在过去几年间开放多边贸易体系受到了严重侵蚀。尽管世界GDP仍在增长，但2019年以美元计价的世界贸易额下降了3％。这种逆转在很大程度上是美国总统特朗普于2017年1月上任后美国转向双边主义和贸易保护主义的后果。特朗普似乎认为美国有足够实力去与贸易伙伴一对一谈判（潜台词是逼迫）拿下更好的“交易”。但尽管美国确实是一个大型贸易国，实际上它仅拥有全球人口的4％以及不到1/5的全球GDP——仅这些数字就足以证明人们并不看好特朗普这种双边恐吓行为的效果。

To continue reading, register now.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

Enjoy unlimited access to the ideas and opinions of the world’s leading thinkers, including long reads, book reviews, topical collections, short-form analysis and predictions, and exclusive interviews; every new issue of the PS Quarterly magazine (print and digital); the complete PS archive; and more. Subscribe now to PS Premium.

Anne O. Krueger

Writing for PS since 2014
54 Commentaries

Anne O. Krueger, a former World Bank chief economist and former first deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund, is Senior Research Professor of International Economics at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies and Senior Fellow at the Center for International Development at Stanford University.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 7 Comments on this article

Mia Mikic Sep 27, 2020

My first exposure to the western economic literature included most of Krueger's writing directed to then non-market and developing economies in order to explain to them the values of market-coordination; free trade (then based on GATT) and the rest of the Washington consensus. It is so weird to have to read the same author now having to explain the same principles to the US.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Joe Ryan Sep 24, 2020

Prof. Krueger is right that discrimination at sovereigns' borders doesn't help wage earners, but being right about that is not enough. "You can't beat something with nothing." Labor time per dollar of steel output is indeed falling. What about that? She doesn't say.

I think she could. She could say that productivity growth is going to happen, reducing labor time used in mature industries (regardless of border barriers). She could say that the pattern of purchases is going to change as incomes go up, so that employment in some industries is going to shrink relative to others. She could say that, in the U.S. particularly, transitions between jobs are extremely common (over 4 million per month, according to JOLTS).

She could conclude that we can't rely on employment (much less on border barriers) to provide stability in the basic income that people need for everyday necessities. She could point out that, in the U.S. at least, the productive resources exist to meet the entire population's everyday necessities. She could conclude that social insurance needs to supplement employment, and to grow substantially given employment's shortcomings, in order to bring people and basic necessities together.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Abhijit Das Sep 24, 2020

Resorting to unilateralism has always been an essential part of the US armoury for securing its negotiating objectives at GATT/WTO. Recall how Brazil, India and Thailand were compelled to fall in line with the US wishes on intellectual property rights during the Uruguay Round. US achieved this objective through unilateralism and active coercion of these developing countries. Trump is merely continuing this long tradition of past US presidents and trade negotiators.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Janos Nagy Sep 22, 2020

Another economist think tariffs is good if its lowest but of course tariffs are just taxes .
Now can anyone explain how do you compensate for the missed tax revenue beacose no taxes on imports. Oh yes higher domestic taxes and of course government debts.
So why would any country want to have favoritism for imports what obviously necessitates higher domestic taxes.
To have an equal amount of tax on an import just like on a domestic product is not protectionist but only enforcing economic democracy.
Of course for globalist its a mystery what is an economic democracy and crying protectionism if protecting economic democracy would be bad.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
alex Finch Sep 22, 2020

You argue that sweeping tariffs on US steel imports have not stopped steel employment from falling in America and you describe this as just another own goal by Trump. So let’s take a closer look at that argument. The giant German steel company ThyssenKrupp with 160.000 employees has been in serious trouble for years (it’s net equity steadily falling from €9 billion in 2009 to nil in 2020), the company’s board is now warning of a „bloodbath“ in job losses without billions of euros of immediate government support. The powerful unions are warning that manufacturing is the backbone of Germany’s economy and without a steel industry it would collapse. So the Socialists in Europe would rather extract more taxes from other EU industries and citizens to prop up their zombie companies than attack the root cause of the problem - China. Have any of you academics actually ever run a business of your own? One that required hiring people? One that was successful? Why are academics with no hands on experience, giving advice on how to run businesses? Why is China producing ever more steel after promising for years to produce less? China is praying the Democrats win.
- Vidvuds Beldavs Sep 24, 2020
  
  The issue Krueger addressed was the critical importance of a rules-based order rather than how to run specific businesses. What distinguished the postwar era was the rules-based order that emerged with the UN and the World Bank group and other international institutions. Without a rules-based order it is quite possible that the rhythm of major wars punctuated by perhaps a couple decades of relative peace would have continued.
  
  The world now has the opportunity to form a rules-based order for the emerging space resources based economy that may unfold in the coming decades. There has been excitement about the potential of asteroids holding quadrillions of resources that could drive continued development for centuries. However, this development is unlikely to emerge if Trumpian policies will be followed. In April 2020 Trump issued an executive order to enable U.S. dominance of the emerging space resources economy. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-encouraging-international-support-recovery-use-space-resources/. Subsequently, NASA has announced the Artemis Accords, which would force countries to adopt U.S. imposed rules rather than to abide by multilateral agreements negotiated within the UN framework of space treaties.
  
  The greater opportunity for the world community, including the U.S., would be to establish a rules-based order for outer space development rather than setting the stage for destructive wars involving outer space as a painful lesson. The lesson has been learned. There is no need to repeat the destructive behavior of the past. The next president of the U.S. should call for a space summit conference to formulate a rules-based order for outer space development within which China and the U.S. can cooperate as well as compete together with all other countries.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/S53Pstjzh

特朗普的重大贸易失误

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

特朗普的重大贸易失误

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification