L*****d
发帖数: 5093 | 1 CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (Project Syndicate) — Like almost all economists and most
policy analysts, I prefer low trade tariffs or no tariffs at all. How, then,
can President Donald Trump’s decision to impose substantial tariffs on
imports of steel and aluminum be justified?
Trump no doubt sees potential political gains in steel- and aluminum-
producing districts and in increasing the pressure on Canada and Mexico as
his administration renegotiates the North American Free Trade Agreement. The
European Union has announced plans to retaliate against U.S. exports, but
in the end the EU may negotiate — and agree to reduce current tariffs on U.
S. products that exceed U.S. tariffs on European products.
But the real target of the steel and aluminum tariffs is China.
The Chinese government has promised for years to reduce excess steel
capacity, thereby cutting the surplus output that is sold to the United
States at subsidized prices. Chinese policy makers have postponed doing so
as a result of domestic pressure to protect China’s own steel and aluminum
jobs.
The U.S. tariffs will balance those domestic pressures and increase the
likelihood that China will accelerate the reduction in subsidized excess
capacity.
–– ADVERTISEMENT ––
Because the tariffs are being levied under a provision of U.S. trade law
that applies to national security, rather than dumping or import surges, it
will be possible to exempt imports from military allies in NATO, as well as
Japan and South Korea, focusing the tariffs on China and avoiding the risk
of a broader trade war.
The administration has not yet said that it will focus the tariffs in this
way; but, given that they are being introduced with a phase-in period,
during which trade partners may seek exemptions, such targeting seems to be
the likeliest scenario.
For the U.S., the most important trade issue with China concerns technology
transfers, not Chinese exports of subsidized steel and aluminum. Although
such subsidies hurt U.S. producers of steel and aluminum, the resulting low
prices also help U.S. firms that use steel and aluminum, as well as U.S.
consumers that buy those products.
But China unambiguously hurts U.S. interests when it steals technology
developed by U.S. firms.
Until a few years ago, the Chinese government was using the Peoples
Liberation Army’s (PLA) sophisticated cyber skills to infiltrate American
companies and steal technology. Chinese officials denied all wrongdoing
until President Barack Obama and President Xi Jinping met in California in
June 2013.
Obama showed Xi detailed proof that the U.S. had obtained through its own
cyber espionage. Xi then agreed that the Chinese government would no longer
use the PLA or other government agencies to steal U.S. technology. Although
it is difficult to know with certainty, it appears that such cyber theft has
been reduced dramatically.
The current technology theft takes a different form. American firms that
want to do business in China are often required to transfer their technology
to Chinese firms as a condition of market entry. These firms “voluntarily
” transfer production knowhow because they want access to a market of 1.3
billion people and an economy as large as that of the U.S.
These firms complain that the requirement of technology transfer is a form
of extortion. Moreover, they worry that the Chinese government often delays
their market access long enough for domestic firms to use their newly
acquired technology to gain market share.
The U.S. cannot use traditional remedies for trade disputes or World Trade
Organization procedures to stop China’s behavior. Nor can the U.S. threaten
to take Chinese technology or require Chinese firms to transfer it to
American firms, because the Chinese do not have the kind of leading-edge
technology that U.S. firms have.
So, what can U.S .policy makers do to help level the playing field?
This brings us back to the proposed tariffs on steel and aluminum. In my
view, U.S. negotiators will use the threat of imposing the tariffs on
Chinese producers as a way to persuade China’s government to abandon the
policy of “voluntary” technology transfers.
If that happens, and U.S. firms can do business in China without being
compelled to pay such a steep competitive price, the threat of tariffs will
have been a very successful tool of trade policy. | K******r
发帖数: 4052 | | v*********u
发帖数: 10464 | |
|
