I'm still in Montreal, and behind the curve, but I don't want this place to be completely dormant so I'm going to pick on Emmanuel once again. Here he says "the US trade representative is tasked with promoting trade liberalization first and foremost". That is not true, and a political economist should know better. The US trade rep is first and foremost tasked with promoting American business interests. There is no ex ante reason to believe that always or even usually involves liberalization. In this case, it means "we're not liberalizing any more until China agrees to play by the same rules as everyone else". Remember that when China joined the WTO in 2001 it was given all sorts of exceptions that allowed it to get access to developed markets for its exports, without having to allow equal access to its markets in exchange. Given large U.S. trade deficits and high unemployment, the USTR is saying "no mas": either there's some reciprocity, or no new deal.
IPE @ UNC
IPE@UNC is a group blog maintained by faculty and graduate students in the Department of Political Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The opinions expressed on these pages are our own, and have nothing to do with UNC.
Bookshelf
Tags
Academia Adjustment Afghanistan Africa AIG America Argentina Austerity Bailout Banking Bargaining Basel Bernanke Bias Blogging Business cycle; recession; financial crisis Cap and Trade capital controls capital flows central banks; moral hazard Chavez China China Trade Climate Change Contentious Politics Cuba Currencies Currency Crises; financial crisis Current Account Data Debt Debt; China; United States; Decession Politics Decoupling Deflation democracy Democrats; Trade policy development Diplomacy Dollar; China; Currency Manipulation; Exchange Rates dollar; exchange rate policy ECB ECB; Fed; Monetary Policy Economic Growth Economics Egypt election EMU; monetary union Environment EU; Agriculture; Common Agricultural Policy Euro Europe; labor; immigration European Union Exchange Rates Farm Bill; Agriculture FDI Fed; Monetary Policy finance financial crisis financial crisis; subprime Fiscal Policy; monetary policy; elections Fiscal Stimulus Foreign Aid Foreign Policy France Free Trade Agreements G-20 G20 Summit Game Theory Germany global recession globalization Grand Theory Great Britain Greece health care reform Hegemony Human Rights Iceland imbalance IMF immigration Incentives income distribution income inequality; globalization India Inequality inflation institutions Interests international finance International Law International Monetary System International Relations Investment IPE Iran Iraq Ireland ISA Italy Japan labor markets Latin America Libya Macroeconomics Marxism Mexico Microfinance Miscellany monetary policy Monetary policy; Federal Reserve moral hazard Narcissism Networks Nobelist Smackdown North Korea Obama Oil PIGS Pirates Political Economy Political Methodology Political Science Political Survival Political Theory Power Protectionism Protests Public Choice Public opinion Rational Choice regulation Research Review Russia Sanctions Security Dilemma security threats Soccer Social Science Sovereign Debt Spain Sports Statistics stock markets Systems Tariffs TARP Taxes TBTF Technocracy technology terrorism Trade trade policy UNC Unemployment United States US-South Korea Venezuela WTO WTO; Doha
Blog Archive
-
▼
2011
(365)
-
▼
March
(27)
- Winter's Officially Over
- Will Barclays Leave London?
- Insane Price Point of the Day
- Some Politics of Debt, Default, and the EMU
- Krugman vs. Krugman
- More on Libya and the U.S.
- FYI
- The Post-American World? Not Yet.
- "Social science and the Libyan adventure", Rebutted
- Real-Life Laffer Curve (or, Arbitraging Internatio...
- George Rabinowitz
- International Relations, 1980-2006
- RIP, George Rabinowitz
- Quick Note on Trade
- This Is What Adjustment Looks Like (An Ongoing Ser...
- ISA
- On the Dollar, Euro, and RMB
- Hegemoaning
- Cake! And Eat it Too!
- Deep Thoughts
- #Winning the Future
- Who's Winning the Future? Someone's Gotta Keep Score
- Dude, Where's My Government?
- Just Sayin'
- UNC Everywhere
- Digging the Hole Deeper
- Missing the Point
-
▼
March
(27)
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
US business interests--OK. But China receiving a lot of concessions is not quite correct. Who was it who insisted on classifying China as a non-market economy for 15 years--something that makes it vulnerable to dumping claims?
Trade followers should know the answer to that. I deal in specifics.
I didn't say concessions. I said "exceptions". China was given 5 years to transition towards full WTO-compliance, and was given many exceptions until then. In that 5 years it's done very well with tariff reductions, but much worse with IP, subsidies, financial services, export restrictions, etc. The USTR is saying that the US won't consider further liberalization until China comes into compliance with its current commitments.
This isn't exactly a secret. The USTR's position on this is easily found on its web site. Reports and fact sheets available there.
http://www.ustr.gov/countries-regions/china
Post a Comment