This document provides an overview of international trade and the dynamic global environment. It discusses several topics:
1) The establishment of world trade following WWII and the importance of balance of payments and protectionism.
2) The various types of trade barriers such as tariffs and nontariff barriers used by countries.
3) International organizations that shaped global trade such as GATT and the World Trade Organization, as well as the IMF and World Bank.
Whether it is legislation regarding Pringles being the same potato chips in the UK and causing additional value added taxes for P&G or what percentage of California rice can be mixed with “inferior” Japanese rice and still be labeled California rice, these are examples of nontariff trade barriers that can be used to prevent the easy entry of foreign companies into the country.
Media, global communications and technology has allowed world trade to flourish and expand in recent years. As Exhibit 2.1 illustrates, world trade is an important economic activity. Increased competition also leads to increased protectionism. The creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is one of the biggest advancements for free trade among countries. Trade statistics such as those listed in Exhibit 2.1 have often served to focus the attention of government officials around the world. We should, however, view this data with caution. For example, it is quite clear that China is the United States' biggest trade problem; the imbalance of trade is more than four times greater than that with Mexico. However, often U.S. imports from China include a majority of parts made in other countries. A prominent example are Apple’s products, assembled in and imported from China. The iPhone includes parts made in several other countries.
The rapid growth of war-torn economies and previously underdeveloped countries, coupled with large-scale economic cooperation and assistance, led to new global marketing opportunities. Rising standards of living and broad-based consumer and industrial markets abroad created opportunities for American companies to expand exports and investment worldwide.
The threat felt by Europeans was best expressed in the popular book The American Challenge, published in 1968, in which the French author J. J. Servan-Schreiber wrote: “Fifteen years from now it is quite possible that the world’s third greatest industrial power, just after the United States and Russia, will not be Europe but American Industry in Europe. Already, in the ninth year of the Common Market, this European market is basically American in organization.” Servan-Schreiber’s prediction did not come true for many reasons as described in the following slides.
The relative importance of U.S. multinational corporations (MNCs) after World War II declined where U.S. multinationals compete with strong corporations from Japan, Western Europe, Asia, and many developing countries such as China and Mexico. This is forcing U.S. MNCs to examine new ways to remain competitive. From the 1960s to 2014, the U.S. moved from being the world's dominant industrial power to accounting for only 34 of the world’s 100 largest corporations (see Exhibit 2.3).
Countries once classified as less developed were reclassified as newly industrialized countries (NICs). NICs such as Brazil, Mexico, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong experienced rapid industrialization in specific industries such as steel, shipbuilding, consumer electronics, automobiles, light aircraft, shoes, textiles, apparel, and more. In short, economic power and potential became more evenly distributed among countries and Servan-Schreiber’s warning to Europe about U.S. multinational domination did not come close to becoming true.
Favorable balance of trade means that the U.S. sold more to other countries than it bought from them.
Trade friction revolved around Japan’s sales of autos and electronics in the United States and Japan’s restrictive trade practices. The United States, a strong advocate of free trade, was confronted with the dilemma of how to encourage trading partners to reciprocate with open access to their markets without provoking increased protectionism. In addition to successfully pressuring Japan to open its markets for some types of trade and investment, the United States was a driving force behind the establishment of the WTO.
A nation’s balance-of-payments statement presents an overall view of its international economic position and is an important economic measure used by treasuries, central banks, and other government agencies whose responsibility is to maintain external and internal economic stability.
Since 1971, the United States has had a favorable current account balance (as a percentage of GDP) in only a few years—see Exhibit 2.5. The imbalances resulted primarily from U.S. demand for oil, petroleum products, cars, consumer durables, and other merchandise. Such imbalances have drastic effects on the balance of payments and therefore the value of U.S. currency in the world marketplace.
As can be seen in Exhibit 2.6, the U.S. dollar strengthened against most of the other major currencies during the 1990s but has weakened during the last decade.
As the U.S. trade deficit has increased in magnitude, there is pressure to devalue the dollar. When foreign currencies can be traded for more dollars, it makes U.S. products less expensive for foreign customers and this increases exports But, foreign products become more expensive for U.S. customers.
The complex distribution system in Japan is a good example of a market structure creating a barrier to trade. Most recently the United States and other countries have accused China of keeping the value of its currency artificially low to boost exports and limit imports.
Quotas put an absolute restriction on the quantity of a specific item that can be imported. When the Japanese first let foreign rice into their country, it was on a quota basis, but since 2000 the quotas have been replaced by tariffs.
Common in textiles, clothing, steel, agriculture, and automobiles, the VER is an agreement between the importing country and the exporting country for a restriction on the volume of exports.
The United States uses boycotts and embargoes against countries with which it has a dispute. For example, both Iran and North Korea have long-standing sanctions imposed by the United States.
In the Netherlands, all imported hen and duck eggs must be marked in indelible ink with the country of origin; in Spain, imported condensed milk must be labeled to show fat content if it is less than 8 percent fat; and in the European Union, strict import controls have been placed on beef and beef products imported from the United Kingdom because of mad cow disease.
The World Trade Organization (like its predecessor GATT) is primarily responsible for regulating world trade and making sure nation-states adhere to the rules laid down in trade treaties signed by WTO member states. The WTO is also responsible for facilitating the establishment of additional multinational agreements between WTO member states. Over its entire history, and that of the GATT before it, the WTO has promoted the lowering of barriers to cross-border trade and investment. In doing so, the WTO has been the instrument of its member states, which have sought to create a more open global business system unencumbered by barriers to trade and investment between countries. Without an institution such as the WTO, the globalization of markets and production is unlikely to have proceeded as far as it has. It is interesting to see the history of WTO’s dispute resolution among countries. See the “Banana Wars” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8391752.stm) dispute that has been ongoing for over 16 years and the resolution in the case for an example of the role of the WTO and the type of disputes that it has ruled on. Immediately after the Banana Wars ruling, the EU filed a complaint with the WTO against the U.S. that establishing Foreign Sales Corporations (http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds108_e.htm) gives the U.S. an undue tax advantage and should not be allowed, to make the playing field level for all countries.
The task of the IMF was to maintain order in the international monetary system, and that of the World Bank was to promote economic development. In the 60 years since their creation, both institutions have emerged as significant players in the global economy. The World Bank is the less controversial of the two sister institutions. It has focused on making low-interest-rate loans to cash-strapped governments in poor nations that wish to undertake significant infrastructure investments (such as building dams or roads). The IMF is often seen as the lender of last resort to nation-states whose economies are in turmoil and currencies are losing value against those of other nations. Frequently, in the recent past, for example, the IMF has bailed out governments of troubled nation states, including Argentina, Indonesia, Mexico, Russia, South Korea, Thailand, and Turkey.
Beginning in 1999, what some are calling “anticapitalist protesters” began to influence the workings of the major global institutions such as the WTO. The basic complaint against the WTO, IMF, and others is unintended consequences of globalization, such as damage to the environment, sweat shops, domestic job losses, cultural extinction, higher oil prices, and diminished sovereignty of nations. The protest in Seattle, WA in 1999 during a WTO meeting got a lot of attention followed by protests during World Bank/IMF meetings in Washington in 1999 and in Prague in 2000. The protest groups have over time affected policy. For example, “antisweatshop” campaigns, mostly in America and mostly student-led, have had effects beyond college campuses. Given the successes associated with the generally peaceful efforts to influence policies of global institutions, we can expect more of the same in the future.