 | This article needs additional citations for verification .(January 2009) |
On March 5, 2002, U.S. President George W. Bush placed tariffs on imported steel. The tariffs took effect March 20 and were lifted by Bush on December 4, 2003. Research shows that "the costs of the Safeguard Measures [steel tariffs] outweighed their benefits in terms of aggregate GDP and employment". [1]
The temporary tariffs of 8–30% were originally scheduled to remain in effect until 2005. They were imposed to give U.S. steel makers protection from what a U.S. probe determined was a detrimental surge in steel imports. More than 30 steel makers had filed for bankruptcy in recent years. Steel producers had originally sought up to a 40% tariff. Canada and Mexico were exempt from the tariffs because of penalties the United States would face under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Additionally, some other countries such as Argentina, Thailand, and Turkey were also exempt. The typical steel tariff at the time was usually between zero and one percent, making the 8–30% rates seem exceptionally high. These rates, though, are comparable to the standard permanent U.S. tariff rates on many kinds of clothes and shoes.
The Bush administration justified the tariffs as a safeguarding response, namely that the US steel industry had to be protected against sudden surges of imports of steel. [2] [3]
Both the issuing and the lifting of the tariffs caused controversy in the United States. Some of the president's political opponents, such as Democratic House Representative Dick Gephardt, criticized the plan for not going far enough. For some of the president's conservative allies, imposing the tariff was a step away from Bush's commitment to free trade. Critics also contended that the tariffs would harm consumers and U.S. businesses that relied on steel imports, and would cut more jobs than it would save in the steel industry. Supporters of the tariffs believed that U.S. steel producers were being harmed by a "surge" of steel imports endangering the viability of American steel companies.
There was a widespread belief on all sides of the debate, confirmed by top Bush administration officials, that politics played a role in the decision to impose tariffs. [4] Namely, the steel-producing swing states of Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia would benefit from the tariffs. [5] However, steel-using states, such as Tennessee and Michigan were harmed by the tariffs. [5] The placement of the tariffs was an odd one for Bush, who had signed numerous free trade agreements during his term in office[ citation needed ]. This was widely believed[ by whom? ] to be a calculated political decision, insofar as the localities that stood to benefit were marginal ones. Both the George H. W. Bush administration and the Reagan administration also imposed import limits on steel.[ citation needed ]
A 2005 study found that in coverage of the tariffs in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, there were more sentences devoted to the negative impacts of steel tariffs than sentences on the benefits. [6] The authors argue that this is consistent with a model whereby "more newspaper space would be devoted to the costs of steel tariffs—which are widely dispersed—than to their benefits—which are narrowly targeted." [6]
The tariffs ignited international controversy as well. Immediately after they were filed, the European Union announced that it would impose retaliatory tariffs on the United States, thus risking the start of a major trade war. To decide whether or not the steel tariffs were fair, a case was filed at the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan, Switzerland, Brazil and others joined with similar cases.
On November 11, 2003, the WTO came out against the steel tariffs, saying that they had not been imposed during a period of import surge—steel imports had actually dropped a bit during 2001 and 2002—and that the tariffs therefore were a violation of America's WTO tariff-rate commitments. The ruling authorized more than $2 billion in sanctions, the largest penalty ever imposed by the WTO against a member state, if the United States did not quickly remove the tariffs. [7] After receiving the verdict, Bush declared that he would preserve the tariffs. [8] In retaliation, the European Union threatened to counter with tariffs of its own on products ranging from Florida oranges to cars produced in Michigan, with each tariff calculated to likewise hurt the President in a key marginal state. The United States backed down and withdrew the tariffs on December 4. [9]
The early withdrawal of the tariffs also drew political criticism from steel producers and supporters of protectionism. The move was cheered by proponents of free trade and steel importers. When he lifted the tariffs, Bush said, "I took action to give the industry a chance to adjust to the surge in foreign imports and to give relief to the workers and communities that depend on steel for their jobs and livelihoods. These safeguard measures have now achieved their purpose, and as a result of changed economic circumstances it is time to lift them". [9]
In September 2003, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) examined the economic effects of the Bush 2002 steel tariffs. The economy-wide analysis was designed to focus on the impacts that arose from the relative price changes resulting from the imposition of the tariffs, and estimated that the impact of the tariffs on the U.S. welfare ranged between a gain of $65.6 million (0.0006% of GDP) to a loss of $110.0 million (0.0011% of GDP), "with a central estimate of a welfare loss of $41.6 million." A majority of steel-consuming businesses reported that neither continuing nor ending the tariffs would change employment, international competitiveness, or capital investment. [10]
According to a 2005 review of existing research, all studies on the tariffs "find that the costs of the Safeguard Measures outweighed their benefits in terms of aggregate GDP and employment as well as having an important redistributive impact." [1]
Steel production rose slightly during the period of the tariff. [11] The protection of the steel industry in the United States may have had unintended consequences and perverse effects. A study from 2003 that was paid for by CITAC (Consuming Industries Trade Action Coalition), a trade association of businesses that use raw materials, found that around 200,000 jobs were lost as a result. [12] [13]
The U.S. International Trade Commission noted that although the CITAC study did estimate the impact of changing steel prices, it did not specify how much of the impact was attributable directly to the steel tariffs. The study reported estimated impact, relying on specific assumptions made to make analysis simpler. The ITC also noted that, within the broad definition of "steel-consuming industries" used in the CITAC study, employment actually increased by almost 53,000 between March 2002 and December 2002, and that employment in the same industries had fallen by 281,000 from March to December 2001, prior to the tariffs. On the other hand, the ITC admitted that the authors of the CITAC study had controlled for changes in overall manufacturing employment, and also admitted that the CITAC study's estimate of job loss in the steel-consuming sector was only half that reported by steel-consuming firms themselves in answers to questionnaires sent by the ITC, and only one-fifth that reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the sector during the same period. [10]
International trade is the exchange of capital, goods, and services across international borders or territories because there is a need or want of goods or services.
A tariff is a tax imposed by the government of a country or by a supranational union on imports or exports of goods. Besides being a source of revenue for the government, import duties can also be a form of regulation of foreign trade and policy that taxes foreign products to encourage or safeguard domestic industry. Protective tariffs are among the most widely used instruments of protectionism, along with import quotas and export quotas and other non-tariff barriers to trade.
Protectionism, sometimes referred to as trade protectionism, is the economic policy of restricting imports from other countries through methods such as tariffs on imported goods, import quotas, and a variety of other government regulations. Proponents argue that protectionist policies shield the producers, businesses, and workers of the import-competing sector in the country from foreign competitors and raise government revenue. Opponents argue that protectionist policies reduce trade, and adversely affect consumers in general as well as the producers and workers in export sectors, both in the country implementing protectionist policies and in the countries against which the protections are implemented.
Dumping, in economics, is a form of predatory pricing, especially in the context of international trade. It occurs when manufacturers export a product to another country at a price below the normal price with an injuring effect. The objective of dumping is to increase market share in a foreign market by driving out competition and thereby create a monopoly situation where the exporter will be able to unilaterally dictate price and quality of the product. Trade treaties might include mechanisms to alleviate problems related to dumping, such as countervailing duty penalties and anti-dumping statutes.
The Canada–U.S. softwood lumber dispute is one of the largest and most enduring trade disputes between both nations. This conflict arose in 1982 and its effects are still seen today. British Columbia, the major Canadian exporter of softwood lumber to the United States, was most affected, reporting losses of 9,494 direct and indirect jobs between 2004 and 2009.
The Australia – United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) is a preferential trade agreement between Australia and the United States modelled on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The AUSFTA was signed on 18 May 2004 and came into effect on 1 January 2005.
The United States International Trade Commission is an agency of the United States federal government that advises the legislative and executive branches on matters of trade. It is an independent, bipartisan entity that analyzes trade issues such as tariffs and competitiveness and publishes reports. As a quasi-judicial entity, the USITC investigates the impact of imports on U.S. industries, and directs actions against unfair trade practices, such as subsidies; dumping; and intellectual property infringement, including copyright infringement.
In international trade law, a safeguard is a restraint to protect home or national industries from foreign competition. In the World Trade Organization (WTO), a member may take a safeguard action, such as restricting imports of a product temporarily to protect a domestic industry from an increase in imports causing or threatening to cause injury to domestic production.
International economics is concerned with the effects upon economic activity from international differences in productive resources and consumer preferences and the international institutions that affect them. It seeks to explain the patterns and consequences of transactions and interactions between the inhabitants of different countries, including trade, investment and transaction.
The economic policy of the Bill Clinton administration, referred to by some as Clintonomics, encapsulates the economic policies of president of the United States Bill Clinton that were implemented during his presidency, which lasted from January 1993 to January 2001.
The Doha Development Round or Doha Development Agenda (DDA) is the trade-negotiation round of the World Trade Organization (WTO) which commenced in November 2001 under then director-general Mike Moore. Its objective was to lower trade barriers around the world, and thus increase global trade.
The Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) is an international treaty of the World Trade Organization. It was negotiated during the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and entered into force with the establishment of the WTO on 1 January 1995.
Tariffs have historically served a key role in the trade policy of the United States. Their purpose was to generate revenue for the federal government and to allow for import substitution industrialization by acting as a protective barrier around infant industries. They also aimed to reduce the trade deficit and the pressure of foreign competition. Tariffs were one of the pillars of the American System that allowed the rapid development and industrialization of the United States.
Country of origin labeling (COOL) is a requirement signed into American law under Title X of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, codified at 7 U.S.C. § 1638a as Notice of country of origin. This law had required retailers to provide country-of-origin labeling for fresh beef, pork, and lamb. The program exempted processed meats. The United States Congress passed an expansion of the COOL requirements on September 29, 2008, to include more food items such as fresh fruits, nuts and vegetables. Regulations were implemented on August 1, 2008, August 31, 2008, and May 24, 2013. The 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act is the latest amendment to the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946. This act forms the basis of the current COOL requirements.
In economics, a tariff-rate quota (TRQ) is a two-tiered tariff system that combines import quotas and tariffs to regulate import products.
Protectionism in the United States is protectionist economic policy that erects tariffs and other barriers on imported goods. This policy was most prevalent in the 19th century. At that time, it was mainly used to protect Northern industries and was opposed by Southern states that wanted free trade to expand cotton and other agricultural exports. Protectionist measures included tariffs and quotas on imported goods, along with subsidies and other means, to restrain the free movement of imported goods, thus encouraging local industry.
Stewart and Stewart is a former international law firm based in Washington D.C., recognized for representing mainly U.S. clients in International Trade law actions. The firm had 17 attorneys and represented notable clients in a wide range of industries and agriculture. The firm's practice focused on trade remedies such as antidumping and countervailing duties as well as customs issues, WTO negotiations and disputes, export and import compliance programs, China economic and trade relations, regional trade agreements, and government relations. They are considered one of the nation's leading law firms on securing antidumping and countervailing duties in international trade. The firm's managing partner was widely published trade expert Terence Stewart, son of firm founder Eugene Stewart. In 2019 Stewart retired; the remaining partners merged with Schagrin Associates.
The Trump tariffs were protectionist trade initiatives during the first Trump administration against Chinese imports. During the first presidency of Donald Trump, a series of tariffs were imposed on China as part of his "America First" economic policy to reduce the United States trade deficit by shifting American trade policy from multilateral free trade agreements to bilateral trade deals. In January 2018, Trump imposed tariffs on solar panels and washing machines of 30–50%. In March 2018, he imposed tariffs on steel (25%) and aluminum (10%) from most countries, which, according to Morgan Stanley, covered an estimated 4.1% of U.S. imports. In June 2018, this was extended to the European Union, Canada, and Mexico. The Trump administration separately set and escalated tariffs on goods imported from China, leading to a trade war.
An economic conflict between China and the United States has been ongoing since January 2018, when U.S. President Donald Trump began setting tariffs and other trade barriers on China with the goal of forcing it to make changes to what the U.S. says are longstanding unfair trade practices and intellectual property theft. The first Trump administration stated that these practices may contribute to the U.S.–China trade deficit, and that the Chinese government requires transfer of American technology to China. In response to US trade measures, the Chinese government accused the Trump administration of engaging in nationalist protectionism and took retaliatory action. After the trade war escalated through 2019, in January 2020 the two sides reached a tense phase-one agreement. By the end of the Trump's first presidency, the trade war was widely characterized as a failure for the United States.
Brooms manufactured from broomcorn became specifically subject to an increase in US import tariffs in 1996. In response to the US action, chief exporter of broomcorn brooms Mexico requested dispute settlement from an arbitration tribunal of NAFTA, which eventually decided in Mexico's favor. It was one of only three cases to be decided under the provisions of Chapter 20 of NAFTA.
Serial No. 107–66
