Category Archives: Trade

Jagdish Bhagwati: Simplicity Is Beautiful

I had the pleasure of seeing distinguished trade economist Jagdish Bhagwati speak yesterday. He is promoting his new book, Termites in the Trading System: How Preferential Agreements Undermine Free Trade. Bhagwati’s insights are well worth sharing.

He attacked the current wave of bilateral Free Trade Agreements… on the grounds that they hurt free trade. Bhagwati, always a stickler for precision of language, thinks these FTAs are better called PTAs, or Preferential Trade Agreements. By only including a few countries, they are discriminatory by their very nature. True free trade does not discriminate.

The agreements are also too complicated. They contain provisions that have nothing to do with trade, such as labor and environmental standards. Trade-unrelated provisions can slow economic growth, and can intrude on nations’ sovereign right to make their own laws. They also turn international trade law into a complex thicket that is all but impossible to navigate; simplicity is beautiful.

Bhagwati’s preferred approach is to revive the Doha round, and to institute much broader, less discriminatory agreements like the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).

He also had a few things to say about the presidential candidates’ trade positions. In short, neither gets it. McCain is solidly pro-trade, but confused. He thinks PTAs are the same thing as free trade. Obama is harder to read. His heart seems to be in the right place, but he appears to have been captured by his party’s labor and environmental interests. Obama has to appeal to his base, so he says things he shouldn’t.

Bhagwati’s approach to trade is simple, principled, and refreshing. But I fear that he is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. The Doha round is all but dead, despite a few recent stirrings. The FTAA is less than likely in the current political climate. PTAs are certainly not ideal, but they’re all we have right now. Some progress is better than none.

Has the WTO Gone Bananas?

Who knew bananas could be controversial? The U.S. and the EU are locked in a heated dispute over banana tariffs. Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico are also parties to the complaint. The EU gives preferential treatment to former colonies of Britain, France and Portugal for banana imports. That means most of Latin America faces unfair tariffs.

The WTO ruled last month that the EU’s tariffs violate international trade rules. The ruling isn’t the end of the matter, though. The case, which dates all the way back to February 1996, has been further delayed. Brussels objected, so the WTO is granting more time for negotiations.

One wonders what is left to negotiate after twelve and a half years.

If the EU officials had the best interest of their constituents at heart, they would drop their trade barriers. The EU’s preferential treatment of certain countries comes at European consumers’ expense — as well as the banana producers of five nations.

Obama Now a NAFTA Supporter

Now that the primaries are over, Sen. Barack Obama has come out in favor of NAFTA. He told Fortune in an interview that “Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified.”

I’ll say. On the campaign trail he has called NAFTA both “devastating” and “a big mistake.” He also threatened to unilaterally opt out of NAFTA for six months as a prelude to reopening negotiations.

The U.S. economy has added 26 million net jobs since NAFTA took effect in 1994. Inflation-adjusted worker compensation is up 23%.

Obama’s qualified support of free trade is a welcome change. But it makes clear an unfortunate reality. His earlier rhetoric was either misinformed, or intentionally deceitful.

Neither is an appealing characteristic for a potential President.

Korea’s Beef Standoff Continues

There were more street protests in Seoul on Sunday over U.S. beef. The public is scared out of their minds that they’ll get mad cow disease. The domestic beef industry doesn’t like having to face competition. President Lee Myung-bak’s approval rating is lower than President Bush’s. The pending U.S.-Korea free trade agreement is under fire.

Will it pass? The Wall Street Journal Asia, in a standout editorial today, thinks so. The beef outcry is a temporary phenomenon, they believe.

“It’s worth noting that the opposition party hasn’t gained any ground at Mr. Lee’s expense, a sign that the public protests may mask broader support for the free-trade agreement.”

Let’s hope they’re right.

U.S.-Korean Trade Agreement Stalls

It looks like the impasse on the U.S.-South Korea trade agreement will get worse before it gets better. A mad cow disease scare is reaching epidemic proportions among the Korean public. The beef scare is stalling passage of the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement.

President Lee Myung-Bak has been under heavy fire ever since he decided to lift the 2003 ban on importing U.S. beef. The public outcry climaxed in a 100,000-strong protest over the weekend in Seoul.

Koreans are terrified that eating U.S. beef will give them mad cow disease. They shouldn’t be. I noted in an earlier post that approximately one in 35 million cows slaughtered in the U.S. have mad cow disease. Those odds are negligible; our food supply is safe.

If people still want to be scared, that is their right. No one should force them to buy U.S. beef. But why do they want to take that option away from people who don’t frighten so easily? Especially when $20 billion of increased trade is at stake?

The Cuban Embargo

Barack Obama says he would keep in place the 47-year old Cuban trade embargo if elected President. CNN says Obama views the trade restrictions as “leverage to push for democratic change on the island.”

Yes, those sanctions have been awfully effective. Just look at how much more democratic Cuba has become since we began the embargo.

(Pardon the sarcasm.)

The Epidemiology of Protectionism

Right now South Korea is working toward a free trade agreement with the U.S. It could increase trade between the two nations by $20 billion. Unfortunately, a mad cow disease scare could prevent that from happening.

The hysteria started when the first U.S. case of mad cow disease was detected in 2003. To put it in context, mad cow afflicted a single cow out of the more than 35 million slaughtered that year. That 1-in-35-million ratio has roughly held since then. U.S. beef is safe.

But South Koreans don’t seem to think so. U.S. beef was immediately banned. After quietly simmering in the background, the embargo has been cautiously eased in fits and starts. Last month, President Lee Myung-Bak proposed lifting most restrictions on importing U.S. beef. Politically, the timing could not have been worse. The Korean media has been in hysterics, adding tension to already fragile negotiations.

Korea’s domestic beef lobby has been more than happy to stoke the flames of fear. “Our competitor’s product will kill you,” seems to be their message, with the implied “only buy from us.” People believe them, too.

This is a shame. The benefits to all Koreans from freer trade far outweigh the benefits to a single industry from preferential treatment.

Truth be told, both sides are to blame for the U.S.-Korea trade impasse. Here in the U.S., the tide has also been turning protectionist. The arguments that American liberalization opponents are using are about as sound as their Korean equivalents.

One news outlet said that 94% of Koreans carry a special gene that makes them more susceptible to mad cow disease. That claim has since been exposed as fraudulent. In America, people like Lou Dobbs are claiming that trade costs jobs; but America has gained 26 million net jobs since NAFTA was passed. Wages are higher, too.

Empirical data and economic theory are both on the side of free trade. The people negotiating the U.S.-Korea trade agreement would do well to remember that, even if both the media and public sentiment are against them.

Yankees Cite Unfair Trade Practices

Here is a clever bit of satire over at the Cato blog.

Campaign Oddities

Steelworkers press Obama, Clinton to tackle China,” says a recent article in The Hill.

Taken literally, this is a very strange headline.

Those steelworkers must really not want to have any competitors to deal with.

Clinton, Obama, and NAFTA

In tonight’s debate, both candidates opposed NAFTA. Very strange. Sen. Clinton said it kills jobs. But it hasn’t; net employment grew by 2 million jobs per year for the first ten years of the agreement. The trend has continued; we’re talking about 26 million more jobs on net since NAFTA.

Both candidates want tougher labor and environmental standards added to the agreement. This is largely aimed at Mexico. Now, everyone wants workers to have higher pay, and everyone wants a cleaner environment. But those things cost money, which Mexico just doesn’t have much of. They need to grow before they can afford the standards the candidates favor. If we make them adopt them now, that growth will happen more slowly.

Then there’s the general nature of trade agreements. They’re basically agreements to lower tariffs. It’s like saying, “I’ll stop shooting myself in the foot, but only if you do the same.” Better to stop the shooting altogether and do away with protective tariffs, period.