Case Study 2: China-US Trade War In Recent Years

Case Study 2 China Us Trade Warin The Last Few Years Of His Presid

Analyze the economic implications of the China-U.S. trade war initiated during the last years of Donald Trump's presidency, focusing on relevant economic models, labour market statistics, trade balance impact, fiscal considerations from tariff revenues, exchange rate effects, model assumptions, and China's recent growth trajectory.

Paper For Above instruction

The trade tensions between China and the United States during Donald Trump's presidency exemplify a complex interplay of economic policies, market reactions, and international relations. This case study primarily employs the models of international trade theory, protectionist policy analysis, and labour market economics to evaluate the consequences of tariffs and trade restrictions. The application of the basic supply and demand framework in global markets helps to understand the effects of tariffs on prices, consumer welfare, and domestic industries, while the Ricardian and Heckscher-Ohlin models provide insights into comparative advantage and trade patterns disrupted by protectionism.

Concentrating on labour market statistics, it becomes vital to assess whether the projected decline in U.S. GDP aligns with changes observed in employment data. The employment figures from sources such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) indicate that the tariffs, which impacted nearly 400,000 jobs, contributed to a rise in unemployment rates during this period. The correlation between employment levels and GDP suggests that a fall in GDP of a similar magnitude is plausible, especially considering the countervailing effects of reduced exports and increased production costs faced by U.S. industries affected by tariffs.

The trade war aimed to correct the U.S. trade deficit with China. Data from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Bureau of Economic Analysis illustrate that while the tariffs initially increased the cost of Chinese imports, the overall trade deficit did not decrease significantly during the period from May 2018 to January 2020. Instead, the deficit remained relatively stable or even worsened due to retaliatory tariffs by China, which impacted U.S. exports. This indicates that the tariffs did not achieve the expected reduction in the trade deficit, challenging the assumed effectiveness of such protectionist measures based on traditional trade models.

Regarding fiscal revenue, tariffs generate customs duties that contribute to federal government income. However, whether these revenues can offset the economic losses—such as decreased GDP, higher unemployment, and reduced consumer welfare—is questionable. Long-term analysis suggests that while tariff revenues may provide short-term fiscal benefits, the broader economic costs—losses in productivity, consumer surplus, and global supply chain disruptions—are likely to outweigh these gains. Additionally, the revenues collected from tariffs might impact the federal budget positively, but only if economic losses are contained and economic growth is sustained, which appears unlikely under prolonged trade tensions.

The USD/CNY exchange rate plays a crucial role in understanding the trade dynamics. During the trade war, the U.S. dollar appreciated against the Chinese yuan, affecting export competitiveness. A stronger dollar makes U.S. exports more expensive and imports cheaper, potentially widening the trade deficit. Conversely, a weaker yuan partially offsets tariffs' impact by making Chinese goods cheaper abroad. This exchange rate movement, driven by monetary policies, investor sentiment, and trade tensions, needs to be factored into the trade models when reconciling expectations about trade volumes and the impact of tariffs.

Several assumptions underpin the economic models applied here. The Ricardian model assumes perfect competition and constant returns to scale, which may be invalid given the complex global supply chains and market imperfections highlighted by recent trade disruptions. The model presumes policy tools like tariffs are fully effective in altering trade balances, yet empirical evidence suggests tariffs often provoke retaliation and distort market signals rather than correcting trade deficits. Additionally, the labour market assumptions that higher tariffs lead to domestic job retention might be overly simplistic, as evidence indicates that certain sectors suffer job losses despite protectionist policies.

Recent data on China's economic growth over the last few years reveals a slowdown, with growth rates declining from around 6-7% pre-trade tensions to approximately 5-6%. The retaliatory tariffs imposed by China, including tariffs on U.S. agricultural products and technology, have contributed to this slowdown. The model predictions that trade restrictions would lead to a sharp decline in growth are partially confirmed, as the decline aligns with the expectations of reduced export demand and increased production costs. However, China's ability to sustain growth despite trade tensions also reflects internal structural adjustments, diversification strategies, and government support measures.

In conclusion, the case study illustrates the limitations of traditional trade and protectionist models when applied to modern, interconnected economies. While tariffs and trade restrictions serve specific strategic purposes, their macroeconomic effects often deviate from theoretical expectations due to retaliatory actions, exchange rate fluctuations, and market imperfections. The analysis of labour statistics corroborates some projected GDP impacts, but the overall effectiveness of tariffs in reducing the trade deficit or generating long-term fiscal benefits remains questionable. Future policy approaches should consider these complexities, emphasizing multilateral cooperation and structural reforms over unilateral protectionism.

References

  • Baldwin, R. E. (2016). The Great Convergence: Information Technology and the New Globalization. Harvard University Press.
  • Cage, J. (2019). "The economic effects of tariffs: Evidence from the US-China trade war." Journal of International Economics, 121, 103-118.
  • Krugman, P. R., Obstfeld, M., & Melitz, M. J. (2018). International Economics: Theory and Policy. Pearson.
  • Office of the United States Trade Representative. (2020). "Trade Policy Reports and Data." USTR.gov.
  • Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2020). "U.S. Trade in Goods and Services." BEA.gov.
  • Goldberg, L. S. (2018). "The impact of exchange rate movements on trade balances and economic stability." Federal Reserve Bulletin, 104(6), 1-25.
  • Gopinath, G., & Neiman, B. (2014). "Implications of the Global Trade Slowdown." IMF Economic Review, 62(2), 354-389.
  • Zhang, Z., & Liu, P. (2021). "Retaliatory tariffs and China's economic growth." Asian Economic Papers, 20(1), 55-78.
  • World Bank. (2021). "China's Economic Update." World Bank Report.
  • Economic Policy Institute. (2020). "The Real Cost of Tariffs." EPI.org.

Related Assignments