WTO reform

Managing Disputes Over Trade: Part I

Managing Disputes Over Trade: Part I

Trade policy, like many other arenas, has developed a complicated language that can be impenetrable or, at best, opaque to outsiders.  Some aspects, especially those touching on law, have extra layers of jargon. While trade dispute settlement systems can be quite important and have been frequently in the news over the past few years, it can be hard to follow the arguments.  Talking Trade will be running a multi-part set of blog posts to help unravel the situation and make it easier for you to follow evolving developments.  Let’s dive in with some background to help set the context…The international trading system has had to overcome multiple challenges to function and remain effective.  Governments have strong incentives to cheat or, as they would put it, to strongly prioritize their own economy and companies over the affairs of others.  But if everyone is busy protecting their own, the net result is much worse for everyone. This basic tension between keeping markets open despite individual incentives for closure has been a key element of the system for decades.  Now, the long-standing the consensus in favor of freer trade has started to fray with far more serious trade disputes ahead.

The WTO: Less Than Half a Glass

The WTO: Less Than Half a Glass

Think about that again for a moment—the World Trade Organization, in 2022, continues to have no explicit rules related to the digital economy and no obvious path to getting something in place either. [The side discussions on electronic commerce did not yield any announcements from participating countries.] Members did agree to start talking about doing something to reform the organization. They have “reaffirmed” the foundational principles and agreed to work towards a solution to a specific challenge on dispute settlement in two more years. Given this dispiriting list of outcomes, why were trade watchers mostly glowingly optimistic? Two reasons come to mind. First, most trade watchers have spent a lifetime building up this institution in one way or another. It’s very hard to witness the slow extinguishment of a dream, passion project, and vocation. Second, because the WTO matters and watching it flounder is genuinely a problem. Given the importance of the global trade body to businesses and consumers, it can feel particularly wrong to kick the organization when it is down. After all, why continue to draw attention to limited outcomes and why not recast the latest outcomes as a historic achievement that highlights continued relevance? It is precisely because a functioning WTO matters so much that it is important to be honest about its pathway and prospects for the future. Sugarcoating a weak package of outcomes doesn’t help focus attention on why the institution has failed to make headway or why members cannot agree on doing important things. Let’s just review for a moment why a functioning WTO is so critical to all of us. It provides a common set of rules and principles that have allowed trade to flourish. It’s like oxygen for the trading system. Extinguish the air and everyone will start to suffer. Without the WTO in place, governments would be free to randomly reset their trade rules on a regular basis. Tariffs could go up or down without notice. Customs checks at the borders could suddenly focus on allowing goods from some locations to pass easily while blocking everything from other firms. It would drive up costs dramatically and the burden would fall most heavily, as always, on the smallest firms.

Mexico Solved? Not So Fast…Significant Damage Remains

Mexico Solved? Not So Fast…Significant Damage Remains

The net result, for Trump, is that he did what he wanted and it worked.  Flush with this victory, it is highly likely that Trump will double down on his strategy in the future.  After all, he will reason, his advisors argued against his Mexico gamble and yet it paid out so well for him.  Why, then, should he listen to them if they advise against similar trade and tariff policies again? Trade is now a tool to be used for non-trade objectives, as we have noted previously.  While clearly illegal, such a distinction does not matter.  Trump was willing to impose tariffs on Mexico in direct contravention of existing World Trade Organization prohibitions, NAFTA rules and the upcoming NAFTA 2.0 rules.  He used a dubious interpretation of the American emergency powers act to justify his decision domestically.  The gloves, so to speak, are clearly off.  And, having won a big match in this way, there is every reason to believe such tactics will be tried again.  Future opponents should be forewarned.