globalism in the age of nationalism
It’s Time for the U.S. to Revoke China’s Free Pass on Trade B y D r . R obert G rosse
L
ike most international business professors, I believe in free markets. I can quote Adam Smith and David Ricardo, and I believe that their theories are solid foundations for understanding the U.S. and world economies. Free trade really is the rising tide that lifts all boats, benefiting the economies, businesses, and workers of both exporting and importing countries. Industries that are less competitive in each trading country will lose out in open trade. That may sound negative, but when the resources dedicated to those less competitive, less efficient industries move into activities where the country has a competitive advantage, both trading partners win. ‘Resources’ include workers who need support to retrain and move into employment in other industries. So there are ‘losers’ from free trade who have to be helped to move into competitive jobs/industries. In the end, whether a country has an absolute advantage or a comparative advantage over another country, it benefits by exporting the goods and services it is particularly good at, and importing those it is not. But what if one country has an advantage because of intervention by the heavy hand of the state, rather than the invisible hand of the market? Then trade does not benefit both that country and its trading partner, at least not equitably. Free trade only works if trade is actually free.
NO FREE PASS FOR THE WORLD’S BIGGEST ECONOMY In many cases, trade is not free. Yet since the U.S. became the world’s largest economy in 1916, it has most often given trading partners a free pass when they cheat, even when America plays fair. When those trading partners have economies a fraction the size of
32
America’s, their cheating doesn’t noticeably harm the American economy, businesses, or workers. In fact, bringing them along over time has tended to result in more open trade from those trading partners. But when the trading partner becomes the world’s largest economy, with a population nearly five times the size of the U.S., their cheating starts to hurt. (China is #1 when GDP is measured based on purchasingpower-parity, and #2 otherwise.) China’s cheating hurts, and it is time for the U.S. to stop giving them a free pass. I want to be clear here: I am not against trade with China. It has benefited both countries. But the benefits have not been evenly gained. China has used American companies to build up their own know-how, for example requiring American auto companies wanting to do business there to sign joint venture agreements that give at least 50% ownership of the business to a Chinese company, often stateowned. Typically, those joint venture agreements also include technology transfer requirements, so the American company has to give its know-how to the Chinese “partner.” Similarly, China restricts activities of foreign banks and other financial services firms, such that foreign banks make up less than 2% of financial services in China. Foreign banks are restricted in funding themselves through overseas parents and have to gain approval for new branch openings. In addition, banks and stockbrokers face foreign ownership restrictions in securities companies, fund management companies, and local commercial banks. Like U.S. banks, major U.S. tech companies such as Google and Facebook have faced restrictions in China. For example, they have faced bans on some parts of their business, censorship, and active interruptions of service along
with demands to follow Chinese political instructions. These and many other restrictions in China keep U.S. services companies from either operating locally or exporting their services to China. Those types of requirements and restrictions are a very smart development plan on China’s part, but they are the opposite of free trade, since no such requirements exist for Chinese companies looking to do business in the U.S. There have been a few high-profile cases of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States denying a Chinese company’s request to enter the U.S. market, or denying a Chinese company’s acquisition of an American company. But those were decisions made for national security reasons, and when Chinese companies do come into the U.S., they are afforded all of the rights and freedoms that U.S. companies are. Given that China is not engaging in free trade in a range of key products and industries, there is no logic or economic theory that should prevent the U.S. from responding. Comparative advantage only benefits all parties when they are playing the same game and abiding by the rules. In every game I know of, when a player breaks the rules, his team gets a penalty, whether it’s a loss of yards as in football, or the other team gets a free shot as in basketball or soccer. When a team tips the scale in its favor by breaking the rules, the punishment is a tip of the scale in the other team’s favor. So it should be with China. It’s time for the U.S. to respond to China’s cheating with countervailing measures.
JUST BETWEEN THE U.S. AND CHINA What would an effective countervailing policy look like? One of the challenges in answering that question is winter 2018
