SINGAPORE (Oct 15): The most frequent questions that I get when I speak to non-economists concern the US tariffs on imports from China. Why is US President Donald Trump’s administration doing this? Aren’t the tariffs a tax on the goods purchased by US consumers? Why does Trump think the US can “win” a trade war with China? How do the Chinese respond to the current tariffs and threats of more? And so on.

I usually start my answer by stressing that, like almost all economists, I oppose tariffs in general. I acknowledge that we have an enormous trade deficit with the rest of the world (about US$800 billion, or $1.1 trillion, this year, or 4% of US GDP) and that our trade deficit with China is about half of that total. But our overall trade deficit reflects the fact that the US spends more than it produces.

It’s hard to know why the US is imposing tariffs, because the administration has not said clearly what it is trying to achieve in doing so. One reason is that several senior officials are vying to influence the US’ China trade policy: Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, White House Director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy Peter Navarro and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross.

The US filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization earlier this year after an extensive investigation confirmed the Chinese vio late their WTO obligations by requiring foreign firms that do business in China to have a domestic partner and to transfer technology to that firm. But the US did not wait for a WTO ruling to confirm its claim and to authorise the imposition of tariffs as a penalty for China’s rules violation. Nor has it said that it would end the tariffs if the Chinese rescinded their illegal technology-transfer requirement.

Chinese officials say their policy is clear: US firms can have access to the Chinese market only if they contribute their technology in return. But this is explicitly prohibited by the WTO and is not one that other countries pursue. And President Xi Jinping recently confirmed China’s approach by announcing that foreign companies could enter the automobile industry without such technology sharing.

When Mnuchin went to Beijing a few months ago to negotiate with the Chinese, he brought a long list of changes in Chinese economic policy that the US would like to see, including an end not only to the technology- transfer requirement, but also to Chinese government subsidies to various industries. The Chinese rejected Mnuchin’s list, arguing that it was too long and sought to change the nature of China’s economic policy.

Policymakers should make it clear to the Chinese that the US would end its tariffs if the Chinese stopped stealing US firms’ technology. This would include the Chinese policy of requiring US firms to transfer technology to Chinese partners as a condition of doing business in China, as well as the practice of taking technology directly from US firms through cyber espionage and other illegal methods.

The Chinese government agreed to end government cyber theft of industrial technology when then-president Barack Obama met Xi in 2013 and showed the evidence of such activity by the People’s Liberation Army. But that agreement did not cover theft by state-owned enterprises and private firms. Negotiations should cover all forms of technology theft.

Trump and other US officials think a tariff war with China can be won because China exports about four times more to the US than the US exports to China. The US can hence impose a much larger burden on Chinese exporters than the Chinese can impose on US exporters. The Chinese economy is also much more dependent on exports than the US economy is.

The tariffs are indeed a tax on US consumers and firms that use Chinese products. But the higher prices that Americans pay for Chinese imports and the resulting loss of real income are very small. Annual imports from China total about US$500 billion. If the US imposes a 25% across-the-board tariff, the rise in the cost to US buyers — assuming no change in the prices charged by Chinese exporters — would be US$125 billion. With US national income exceeding US$20 trillion, the increased cost would be a little more than 0.5% of total US spending. And, because Chinese exporters would probably reduce the prices of some of their products, the increased cost to US buyers would be less. Moreover, US buyers would shift some of their purchases to domestic products or to imports from other countries.

In short, the cost of the imposed tariffs is not large relative to the gain that would be achieved if the US succeeds in persuading China to stop taking US firms’ technology illegally. The White House should make it clear that this is the goal of US policy, and that the tariffs will be removed if and when the Chinese comply with their WTO obligations. — © Project Syndicate

<i>Martin Feldstein is a professor of economics at Harvard University, President Emeritus of the National Bureau of Economic Research and chaired president Ronald Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers from 1982 to 1984 </i>

US trade tariffs aimed at stopping Chinese theft of tech 

US stock faithful ride US$7 trillion rally as market timing backfires

Qarbotech named winner of inaugural EQT Impact Challenge

MSCI boss warns of climate risks

Keppel to acquire 50% stake in European asset manager Aermont Capital for up to $517 mil

Local banks 'resilient' in 2023, but MAS warns of deteriorating asset quality, climate transition risks

Straits Times Index likely to move progressively higher 

US trade tariffs aimed at stopping Chinese theft of tech

Related News

Highlights

US stock faithful ride US$7 trillion rally as market timing backfires

Related News

New Huawei phone raises questions about US quest to curb China’s chip sector

Biden narrows China investment order as US seeks better ties

China says US sanctions of companies will impact supply chain