Journal articles on the topic 'Tariffs, United States, 1901'
To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Tariffs, United States, 1901.
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Tariffs, United States, 1901.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
Sitaresmi, Anisa Galuh, Hasna Wijayanti, and Halifa Haqqi. "Subsidi Pertanian Amerika Serika Dalam Kasus Perang Dagang Amerika Serikat dan China Tahun 2018-2019." Jurnal Social Economic of Agriculture 10, no. 2 (July 21, 2022): 90. http://dx.doi.org/10.26418/j.sea.v10i2.48712.
Full textAbstract:
The beginning of the trade war between the United States and China was caused by the imposition of United States tariffs on several Chinese products. The imposition of these tariffs led to retaliatory tariffs from China against the United States. China's retaliatory tariffs have an impact on one of the United States' sectors, namely the agricultural sector. The United States agricultural sector is an important sector in the agricultural trade sector in the United States. With the retaliation of tariffs, the agricultural sector experienced a significant decline. In response to this incident, the United States government made a policy to overcome this problem by making a new policy, namely subsidies. This study aims to describe and find out how the implementation of United States agricultural subsidies in the case of the 2018-2019 trade war using qualitative methods and data sources sought using primary and secondary data. To analyze this research, the writer uses neoclassical theory and national interest to find out how the implementation and perspective of the policy are. The results of this study indicate that there are 3 programs implemented by the United States to overcome the trade war, namely MFP, FPDP, ATP. However, these programs reap many pros and cons. The subsidy policy is a policy that endangers the United States economy because it disrupts the market mechanism.
2
LEE, YONG-SHIK. "Three Wrongs Do Not Make a Right: The Conundrum of the US Steel and Aluminum Tariffs." World Trade Review 18, no. 3 (May 14, 2019): 481–501. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s147474561900020x.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractIn March 2018, the United States enacted tariff increases on a vast range of imported steel and aluminum products. The Trump administration cited national security concerns as the justification, claiming an exception under GATT Article XXI. In response to these tariffs, several WTO Members, including the European Union, Canada, Mexico, China, Russia, and Turkey, adopted their own tariffs against imports from the United States, justifying their tariffs under the WTO Agreement on Safeguards. Other Members, such as South Korea, Brazil, and Argentina opted for quota agreements on these exports with the United States in exchange for exemption from the tariffs. This article argues that none of these measures is consistent with WTO rules. The sweeping tariffs that the United States have adopted, the retaliatory measures that several Members have implemented, and the bilateral quota agreements that three Members concluded with the United States are indeed ‘three wrongs’ that do not make a right, but rather endanger the stability of the international trading system under WTO legal disciplines.
3
Monadjemi, Mehdi, and John Lodewijks. "Globalization in Trade or Trade Restrictions? A Study of Post-War and Recent Trends." Applied Economics and Finance 7, no. 2 (February 10, 2020): 24. http://dx.doi.org/10.11114/aef.v7i2.4712.
Full textAbstract:
Despite all of the advantages of free trade and WTO effort to discourage trade restrictions, in July 2018, the President of the United States decided that he is going to impose tariffs on certain goods imported from China. The Chinese government retaliated by levying tariffs on goods and services imported from the United States. This trade war is opposite of the trend ininternational trade during the Post-war period. While the trade deficit figures have improved this has occurred at considerable cost. Tariffs on imported goods are a tax on domestic consumers.
4
Song, Jingyu. "Why Tariff and Trade War?" Finance and Market 5, no. 4 (December 22, 2020): 272. http://dx.doi.org/10.18686/fm.v5i4.2693.
Full textAbstract:
<p>By see the tariffs and trade wars in different time periods, each countries’ aim to start the trade war and tariff are protecting themselves. Analyzing and comparing the tariff acts in the colonial and antebellum period, the trade conflicts between the United States and Japan in the 1980s, and 2019’s China-United States trade war, we can see how tariffs work the same but also different in different time periods. </p>
5
Niu, Junde. "US-China Trade War Effects on The Economy of The United States." BCP Business & Management 38 (March 2, 2023): 21–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.54691/bcpbm.v38i.3665.
Full textAbstract:
Several significant imports, including solar panels, washing machines, steel, and aluminum, saw tariff increases in the United States at the beginning of 2018.It soon became clear that China was the target of US trade restrictions, despite the fact that these tariffs did not discriminate based on origin. The United States then increased tariffs on tens of thousands of Chinese goods in 2018 and 2019, concentrating on imports worth approximately $350 billion. China targeted US shipments worth approximately $100 billion as a response to numerous tax waves. The two sides agreed to stop increasing tariffs in January 2020; however, as of 2021, the existing tariffs were still in effect. The trade war stands out as one of the broadest and most significant shifts in US trade policy, despite the fact that the United States has historically been at the forefront of efforts to promote global tariff reductions. As the trade war progressed, economists attempted to assess its economic effects. A timeline of the major events and a summary of the reasons for the trade war from experts and analysts are included in this article. The effects of the trade war on the US economy are also discussed in this article. The conclusion suggests that the conflict has already had different effects on the US economy.
6
Rizescu, Marilena. "U.S. TRADE STRATEGY (1890-1909): PROTECTION AT HOME VERSUS FREE TRADE ABROAD." Analele Universităţii din Craiova seria Istorie 27, no. 2 (January 23, 2023): 73–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.52846/aucsi.2022.2.05.
Full textAbstract:
American trade strategy is defined by a combination of economic interest groups and competition between political parties. In the economic acts passed by Congress the almost infinitely divisible nature of the tariff, which often allowed the charges to be tailored to particular producers, created a norm of mutual noninterference and a process of legislative award in which virtually all claimants could be satisfied. As a result, the American tariff aimed for equality and uniformity in universally applied taxes. The role of political parties fluctuates depending on the interest group. The Republicans, who had an electoral base in the Northeast and Midwest, were identified as the party of protection, and the Democrats, relying increasingly on the traditionally trade-dependent South, asserted themselves as the party of free trade. From this perspective, tariff fluctuations were explained by changes in party dominance. There were multiple rapid and dramatic changes in American trade strategy; after the Civil War and before 1887, the United States was a relatively passive and highly protectionist nation-state. The rates set were high, non-negotiable and non-discriminatory. The transition from America's passive protectionism of the mid-19th century to its active liberalism of the mid-20th represents an extreme turning point. During the period 1890-1909, there was no unidirectional position regarding American trade strategy on a regular or periodic basis. Rather, trade strategy oscillated and was inferred from debates over tariff policy, the central trade issue of the age and the main instrument through which the strategy was implemented. Trade strategy is, however, different and more general than tariff policy; two (or more) tariff acts may differ in their details, but reflect a single commercial strategy. During this period, five tariff acts were passed by Congress: McKinley Tariff (1890), Wilson-Gorman Tariff (1894), Dingley Tariff (1897) and Payne-Aldrich Tariff (1909).
7
Lee, Yong-Shik. "The Steel and Aluminium Quota Agreements: A Question of Compatibility with WTO Disciplines and Their Impact on the World Trading System." Journal of World Trade 53, Issue 5 (October 1, 2019): 811–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/trad2019032.
Full textAbstract:
In March 2018, the United States adopted measures to increase tariffs on a range of imported steel and aluminium products, justifying the tariffs with its national security concerns under GATT Article XXI. The United States also exempted certain exporting countries, such as South Korea, Brazil, and Argentina, from these tariffs in exchange for quota agreements limiting exports of the steel and aluminium products from these countries. These steel and aluminium quota agreements arguably violate the provisions of Article 11 of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards prohibiting such agreements (‘gray-area measures’). This article reviews the compatibility of the steel and aluminium quota agreements with the Agreement on Safeguards and examines the impact of these agreements on the world trading system.
8
Schropp, Simon, Olim Latipov, Christian Lau, and Kornel Mahlstein. "Quantifying the Impact of the Latest US Tariff Sanctions on Russia: A Sectoral Analysis." Journal of World Trade 57, Issue 1 (February 1, 2023): 55–124. http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/trad2023003.
Full textAbstract:
In addition to the existing import ban on energy products (oil, gas, coal), the United States recently announced a new sanction package that imposes significantly higher import tariffs on 570 product groups from Russia. These tariff increases affect more than USD 2 billion in US imports from Russia. Using a sector-specific partial-equilibrium (PE) model, we quantify the impact of these US tariff increases. We find that the new tariffs affect 8.7% of total US imports from Russia and may decrease Russian welfare by USD 181 million per year, while imposing annual costs of USD 90 million on US consumers. Our sectoral analysis shows that the US’ choice of target sectors produces mixed results. On one hand, the sanctions cover dozens of sectors whose inclusion produce particularly large welfare losses to Russia and/or high welfare gains to the US Yet, for several target sectors higher tariffs result in zero harm to Russia, and/or greater harm to the US than to Russia. For example, higher tariffs for several selected sectors result in zero harm to Russia, and/or greater harm to the United States than to Russia. These and other insights may provide guidance for the design of future tariff sanctions by the European Union (EU) and other Allies. International trade, war in Ukraine, economic sanctions, import tariffs, economic impact, partial equilibrium, sectoral analysis, welfare analysis, pass-through, tariff revenue, Russia, United States, European Union
9
Amiti, Mary, Stephen J. Redding, and David E. Weinstein. "The Impact of the 2018 Tariffs on Prices and Welfare." Journal of Economic Perspectives 33, no. 4 (November 1, 2019): 187–210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jep.33.4.187.
Full textAbstract:
We examine conventional approaches to evaluating the economic impact of protectionist trade policies. We illustrate these conventional approaches by applying them to the tariffs introduced by the Trump administration during 2018. In the wake of this increase in trade protection, the United States experienced substantial increases in the prices of intermediates and final goods, dramatic changes to its supply-chain network, reductions in availability of imported varieties, and the complete pass-through of the tariffs into domestic prices of imported goods. Therefore, the full incidence of the tariffs has fallen on domestic consumers and importers so far, and our estimates imply a reduction in aggregate US real income of $1.4 billion per month by the end of 2018. We see similar patterns for foreign countries that have retaliated with their own tariffs against the United States, which suggests that the trade war has also reduced the real income of these other countries.
10
Luan, Bowen. "Macroeconomic Effect of The U.S. Tariff on Steel and Aluminum." BCP Business & Management 23 (August 4, 2022): 890–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.54691/bcpbm.v23i.1469.
Full textAbstract:
In the context of deglobalization, the United States proposed a trade policy of imposing tariffs on steel and aluminum in March 2018. This paper first discusses the possible motivations behind the tariff levitation by the United States. It also analyzes the impact of US tariffs on its trading partners and itself under the unilateral tariff model and the bilateral tariff model. The conclusion of the analysis is that the impact of this US trade policy on the economy of steel and aluminum importing countries, especially in the long run, is not as pessimistic as imagined. And considering the impact of the tariffs, as well as the EU and China’s trade countermeasures on the U.S. economy, the U.S. should perhaps reassess what this policy has brought to the U.S.
11
Xiao, Yufeng, and Shuqing Xiao. "The Impact of U.S. Economic Policy Uncertainty on the RMB: U.S. Dollar Exchange Rate - Case of China-US Trade War." Advances in Economics, Management and Political Sciences 91, no. 1 (June 20, 2024): 218–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.54254/2754-1169/91/20240961.
Full textAbstract:
On 6 July 2018, the United States began to impose 25% tariffs on $34 billion of Chinese goods. The trade war between China and the United States was officially launched. It lasted for more than a year, during which the two sides experienced six mutual tariff increases, which significantly impacted a few fields in China and the United States. This paper selects the RMB exchange rate to the US dollar as the research object; and takes the return of the RMB exchange rate as the data basis for modelling and analysis, intercepts its return data in the five years before and after the US-China trade war, taking the time when the United States imposed six additional tariffs on China as a dummy variable, and analyses the data by using the ARMA-GARCH model to study the impact of the RMB exchange rate by this trade war and to make predictions development of the RMB exchange rate, which will then make suggestions for China's economic.
12
Walker, Victoria. "Subsidizing the Microchip Race: The Expanding Use of National Security Arguments in International Trade." University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, no. 57.3 (2024): 661. http://dx.doi.org/10.36646/mjlr.57.3.subsidizing.
Full textAbstract:
In 2018, China, India, the European Union, Canada, Mexico, Norway, Russia, Switzerland, and Turkey lodged complaints with the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) in the case of Certain Measures on Steel and Aluminium Products. Each State alleged that the United States had violated international trade law by imposing a series of aggressive tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. President Donald Trump’s administration responded to these allegations by claiming that its actions were permissible under Article XXI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT); a long-standing exception built into the international trade law framework that allows States to restrict trade when doing so is vital to their national security. According to the United States, Article XXI granted it and other States near-total discretion when it came to defining their own security interests. The DSB Panel rejected this argument. Instead, the Panel asserted its own power to determine whether a State could claim the protection of Article XXI. When it came to American tariffs on imported metals, the Panel found that Article XXI was not appropriately implicated.
13
Baccini, Leonardo, Pablo M. Pinto, and Stephen Weymouth. "The Distributional Consequences of Preferential Trade Liberalization: Firm-Level Evidence." International Organization 71, no. 2 (2017): 373–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s002081831700011x.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractWhile increasing trade and foreign direct investment, international trade agreements create winners and losers. Our paper examines the distributional consequences of preferential trade agreements (PTAs) at the firm level. We contend that PTAs expand trade among the largest and most productive multinationals by lowering preferential tariffs. We examine data covering the near universe of US foreign direct investment and disaggregated tariff data from PTAs signed by the United States. Our results indicate that US preferential tariffs increase sales to the United States from the most competitive subsidiaries of multinational corporations operating in partner countries. We also find increases in market concentration in partner countries following preferential liberalization with the United States. By demonstrating that the gains from preferential liberalization are unevenly distributed across firms, we shed new light on the firm-level, economic sources of political mobilization over international trade and investment policies.
14
Tolley, D. L., and G. J. Fowler. "Commercial Arrangements for Co-Generation in the UK and USA." Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part A: Power and Process Engineering 201, no. 4 (November 1987): 259–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1243/pime_proc_1987_201_033_02.
Full textAbstract:
This paper examines the impact of the Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) in the United States and the Energy Act 1983 in the United Kingdom on the nature of the purchase tariffs for co-generators and combined heat and power (CHP) plant, and considers the reasons why the prospects for investment by private generators might be enhanced in the United States.
15
Jain, Manjula, and Saloni Saraswat. "US–China Trade War: Chinese Perspective." Management and Economics Research Journal 5 (2019): 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.18639/merj.2019.895478.
Full textAbstract:
The US–China trade relationship has expanded immensely after China’s reformation of its economy and liberalization in 1979. A very huge amount of trade takes place between the United States and China in terms of monetary value and quantity. China benefits the United States in several forms other than just trade, such as US firms seeking investment opportunities in China for their assembly units. Subsequently, China holds a huge amount of US treasury securities, and purchases US debt securities, which helps them to keep their interest rates low. However, even after the development of such a trade relationship, the United States has certain concerns relating to China’s intentions. From the United States’ point of view, China is not involved in a fair practice of trade. China has imposed state-directed policies that bend the flow of trade and investment opportunities. Furthermore, the United States has allegations against China pertaining to the issue of intellectual property rights along with mixed records on implementation of WTO obligations, establishment of procedures for impacting the value of its currency and restrictions on FDI. The United States claims that such policies from China’s side make a great impact on the US economy and thus is the concern of the Congress. The current president, Mr. Donald J. Trump, has pledged to promote the free and fair trade policy. So his administration has taken some severe steps to reduce the US bilateral trade deficit. The president first announced the imposition of tariffs on steel and aluminum at 25% and 15%, respectively. To this action of the United States, China retaliated by raising the tariffs on various goods that are imported from the United States. Furthermore, the United States claimed that it would take actions against Chinese intellectual property rights policies that could be a hindrance to the US stakeholders. Later, the United States released a two-stage plan to impose tariffs on Chinese imports that would directly affect Chinese industrial policies for which again there was retaliation by China by releasing their own two-stage plan for American imports that would adversely affect American industries. This paper is an attempt to analyze the effect of the trade war between the United States and China and briefly discusses about the impact of this war on China and the probable measures implemented by the country.
16
Vasilyev, Alexander. "The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of the 1930 as the classic example of a near-sided economic policy of the U.S. government during the Great Depression." Исторический журнал: научные исследования, no. 1 (January 2021): 22–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.7256/2454-0609.2021.1.34632.
Full textAbstract:
The object of this research is the antirecession policy of the United States during the Great Depression. The subject of this research The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, process of its adoption, and consequences. Special attention is given to the history of increase of tariffs on imported goods. The legislative bill drafted by congressmen R. Smoot and W. Hawley is considered one of the unsuccessful economic reforms in the history of the United States. The tax reform was conceived before the recession and was called to protect local farmers from excess of cheap foreign agricultural products on American markets. However, there was no substantial benefit from the increased tariffs on imports. Most historians find that this measure worsened the position of the lower classes of the population. There is also an opposing opinion that the legislation did not play a serious role in deepening of the recession. The article analyzes the extent of the impact of this legislation in the U.S. during the 1930s. The scientific novelty of this research consists in utilization of the transcripts of addresses of the members of U.S. Congress as the sources for research of the process of passing the legislation, as well as press materials in order to examine opinions on the legislative bill and consequences of increased tariffs. It is established that the adoption of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act had negative consequences for the economy, although not as severe as commonly cited. The impact of the new law was not as substantial on the background of the ongoing Great Depression. Passing of the protection measures took place almost simultaneously with other countries, with some countries raising the tariffs before the United States. The tax reform greatly affected the political situation in the United States, playing its role in diminishing the ratings of the President and the Republican Party.
17
Guo, Meixin, Lin Lu, Liugang Sheng, and Miaojie Yu. "The Day After Tomorrow: Evaluating the Burden of Trump's Trade War." Asian Economic Papers 17, no. 1 (February 2018): 101–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/asep_a_00592.
Full textAbstract:
During his U.S. presidential campaign Donald Trump threatened China with the imposition of high import tariffs on its exports to the United States. To evaluate the repercussions of such an action, this paper uses Eaton and Kortum's 2002 multi-sector, multi-country general equilibrium model with intersectional linkages to forecast how exports, imports, output, and real wages would change if Trump's threat of 45 percent tariffs is carried out. To view plausible scenarios, we evaluate the case of a unilateral action on the part of the United States, as well as a scenario where China retaliates by imposing an equally high 45 percent tariff on its imports from the United States. In addition, because the high U.S. trade deficit with China is a factor that underpins calls for tariff action, we explore simulations where the trade balance is restored to balance as well as a scenario in which the trade balance is unchanged. In all of the scenarios, the calibration exercise suggests that a trade war triggered by high U.S. import tariffs will lead to a collapse in U.S.–China bilateral trade. In all of the scenarios, the United States will experience large social welfare losses, whereas China may lose or gain slightly depending on the effect of trade war on the U.S.–China trade balance. Globally, some small open economies may experience small benefits, while other countries may suffer collateral damage.
18
Fordham, Benjamin O. "Protectionist Empire: Trade, Tariffs, and United States Foreign Policy, 1890–1914." Studies in American Political Development 31, no. 2 (October 2017): 170–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0898588x17000116.
Full textAbstract:
Between 1890 and 1914, the United States acquired overseas colonies, built a battleship fleet, and intervened increasingly often in Latin America and East Asia. This activism is often seen as the precursor to the country's role as a superpower after 1945 but actually served very different goals. In contrast to its pursuit of a relatively liberal international economic order after 1945, the United States remained committed to trade protection before 1914. Protectionism had several important consequences for American foreign policy on both economic and security issues. It led to a focus on less developed areas of the world that would not export manufactured goods to the United States instead of on wealthier European markets. It limited the tactics available for promoting American exports, forcing policymakers to seek exclusive bilateral agreements or unilateral concessions from trading partners instead of multilateral arrangements. It inhibited political cooperation with other major powers and implied an aggressive posture toward these states. The differences between this foreign policy and the one the United States adopted after 1945 underscore the critical importance not just of the search for overseas markets but also of efforts to protect the domestic market.
19
Huang, Huanping, Jonathan M. Winter, Erich C. Osterberg, Radley M. Horton, and Brian Beckage. "Total and Extreme Precipitation Changes over the Northeastern United States." Journal of Hydrometeorology 18, no. 6 (June 1, 2017): 1783–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/jhm-d-16-0195.1.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract The northeastern United States has experienced a large increase in precipitation over recent decades. Annual and seasonal changes of total and extreme precipitation from station observations in the Northeast were assessed over multiple time periods spanning 1901–2014. Spatially averaged, both annual total and extreme precipitation across the Northeast increased significantly since 1901, with changepoints occurring in 2002 and 1996, respectively. Annual extreme precipitation experienced a larger increase than total precipitation; extreme precipitation from 1996 to 2014 is 53% higher than from 1901 to 1995. Spatially, coastal areas receive more total and extreme precipitation on average, but increases across the changepoints are distributed fairly uniformly across the domain. Increases in annual total precipitation across the 2002 changepoint are driven by significant total precipitation increases in fall and summer, while increases in annual extreme precipitation across the 1996 changepoint are driven by significant extreme precipitation increases in fall and spring. The ability of gridded observed and reanalysis precipitation data to reproduce station observations was also evaluated. Gridded observations perform well in reproducing averages and trends of annual and seasonal total precipitation, but extreme precipitation trends show significantly different spatial and domain-averaged trends than station data. The North American Regional Reanalysis generally underestimates annual and seasonal total and extreme precipitation means and trends relative to station observations, and also shows substantial differences in the spatial pattern of total and extreme precipitation trends within the Northeast.
20
Rowe, Mary Ellen, and F. Todd Smith. "The Caddos, the Wichitas, and the United States, 1846-1901." Journal of Southern History 65, no. 3 (August 1999): 634. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2588160.
Full text
21
Tanner, Helen Hornbeck, and F. Todd Smith. "The Caddos, the Wichitas, and the United States, 1846-1901." Journal of American History 85, no. 1 (June 1998): 258. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2568515.
Full text
22
Traylor, Jack W. "The Caddos, the Wichitas, and the United States, 1846–1901." History: Reviews of New Books 26, no. 1 (October 1997): 9–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03612759.1997.10525256.
Full text
23
Trennert, Robert A., and F. Todd Smith. "The Caddos, the Wichitas, and the United States, 1846-1901." American Historical Review 102, no. 5 (December 1997): 1580. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2171235.
Full text
24
Tello, Mario D., and Cristina J. Tello-Trillo. "Preferential Trade Agreements and Productivity: Evidence from Peru." Economia 46, no. 91 (August 23, 2023): 22–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.18800/economia.202301.002.
Full textAbstract:
This paper analyzes the impact of reducing output tariffs (i.e., domestic tariffs on import of final goods) and input tariffs (i.e., domestic tariffs on imports of intermediate goods) on total factor productivity growth of Peruvian manufacturing firms. Peru’s annual survey of manufacturing data from 2003–2017 is used to explore the reduction of tariffs during three preferential trade agreements: United States, China, and the European Union. Lower output tari˙s could decrease productivity by reducing firm’s market share or could increase productivity by inducing tougher import competition, while cheaper imported inputs can raise productivity via learning, variety, and quality effects. The results show that a decrease in output tariffs decreases Peruvian firms’ productivity growth for non-exporters (i.e., domestic firms producing goods that are also imported) while increasing productivity growth for exporters (i.e., domestic firms producing export goods). In contrast, a reduction in input tariffs increases firm productivity for all firms.
25
Gürsel, Bahar. "Citizenship and Military Service in Italian-American Relations, 1901-1918." Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 7, no. 3 (July 2008): 353–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s153778140000075x.
Full textAbstract:
Conflicts over citizenship and military service became a central issue in Italian-American relations in the early twentieth century. The United States and Italy founded their concepts of citizenship on two different bases, jus soli and jus sanguinis. As a consequence of this difference and the swelling number of Italian immigrants naturalized in America, the two governments' policies about naturalization and military service collided until 1918. The Italian government's policy put Italian Americans' loyalty to the United States in jeopardy, especially for men who wished to return to Italy for business or educational purposes. Thus, the study of Italian Americans' experiences in the context of the policies of both countries illustrates a key aspect of the relationship between the United States and Italy, both in terms of social experience and public policy.
26
Allen, Treb, and Stephen Meardon. "Reciprocity in Retrospect: A Historical Inquest of Bilateralism in U.S. Trade Policy." HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT AND POLICY, no. 2 (October 2012): 5–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.3280/spe2012-002001.
Full textAbstract:
Several varieties of bilateral trade arrangements were tried in the United States from independence to 1909. They included most-favored-nation (MFN) treaties of the conditional and unconditional varieties, MFN treaties in which the conditionality was implicit, preferential trade arrangements, and agreements of a different nature authorized by the McKinley Tariff Act of 1890 and the Dingley Act of 1897. This essay is an inquest of the varieties of U.S. trade arrangements and their effects on bilateral trade flows. It surveys the several varieties, discusses the circumstances of their usage, and uses a gravity model to estimate empirically their effects. The empirical results show that bilateralism's effects on trade flows are contingent upon its varieties and historical circumstances.
27
Suh, Jin Kyo. "U.S.–China Trade Conflict and the Changing Multilateral Trading System: Korea's Perspective." Asian Economic Papers 18, no. 3 (December 2019): 142–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/asep_a_00733.
Full textAbstract:
One of the biggest risks to the world economy today is the U.S.–China trade tension. Korea is said to be particularly vulnerable to the trade conflict between the two economic giants because the United States and China are its two largest trading partners. Under the scenario that both the United States and China mutually impose 25 percent of tariffs on all imports, Korea's exports are projected to be reduced by USD 13.3 billion, just 2.2 percent of total exports in 2018. This apparent low impact is because a significant portion of Korea's exports to China are used for domestic consumption in China, not for re-export to third countries, including the United States. The adverse impact of the tit-for-tat tariffs between these two countries on Korea's exports may not be fully realized yet, however, because of the efforts by individual firms to avoid pre-announced tariffs. Thus, more time is needed to properly capture the influences of the U.S.–China trade tensions on the Korean economy. On the other hand, the current World Trade Organization (WTO) reform led by developed countries such as the United States, EU, and Japan can be interpreted as another version of a bilateral trade conflict between the United States and China. In fact, it targets state-owned enterprises’ (SOEs) subsidies, which are the backbone of China's state-led economic development model. Furthermore, WTO reform is closely related to U.S. complaints that the WTO cannot effectively control the unfair trade practices of non-market economies like China. Considering the consensus-based decision-making mechanism of the WTO, it is highly unlikely that WTO members will derive a successful agreement on the current WTO reform. Again, the WTO is in danger of dichotomy; one group led by developed members and the other group composed mostly of developing members. Each group will try to make new trade norms suited to only their own taste.
28
Changnon, Stanley A., David Changnon, and Thomas R. Karl. "Temporal and Spatial Characteristics of Snowstorms in the Contiguous United States." Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 45, no. 8 (August 1, 2006): 1141–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/jam2395.1.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract A climatological analysis of snowstorms across the contiguous United States, based on data from 1222 weather stations with data during 1901–2001, defined the spatial and temporal features. The average annual incidence of events creating 15.2 cm or more in 1 or 2 days, which are termed as snowstorms, exhibits great spatial variability. The pattern is latitudinal across most of the eastern half of the United States, averaging 0.1 storm (1 storm per 10 years) in the Deep South, increasing to 2 storms along the Canadian border. This pattern is interrupted by higher averages downwind of the Great Lakes and in the Appalachian Mountains. In the western third of the United States where snow falls, lower-elevation sites average 0.1–2 storms per year, but averages are much higher in the Cascade Range and Rocky Mountains, where 5–30 storms occur per year. Most areas of the United States have had years without snowstorms, but the annual minima are 1 or more storms in high-elevation areas of the West and Northeast. The pattern of annual maxima of storms is similar to the average pattern. The temporal distribution of snowstorms exhibited wide fluctuations during 1901–2000, with downward 100-yr trends in the lower Midwest, South, and West Coast. Upward trends occurred in the upper Midwest, East, and Northeast, and the national trend for 1901–2000 was upward, corresponding to trends in strong cyclonic activity. The peak periods of storm activity in the United States occurred during 1911–20 and 1971–80, and the lowest frequency was in 1931–40. Snowstorms first occur in September in the Rockies, in October in the high plains, in November across most of the United States, and in December in the Deep South. The month with the season’s last storms is December in the South and then shifts northward, with April the last month of snowstorms across most of the United States. Storms occur as late as May and June in the Rockies and Cascades. Snowstorms are most frequent in December downwind of the Great Lakes, with the peak of activity in January for most other areas of the United States.
29
Fajgelbaum, Pablo D., Pinelopi K. Goldberg, Patrick J. Kennedy, and Amit K. Khandelwal. "The Return to Protectionism*." Quarterly Journal of Economics 135, no. 1 (November 28, 2019): 1–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjz036.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract After decades of supporting free trade, in 2018 the United States raised import tariffs and major trade partners retaliated. We analyze the short-run impact of this return to protectionism on the U.S. economy. Import and retaliatory tariffs caused large declines in imports and exports. Prices of imports targeted by tariffs did not fall, implying complete pass-through of tariffs to duty-inclusive prices. The resulting losses to U.S. consumers and firms that buy imports was $51 billion, or 0.27% of GDP. We embed the estimated trade elasticities in a general-equilibrium model of the U.S. economy. After accounting for tariff revenue and gains to domestic producers, the aggregate real income loss was $7.2 billion, or 0.04% of GDP. Import tariffs favored sectors concentrated in politically competitive counties, and the model implies that tradeable-sector workers in heavily Republican counties were the most negatively affected due to the retaliatory tariffs. JEL Code: F1.
30
Spearot, Alan. "Unpacking the Long-Run Effects of Tariff Shocks: New Structural Implications from Firm Heterogeneity Models." American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 8, no. 2 (May 1, 2016): 128–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/mic.20140015.
Full textAbstract:
I derive a novel solution for the general equilibrium effects of tariffs that is robust to heterogeneity across industries and countries, and is a function of only aggregate trade data and country-by-industry Pareto shape parameters. Using the model to evaluate tariff shocks, I show that while most countries lose by removing observed tariffs unilaterally, India, Japan, Korea, and the United States gain by doing so, which suggests inefficient tariff discrimination. In evaluating multilateral shocks, observed tariff cuts over 1994 –2000 benefit 69 percent of countries, with these benefits skewed toward developing nations. In contrast, removing all post-2000 tariffs benefit the developed. (JEL F12, F13, F14)
31
Kashyap, Usha, and Neha Bothra. "Sino-US Trade and Trade War." Management and Economics Research Journal 5 (2019): 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.18639/merj.2019.879180.
Full textAbstract:
Trade has been one of the most primary reasons behind economic association. Cross-border trade not only makes the markets cost-efficient but rather also brings up a higher degree of specialization to the respective nations. Bilateral trades have proven to be quintessential to both sides of the deal. However, on a parallel front, every economy has a self-interest toward the domestic produce, and they also try to defend their local manufacturers from cross-border competition. The United States has an “America-first” policy. Whenever the United States imposes tariffs and duties, similar responses have been observed by China. These moves are an area of great concern for global trade. The impact is often visible on the rest of the world. A trade-off exists between domestic economic growth and favored imports. This study is an attempt to discuss the trade relations between the United States and China and how this has led to a trade war. The trade tensions between the United States and China may continue for a few more years. There is a battle for economic supremacy and global leadership. This study explains why the United States is increasing tariffs on Chinese goods and how China is retaliating. This US–China trade war has affected not only the two economies but also the world economy. This study elucidates the repercussions of trade war on the international supply chain and the countries of the European Union. This study has also endeavored to discuss the impact of this trade war on the Indian economy. It is a golden opportunity for India to increase exports to China, the United States, and Europe.
32
Yoon, Yeo Joon. "Making Sense of the Trump Tariff: Evidence from the Exclusion Request." APEC Studies Association of Korea 15, no. 1 (June 30, 2023): 1–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.52595/jas.15.1.1.
Full textAbstract:
During the Trump administration, the United States invoked Section 301 of the Trade Act and imposed significant tariffs on Chinese imports. As a result, a large portion of Chinese goods were subject to additional tariffs. Concurrently, the U.S. administration introduced a trade remedy system called exclusion requests to minimize the damage inflicted on American companies that import goods from China. In this paper, we analyze the exclusion requests to shed light on the impact of the 301 tariffs. A thorough analysis on the exclusion requests would provide better understanding of the impact of Section 301 tariffs and Trump trade policy. The analysis revealed that when an exclusion request was made for products falling under HTS 84 or 85 that are also closely associated with “Made in China 2025”, the likelihood of approval significantly decreased.
33
Puckett, A. Lynne, and William L. Reynolds. "Rules, Sanctions and Enforcement Under Section 301: At Odds with the WTO?" American Journal of International Law 90, no. 4 (October 1996): 675–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2203997.
Full textAbstract:
Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 permits the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to investigate and impose sanctions on countries whose trade practices are found to be unfair to U.S. interests. It reaches beyond the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), to give the United States unilateral power to penalize countries that threaten American interests. Section 301 can be used to enforce United States rights under multilateral and bilateral trade agreements, as well as to remedy unreasonable, unjustifiable or discriminatory foreign trade practices that restrict or burden U.S. trade. It contains both mandatory and discretionary provisions and specific timetables for action by the USTR.
34
Wendland, Wayne M. "Prominent November Coldwaves in the North Central United States Since 1901." Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 68, no. 6 (June 1987): 616–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1987)068<0616:pncitn>2.0.co;2.
Full text
35
Yao, Chen. "Philippine Public School System During the American Rule (1901‒1935) ‒ From the Perspective of Global History and Soft Power." OOO "Zhurnal "Voprosy Istorii" 2021, no. 12-3 (December 1, 2021): 231–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.31166/voprosyistorii202112statyi77.
Full textAbstract:
This article analyzes the public school system established by the United States in the Philippines in 1901-1935 from the perspective of global history and soft power. It believes that the systematic public education of the United States in the Philippines is a colonial soft power policy. It had a profound impact on the modernization of the Philippines and the U.S.-Philippines relationship after World War II.
36
Gallarotti, Giulio M. "Toward a business-cycle model of tariffs." International Organization 39, no. 1 (1985): 155–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0020818300004896.
Full textAbstract:
A modified interest-group model links movements in tariffs to changes in the level of economic activity within nations. This model is introduced and tested for tariff behavior in the 19th and early 20th centuries in three nations: the United States, Great Britain, and Germany. Empirical analysis lends strong support to the model's central thesis, that tariffs are sensitive to movements within a business cycle. Tariff changes occurring in the three nations, with the exception of British tariff increases, generally conform to the expectations of the model. Furthermore, business-cycle sensitivity provides an explanation of the behavior of tariffs superior to two prominent alternatives, those based on ideology and on hegemonic stability.
37
Mutti, John. "Aggregate costs to the United States of tariffs and quotas on imports." Journal of International Economics 21, no. 3-4 (November 1986): 385–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1996(86)90053-x.
Full text
38
ROGERS, EDMUND. "THE UNITED STATES AND THE FISCAL DEBATE IN BRITAIN, 1873–1913." Historical Journal 50, no. 3 (August 28, 2007): 593–622. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0018246x07006279.
Full textAbstract:
ABSTRACTHistorians of the debate over free trade and tariffs in Britain during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries have not taken adequate account of the impact of the protectionist United States. The article first examines how American protectionism influenced the cause of imperial preference. It then looks at how both sides in the fiscal debate used the American economic experience to bolster their cases. Finally, it is demonstrated that the economic success and liberal democratic character of America compelled free traders to attack the American example on a moral and political basis.
39
Becerril Torres, Osvaldo, Gabriela Munguía Vázquez, and Justyna Wieloch. "The effects of US import tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from Mexico." JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES 15, no. 4 (December 2022): 165–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.14254/2071-8330.2022/15-4/10.
Full textAbstract:
To this end, mathematical and statistical methods are used to model the effect of tariffs, ex-ante and ex-post, after implementing this trade policy, on exports of aluminum and steel from Mexico to the United States, versus US imports of these metals from the ROW. The results show that the protectionist tariff policy had a structural effect on US imports; likewise, the tariff shock implemented by the United States in June 2018 adversely affected its imports of these goods, both in terms of volume and value. This suggests that bilateral trade may be affected, but the effect is differentiated. The United States may be achieving its objective of protecting its domestic industry or it may impact upwards on the domestic prices of these metals, which could influence the prices paid by the final consumer. For Mexico, trade may be diverted or its export capacity reduced, adversely affecting its trade balance of these metals.
40
Grossman, Gene M., and Petros C. Mavroidis. "US – Lead and Bismuth II: United States – Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the United Kingdom: Here Today, Gone Tomorrow? Privatization and the Injury Caused by Non-Recurring Subsidies." World Trade Review 2, S1 (2003): 170–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1474745603001113.
Full textAbstract:
In 1993, the US Department of Commerce began to levy countervailing duties on imports of certain leaded bars from the United Kingdom. The United States applied tariffs to goods imported from British Steel Engineering Steels, a subsidiary of British Steel plc. Following investigations by the US Department of Commerce and the United States International Trade Commission, the US authorities held that the imposition of duties was both required by Section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (as amended) and not in violation of any of the country’s obligations as a member of the World Trade Organization.
41
Emelianov, E. V., and P. A. Aksenov. "THE US FOREIGN ECONOMIC POLICY IN 2017-2020: CORONAVIRUS TEST." International Trade and Trade Policy, no. 2 (June 23, 2020): 47–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.21686/2410-7395-2020-2-47-56.
Full textAbstract:
Cutting US Federal Reserve’s policy rate in response to coronavirus, financial measures to fight the possible perspectives of recession may be very effective in the short run, but the case is more complicated than ever been. The usual tools of economic policy are under the question and Trump's trade policy seems to be on the way of the United States fight against COVID-19. The American tariffs on Chinese products – from protective gear for doctors and nurses, personal protective equipment, masks, sterile gloves to the medical equipment – have its impact on the United States market and may contribute to shortages of these products. So the Trump administration’s tariffs may hit medical products which are needed for treating COVID-19 and become an obstacle to fight this pandemic. While some exclusions were made, their effectiveness is limited. At the same time cancellation of sanctions may contribute to fight this pandemic by allowing access to medical products and supporting international trade at the face of recession.
42
Shao, Ying. "The Impact of the US-China Trade Conflict on Chinas Metal Market." Advances in Economics, Management and Political Sciences 53, no. 1 (December 1, 2023): 242–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.54254/2754-1169/53/20230842.
Full textAbstract:
The US-China trade war began in March 2018. The United States imposed trade sanctions on China such as increasing tariffs on imported goods, including tariffs of 25% on imported steel and 10% on aluminum. As an important resource for bilateral import and export between China and the United States, metal products are greatly affected by the trade war, which has caused severe fluctuations in the Chinese metal market. This article selects the Chinese metal market prices from September 30, 2011, to December 2019, establishes an ARIMA model to simulate and analyze the data, predicts future trends, and finally finds that the trade war exerts adverse effects on the metal product market in China, driving down the market and making it more difficult for companies to survive. The research suggests that policy makers should pay more attention to relevant companies, adopt a more active stance to resolve the trade war, and restore market stability.
43
Fajgelbaum, Pablo, Pinelopi Goldberg, Patrick Kennedy, Amit Khandelwal, and Daria Taglioni. "The US-China Trade War and Global Reallocations." American Economic Review: Insights 6, no. 2 (June 1, 2024): 295–312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aeri.20230094.
Full textAbstract:
The US-China trade war created net export opportunities rather than simply shifting trade across destinations. Many “bystander” countries grew their exports of taxed products into the rest of the world (excluding the United States and China). Country-specific components of tariff elasticities, rather than specialization patterns, drove large cross-country variation in export growth of tariff-exposed products. The elasticities of exports to US-Chinese tariffs identify whether a country’s exports complement or substitute the United States or China and its supply curve’s slope. Countries that operate along downward-sloping supplies whose exports substitute (complement) the United States and China are among the larger (smaller) beneficiaries of the trade war. (JEL F13, F14, O19, P33)
44
Clayton, Kenneth C. "United States Perspective: Southern Agriculture and the World Economy: The Multilateral Trade Negotiations." Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 20, no. 1 (July 1988): 73–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0081305200025668.
Full textAbstract:
The current “Uruguay Round” of trade negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) began with the Declaration by trade ministers at Punta del Este, Uruguay, in September 1986. To conduct the negotiations, an agricultural negotiating group, along with fourteen other such groups, has been established. Negotiating proposals on agriculture have been offered by the Nordic Countries, the European Community (EC), Canada, the Cairns group, Japan, and the United States.
45
Broda, Christian, Nuno Limão, and David E. Weinstein. "Optimal Tariffs and Market Power: The Evidence." American Economic Review 98, no. 5 (November 1, 2008): 2032–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.98.5.2032.
Full textAbstract:
We find that prior to World Trade Organization membership, countries set import tariffs 9 percentage points higher on inelastically supplied imports relative to those supplied elastically. The magnitude of this effect is similar to the size of average tariffs in these countries, and market power explains more of the tariff variation than a commonly used political economy variable. Moreover, US trade restrictions not covered by the WTO are significantly higher on goods where the United States has more market power. We find strong evidence that these importers have market power and use it in setting noncooperative trade policy. (JEL F12, F13)
46
Purwono, Rudi, Unggul Heriqbaldi, Miguel Angel Esquivias, and M. Khoerul Mubin. "The American–China Trade War and Spillover Effects on Value-Added Exports from Indonesia." Sustainability 14, no. 5 (March 7, 2022): 3093. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14053093.
Full textAbstract:
This paper examines the impact of special tariffs between China and the United States (US) on their indirect trade partners via spillover effects. We applied a Value-Added Real Effective Exchange Rate (VA-REER) index to simulate how an increase in tariffs induces changes in demand for goods from Indonesia and selected Asian partners. We used the Input–Output Database (WIOD) to simulate the spillover effects across partners via the Global Value Chain (GVC) using data from 2000 to 2014. The results suggest that demand is doubly more responsive to prices (tariffs) when value-added (VA-REER) index is used instead of the conventional REER index (gross trade). We found that US tariffs on Chinese goods have a negative spillover impact on Indonesia’s exports. Meanwhile, the Chinese tariffs on American goods lead to small increased demand for Indonesian exports. We also found that US and China become equally crucial for Indonesia under the Value-Added REER scheme, concluding that the conventional REER approach may have underestimated the impact of US tariffs on Chinese goods. Finally, we found that Indonesia would be at risk to trade shocks if the US applies tariffs on China, Asian partners (Japan and South Korea), and the European Union (EU).
47
Barus, Adhi Pradana, Suhaidi, Sutiarnoto, and Jelly Leviza. "Sengketa Penerapan Tariff Impor Dan Hambatan Dagang Antara Amerika Serikat Dan Negara China Dalam Perspektif Kerangka WTO." Locus: Jurnal Konsep Ilmu Hukum 2, no. 1 (March 17, 2022): 37–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.56128/jkih.v2i1.21.
Full textAbstract:
Hubungan dagang antara Amerika Serikat dan China menjadi perhatian dunia terutama karena sengketa dagang yang terjadi antara kedua negara.Amerika Serikat membuat kebijakan untuk menaikkan tariff bea masuk yang tinggi untuk barang impor dari negara China. Kebijakan ini bertentangan dengan GATT khususnya Pasal I dan Pasal II yang menyatakan tidak boleh ada diskriminasi antara negara anggota WTO. Sengketa ini diawali dengan adanya kebijakan tariff bea masuk impor yang hanya ditujukan kepada Negara China, Amerika mengaku ini dilakukan demi melindungi pekerja domestik dan produk domestik, dan ini semua bagian dari kampanye Donald Trump, kemudian pada akhirnya Negara China melayangkan gugatan ke Amerika Serikat melalui DSB. Dalam penemuan yang dilakukan oleh Panel, bahwa Amerika Serikat dalam sengketa dagang ini telah terbukti melanggar ketentuan GATT/WTO yaitu Pasal I dan Pasal II GATT yang dengan sepihak menaikkan komitmen tariff tanpa ada perundingan terlebih dahulu, setelah sengketa ini dibawa ke Dispute Settlement Body dimana Panel menyatakan Amerika Serikat telah bersalah dan tidak memiliki bukti yang cukup jelas dalam pembelaanya dalam hal pencegahan lebih lanjut maka WTO dapat menggunakan ketentuan Pasal I, Pasal II, dan Pasal III GATT/WTO untuk dapat mengendalikan tariff bea masuk impor, dan juga masalah perdagangan internasional kedepannya untuk menyelesaikan masalah secara baik.
Kata kunci: Hambatan perdagangan, Sengketa Dagang, Tariff, WTO.
Abstract
The relationship between the United States and China has attracted worldwide attention, especially because of the trade dispute between the two countries. The United States made a policy to raise high import duty rates for goods imported from China. This policy contradicts the GATT, especially Article I and Article II which state that there should be no discrimination between WTO member countries. This dispute began with the existence of import tariffs that were only aimed at the State of China, America claimed this was done to protect domestic workers and domestic products, and this was all part of Donald Trump's campaign, then in the end China filed a lawsuit against the United States through the DSB. In the findings made by the Panel, that the United States in this trade dispute has violated the provisions of the GATT/WTO, namely Article I and Article II of the GATT which unilaterally raised tariffs without prior agreement, after this dispute was brought to the Settlement Body where the Panel stated that the United States has been guilty and does not have clear enough evidence in his defense in further prevention, the WTO can use the provisions of Article I, Article II, and Article III of the GATT/WTO to control import duty tariffs, as well as international trade issues in the future to resolve the problem properly.
Keywords: tariffs, trade barriers, trade disputes, WTO.
48
Irwin, Douglas A. "Tariff Incidence in America's Gilded Age." Journal of Economic History 67, no. 3 (September 2007): 582–607. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0022050707000241.
Full textAbstract:
In the late nineteenth century, the United States imposed high tariffs to protect domestic manufacturers from foreign competition. This article examines the magnitude of protection given to import-competing producers and the costs imposed on export-oriented producers by focusing on changes in the domestic prices of traded goods relative to nontraded goods. The results suggest that the 30 percent average import tariff gave about a 17 percent implicit subsidy to import-competing producers and effectively taxed exporters at about 10 percent. Tariffs redistributed large amounts of income (about 8 percent of GDP), but the effect on consumers was roughly neutral.
49
Khan, Muhammad Arif, and Shahnawaz Muhammad Khan. "US China Trade War: Implications for the World." Global International Relations Review V, no. II (June 30, 2022): 10–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.31703/girr.2022(v-ii).02.
Full textAbstract:
In 2018, a trade war started between USA and China. Both the countries started to apply tariffs against each other. In March 2018, the USA applied tariffs on imports from China. Then in return, China also applied tariffs on a few products. With time, this trade war between both economies raised, and its further intensification made both countries suffer through imposed tariffs. Tariff wars between the United States and China have the potential to undermine global financial stability. As the world's biggest economies, China and USA have been merchandising products and services on a worldwide scale. After these countries retaliate,the tariff war will have an impact on the global distribution chain, international trade, the economy, and equity markets. The study is a qualitative-based critical analysis of the reasons and effects of this trade war between the two economic giants. It also explicitly highlights the environmental as well as economic impacts on the world community.
50
Pershina, Alina Ol, and Ekaterina А. Zemnukhova. "RESEARCH OF TARIFF FORMATION FOR PIPELINE DELIVERIES OF RUSSIAN OIL." Interexpo GEO-Siberia 2, no. 4 (May 21, 2021): 322–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.33764/2618-981x-2021-2-4-322-327.
Full textAbstract:
An adequate and balanced choice of a model for regulating tariffs for the supply of hydrocarbons through pipelines has a decisive impact on the level of costs of participants in the transportation process, and the profits of economic entities. The classification of methods for determining tariffs for oil transportation, the specifics of the formation of tariffs in the United States and Russia, as well as a comparative analysis of the cost of transportation by various modes of transport for these countries are presented. The choice in the work of the American and Russian markets is due to the fact that the US oil transportation infrastructure is the closest in terms of the scale of development of the oil industry, as well as the degree of development of the pipeline system to the Russian Federation.