Unilateral Import Liberalization Is Helpful, Egalitarian and - Yes - Politically Possible

The Heritage Foundation's Bryan Riley has a great new study out today arguing in favor of the unilateral elimination of all - yes, all - US barriers to imports.  Here's the summary:

Congress routinely makes targeted, short-term tariff cuts through “miscellaneous tariff bills.” While conventional wisdom is that unilateral tariff cuts are politically impossible, these bills show that it is possible to reduce tariffs. Proponents of such tariff cuts argue that the cuts support U.S. jobs; critics argue that the economic value of miscellaneous cuts is modest, and that the process is open to abuse. While it is healthy to discuss ways to maximize the benefits provided by miscellaneous tariff bills, the United States would see the most economic benefit from across-the-board tariff reform. The best possible reform would be for the U.S. Congress to eliminate all remaining import tariffs and quotas.

After noting that the United States rates a dismal 38th place in Heritage's ranking of trade freedom (and would jump to first if if eliminated all barriers), Riley explains that import liberalization is one of the few things on which economists - left, right and center - can actually agree, with over 85% of them repeatedly favoring the policy in recent surveys.  The reasons for this are obvious:

Tariffs make Americans poorer by transferring dollars from the country’s most competitive industries to the industries that have the best political connections. 

Countries with low tariffs, such as New Zealand and Singapore, are more prosperous than countries with high, protective tariffs, such as India and Venezuela. The latest rankings of trade freedom around the world, developed by The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal in the 2013 Index of Economic Freedom, demonstrate how citizens of countries that embrace free trade have higher average incomes than citizens of countries that do not.

Riley then looks at several examples of countries - including Australia, Chile, China, New Zealand, Canada, and Mexico - unilaterally liberalizing import barriers to great economic success.  And while all of this historical and economic data are great, I think the following passage is my favorite because it really hits home just how obscenely immoral our current tariff/quota system really is, as it disproportionately punishes both poor countries and poor Americans:

Former WTO Director-General Mike Moore observed: “You know, the least-developed countries account for less than 0.5 percent of world trade, yet where they have areas of excellence, they’re not allowed to export to the United States or to Europe.” 

In the United States, the average tariff on products from developing countries is much higher than on products from developed countries. For example, imports from Bangladesh faced an average U.S. tariff of 15 percent in 2012, but imports from Belgium faced an average tariff of just 0.7 percent. The overall U.S. average tariff on products from the U.N.’s Least Developed Countries list in 2012 was 3.9 times higher than the average tariff on products from other countries. 

Imposing tariffs on imports from developing countries makes it more difficult for people in those countries to escape poverty, and keeps them dependent on U.S. aid dollars. In 2011, the U.S. government sent Bangladesh $218 million in economic aid, and collected $746 million in tariffs. If the U.S. government cut the 15 percent effective tariff on imports from Bangladesh, it could keep some aid dollars at home. 

In 2011, U.S. the government collected $28.6 billion in tariff revenue, and spent $31.7 billion on foreign economic aid.... 

Although some people argue that it is politically impossible to cut tariffs unilaterally in the United States, in fact most U.S. tariffs are already close to zero. The United States’ tariff problem stems from the country’s two-tier regime consisting of shoes, clothing, and related items on one tier, and everything else on the other. 

Tier One items including shoes and clothing account for less than 6 percent of total imports, but tariffs on these items account for 47 percent of U.S. tariff revenue.[28] As the liberal blog ThinkProgress observed, tariffs are highly regressive: “The kinds of goods where freer trade would mostly benefit the poor are exactly the kinds of goods where trade is least-free.” A study in the Journal of Diversity Management found that tariffs are higher for clothing purchased by low-income consumers, and also higher for women’s clothing than for men’s clothing....

So not only does our tariff/quota system hurt the US economy, but it also benefits rich, politically-connected US industries (like these guys) at the expense of developing countries and the most vulnerable American citizens.  Now if that isn't a good enough reason to reform the system, then I don't know what is.

Riley concludes by making several great recommendations for reform and by noting that import liberalization isn't nearly as radioactive as some politicians and political hacks claim because the United States government routinely passes import liberalization bills in the form of temporary, small scale programs like the Generalized System of Preferences and the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill.   The same economic and moral principles supporting these bills - eliminating cronyism and helping the economy, US consumers and less-developed countries - obviously would apply to broader liberalization measures (and, of course, to much greater effect).   Indeed, when Congress failed to reauthorize GSP in 2011, one champion of import liberalization got on his high horse and explained what's at stake:

The exclusion of the Generalized System of Preferences from the package means that this important program will lapse on December 31, hurting American consumers and businesses as well as workers and farmers in many of the world's poorer countries....

U.S. businesses and consumers benefit from the GSP program through cost savings on imports. Also, according to a 2005 U.S. Chamber of Commerce study, the program supports over 80,000 American jobs associated with moving GSP imports from the docks to farmers, manufacturers and ultimately to retail shelves. U.S. imports under GSP exceeded $20 billion in 2009 and are on pace to exceed $27 billion in 2010. GSP saved U.S. importers nearly $577 million in duties in 2009. The program was instituted on January 1, 1976, by the Trade Act of 1974. In addition to its benefits to American families, GSP is designed to promote economic growth in the developing world by providing preferential duty-free entry for about 4,800 products from 131 designated beneficiary countries and territories.

This is exactly right, and it echoes many of the findings in Riley's study.  So who, you might ask, is this great, economically-literate champion of free trade?

The typically mercantilist and import-skeptical Obama administration's USTR, that's who.

So with all of the economic benefits and moral arguments for import liberalization so clear, it kinda makes you wonder what's keeping President Obama from supporting a bigger, better, more permanent version of GSP, eh?

Perfect: US TPP Negotiating Positions Getting Bogged Down by a Product We Don't Even Make Anymore

I've expressed more than a little skepticism about the Obama administration's ambitious plan to complete the Trans-Pacific Partnership by the end of the year.  My concerns relate more to systemic issues (e.g., the lack of a consensus view on the framework for market access schedules), rather than product-specific ones.  But maybe I should start sweating the latter as much as, or more than, the former. It seems that a minor war has broken out over - no joke - US tariffs on footwear.  Here's Businessweek with some details:

The Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, which wants an end to the trade barriers, says tariffs for some types of shoes can run as high as 67.5 percent, and when the costs get passed on, they effectively triple the price of foreign-made shoes. New Balance, based in Boston, says the duties that help sustain its U.S. athletic footwear production are as high as 20 percent and asks that they be preserved.

The 7 million pairs of shoes New Balance produces each year in the U.S. make up only a quarter of U.S. sales, says Matthew LeBretton, director of public affairs. The rest are made in the U.K., China, Indonesia, and Vietnam. “If this is purely a business decision, then it’s very clear that you make more profit by making shoes in Asia than in the United States,” LeBretton says. “We aren’t purists, but we are doing this for reasons that are other than financial impact. It’s the right thing for us to do. We suffer as a country when we lose the ability to manufacture.” He adds that producing in the U.S. lets New Balance react faster to demand from U.S. stores and helps those stores maintain lower inventory. The company also says local workers maintain better quality control than workers abroad.

Keeping the tariffs is important because most of New Balance’s jobs are in communities where there are few other options for employment, says Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Me.). “They’re paying 46¢ an hour in Vietnam, and New Balance is paying $10 an hour here, plus all the benefits,” Snowe says. “It’s not a level playing field. Our government has to finally wake up and understand that.”

Nike has supporters, too. “I really believe that the government should not negotiate agreements for one company,” says Matt Priest, president of the footwear distributors association. Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), whose district is home to Nike employees and the U.S. headquarters of Adidas (ADS), says keeping the tariffs taxes millions of consumers to keep a few thousand jobs.

Trade talks will continue this month. Maine lawmakers are applying pressure on the administration to keep cuts in athletic footwear tariffs out of any final agreement. The U.S. hasn’t made any decision, says Carol Guthrie, a spokeswoman for Ron Kirk, the U.S. Trade Representative, in an e-mail. “Footwear is an area of interest for Vietnam and remains a sensitive item for the U.S.,” Guthrie says. “The challenge we will face is how to address this product, and we continue to consult with Congress and stakeholders on how to do so.”

Greg Rushford adds in a recent op-ed for the Wall Street Journal Asia that this is not just a fight between protectionist New Balance and free trade Nike/Adidas for a tiny slice of the TPP.  In fact, this skirmish is affecting the entirety of the TPP negotiations; thus, there are a lot of other US companies also hoping that the Obama administration stops shilling for New Balance in order to save the struggling agreement:

The White House is demanding TPP partners, chiefly Vietnam, agree to new rules that would bring transparency and market-oriented efficiencies to their inefficient (and often corrupt) state-owned enterprises. SOEs are indeed a drag on Vietnam, comprising around 38% of the economy. Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung has struggled with the problem for years with little result.

Though the U.S. is pushing Vietnam to help itself by reforming SOEs, Hanoi wants something in return. The country is America's second-largest supplier of clothing, and Mr. Dung's trade negotiators insist the U.S. get rid of high tariffs on clothing and footwear, which generally range from 18% to 36%.

This is a chance for Mr. Obama to live in a "21st century economy," as he often says. Unfortunately, he seems to be caught in 18th century mercantilism.

The American president is in tight with the U.S. textile lobby, which supported him in 2008. The industry has benefited from high tariffs and various protectionist schemes since the 1700s. So U.S. trade negotiators have taken a hard line against liberalizing the U.S. rag trade. The Vietnamese know a double standard when they see one, and are incensed. No deal on market access for us, no deal on SOEs, they say.

Here's how the debate plays out in Washington. On the "21st century" side are the mainstays of the American economy. Giants like Boeing, General Electric, Intel, Microsoft, New York Life, Citi and Federal Express strongly support a TPP that would write new competition and transparency rules for Asian government-run corporations. Opposing the TPP deal is one shoe manufacturer in New England that employs about 1,200 Americans, New Balance Athletic Shoe, and a handful of mid-sized textile manufacturers in the American south.

The giants of American manufacturing and finance, which have major offshore operations, can't get serious consideration from this White House. Mr. Obama—the "Buy American" candidate—stands behind any company like New Balance that vows to keep jobs at home.

So, there we have it: New Balance (and Maine's uber-protectionist champions in Congress) versus the world, and the fate of the TPP could hang in the balance.  Fantastic.

Now, for the moment, I'm going to ignore the economic falsehoods spewed by LeBretton and Sen. Snowe about the state of US manufacturing or the idea that developing country labor costs are some sort of unfair game-ender for US manufacturers.  Instead, I just want to focus on the idea that New Balance actually still makes a lot of shoes in the United States (and thus that their fight is really about valiantly protecting US shoe manufacturing, regardless of how dumb the economics are).  The Businessweek article seems to indicate that tons of New Balance shoes are still made here and thus hang in the, umm, balance, but Rushford spills the beans:

[B]ehind the pro-American propaganda is a harder economic truth. New Balance makes 75% of its shoes in places like Indonesia and China, even some in Vietnam. The remaining 25% come from the New England factories. But most of those sneakers aren't really "Made in America," but "Made in the U.S.A. of Imported and Domestic Components," as the technical label reads. To be the former, at least 70% of the sneakers must be made from components sourced domestically. Company officials declined to comment or provide a detailed breakdown of their Asian-made components.

This much is clear: New Balance imports shoe parts from Asia and then has their American workers glue the shoes together. Without imported components, the American workforce couldn't make shoes at a competitive price.

Why is New Balance against giving Hanoi trade concessions? Its operations in Vietnam are tiny compared to elsewhere in Asia. But tariff cuts would give a big boost to its competitors, Adidas and Nike, which have significant footprints in Vietnam.

The company's patriotism feels even flatter if you consider Nike and Adidas, which unashamedly manufacture their footwear in Asia, together employ some 27,000 Americans. This highly paid workforce in marketing, logistics, design and advertising is 22 times New Balance's American presence.

In New Balance's defense (sorta), Rushford's oped also makes clear that the Obama administration isn't sandbagging the TPP negotiations only for shoes - southern textile manufacturers and their heavily-unionized workers are also getting in on the action (and I hear sugar's getting an, ahem, sweet, deal too).  Nevertheless, both articles above firmly establish that TPP is struggling, in part at least, because of the White House's staunch, politically-motivated defense of archaic tariffs on a product that isn't even "made in the USA" anymore.

Unreal.

Word on the street is that Canada's enthusiasm for joining the TPP negotiations may be waning, and that the US ally and major global player might be looking elsewhere for a trade deal.  If so, that would be a huge loss for the TPP.

But after reading the articles above, could you really blame them?