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?

So USDA Is Pondering a "Sugar-for-Ethanol" Program. No, Really.

From earlier this week comes news of what could quite possibly be the most cronytastic US government program of all time:

The White House will decide in coming weeks whether to attempt to blunt low prices in the U.S. sugar market by buying hundreds of thousands of tons of surplus sugar and selling it at a loss to ethanol makers.

If approved, it would be the first time the sugar-for-ethanol program, created in 2008 and known as the Feedstock Flexibility Program, has been put into operation....

Large crops in the United States and Mexico have pushed New York futures prices below the trigger price for potential forfeiture by processors of sugar to the government.

The sugar is used as collateral on USDA price-guarantee loans.

Forfeitures could begin in July, with the expiration of USDA loans that guarantee growers will get at least 20.94 cents per lb for sugar. The remainder of the loans expire in September.

"We're doing it because it's the law," U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said on Monday at the North American Agricultural Journalists meeting. The tonnage purchased "is still not decided," he said....

The 2008 farm law directs USDA to make surplus sugar available to ethanol makers, a provision penned in the early days of the biofuel boom with the goal of creating feedstocks in addition to corn.

"The law makes the Feedstock Flexibility Program the first line of defense. The other main option is to reduce the volume of imports through negotiation or by buying back certificates of quota eligibility," said Tom Earley, economist and trade policy specialist with consulting firm Agralytica.

Some $864 million in loans was in danger of forfeiture, by one estimate. The USDA forecasts the sugar stockpile at the end of this marketing year at 2.4 million tons.

At 20 percent of annual use, it would be the largest carryover since 2001. The USDA will update its forecast of the sugar surplus on Wednesday....

So a 2008 law forces USDA to (i) subsidize US sugar growers by buying their product at above-market prices and then (ii) subsidize US ethanol producers by selling them the exact same sugar at below-market prices.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the United States Government.

On a more serious note, insanity like this provides a perfect example of why it's just so darn tough to eliminate US subsidies - politicians shilling for the sugar growers form an unholy, subsidy-loving alliance with their colleagues shilling for the ethanol (mostly corn) producers. These "public servants" concoct mutually-beneficial programs like the "Feedstock Flexibility Program" to line their cronies' pockets, and they agree to oppose any attempts to trim those programs or any other subsidies that they've secured.

They win; taxpayers (and markets) lose; rinse; repeat.

Tackling Regulatory Protectionism, Finally

I've occasionally peered into the abyss that is the barriers to international trade imposed by the US regulatory regime, but I've never been courageous enough to tackle the very important - yet mind-numbingly difficult - task of rigorously documenting these non-tariff barriers and their deleterious effects on the US economy.  Fortunately, Cato's Sallie James and Bill Watson have proven up to the task with a brand new paper:

Despite the impressive success of trade liberalization, domestic industries continue to find ways to use the power of government to protect themselves from foreign competition. The practice of using domestic environmental or consumer safety regulation as a way to disguise protectionist policy has become a serious and growing problem in the United States. This regulatory protectionism harms the U.S. economy and violates our trade obligations.

A number of factors combine to explain the rise in regulatory protectionism. Economic globalization has provided Americans with access to a wide range of imported products. This has enabled consumers to demand not only high-quality products at low cost but also products that are produced according to consumers’ philosophical or ethical preferences. Simultaneously, domestic producers seeking protection from this influx of imports must find alternative shelters now that the use of tariffs and quotas is constrained by international law and economic good sense. The consequence is a perfect storm in which social welfare activists and special commercial interests join forces to promote regulatory regimes that unfairly and unnecessarily restrict imports.

There is already a system of laws in place to prevent regulatory protectionism. The rules of the international trading system recognize that domestic laws can be just as protectionist as tariffs. Many of the disciplines of World Trade Organization (WTO) law are embedded in the rules U.S. administrative agencies follow when setting new regulations.

But the U.S. government must take its WTO obligations more seriously. Prior to implementing a new regulation, federal agencies should be required to evaluate the possibility that less trade-restrictive alternatives could meet regulatory goals as effectively as their preferred proposal. Also, the U.S. government should not dilute or bypass the multilateral rules of the WTO through bilateral or regional negotiations that accept managed protectionism.

This paper uses a number of recent examples of protectionist regulations to show that the enemies of regulatory protectionism are transparency and vigilance. Policymakers should be skeptical of regulatory proposals backed by the target domestic industry and of proposals that lack a plausible theory of market failure. These are red flags that the proposal is the product of privilege-seeking special interests disguised as altruistic consumer advocates.

James and Watson examine such regulatory boondoggles as the Lacey Act, catfish inspection, Dodd-Frank's  provisions on "conflict minerals", the long-running ban on Mexican trucks, mandatory food labeling, prohibitions on certain flavored cigarettes, and supposed environmental protections for cute, cuddly little dolphins and sea turtles.  They demonstrate that, although these regulations might sound (or even start out as) benign or well-intentioned, they often end up undermining free trade and benefiting discrete domestic special interest groups that are, deep-down, seeking to use non-tariff barriers to thwart international competition at US consumers' expense.  They also offer up a sound critique of various anti-trade groups' criticisms of global trade (i.e, WTO and FTA) rules that discipline this discriminatory, regulatory protectionism, and offer up a nice litmus test to ensure that future regulatory adventurism doesn't thwart free trade in the process.

My favorite line comes from James' new blog post on the paper:

As we discuss in our paper, tariffs and other conventional trade barriers have fallen over the years, so the barriers that remain are more regulatory in nature, and more sensitive to negotiate. What we’re essentially left with is the difficult issues. They get to the heart of national sovereignty and, on a practical level, require the participation of regulatory administrators who may have very little or no trade negotiation knowledge or experience. They also have little incentive to concede their power. Whereas trade negotiators are paid to, well, negotiate, regulators are paid to inhibit commerce.

Indeed.  Be sure to read the whole paper here.