Publications /
Opinion

Back
Trade Tensions and the Global Outlook
Authors
November 13, 2019

The growth slowdown became evident in late 2017. World GDP at market exchange rates slowed from a seasonally adjusted annual rate of between 4 and 5% in the second half of 2017 to between 1.5% to 2% in the first half of 2019. The slowdown came as a big surprise and led to continuous revisions downwards of growth forecasts as shown yet again by the IMF’s World Economic Outlook issued last week.

Nearly all observers and experts had expected the expansion of 2016/2017 to continue. That expansion was broad based, occurred after many years of slow growth, against a background of loose monetary and fiscal policy, and was not accompanied by evident large imbalances, with inflation low.

Why, then, did the slowdown occur? The evidence points to trade tensions as a major contributor. Manufactures, which are subject to tariffs and are the most traded sector, slowed far more than services. Investment slowed even as consumption remained robust. World trade slowed from growth over 5% in 2017, to close to zero over the last year, which is over 2 standard deviations from its historical average.

The global slowdown occurred against a background of protectionist measures in the United States and retaliated upon by its partners: the first invocation of national security (section 232) to tax aluminum and steel and subsequently to threaten autos; section 301 was invoked to justify blanket across the board tariffs against China.

Business surveys have systematically pointed to trade tensions and the uncertainty they generate as the major concerns of respondents. Stock markets have become extraordinarily sensitive to trade news. The weakness in trade and broader economic activity persists despite the turn towards even looser monetary policy, negative real policy interest rates and a sharp decline in ten-year bond yields. Not only have trade disputes contributed in a major way to the global slowdown, they have also prevented the normalization of monetary policy.

Many economists were complacent about the effects of tariffs on economic activity at first. After all, models show that tariff changes have small aggregate effects, and only a small part of world trade was affected by them. This calculus was wrong. First, because while aggregate effects of tariffs are small the effects on specific sectors are large and cause major uncertainty affecting investment, hiring, etc. Second, because there is no symmetry – tariff increases of 10% don’t have the same effect as tariff cuts of 10% : trade skirmishes can turn into battles and battles turn into trade wars, and in the end, investors come to fear not just the specific effect of tariffs but they begin to fear regime change. In this instance, regime change means the faltering of the rules-based trading system and its replacement by power struggles.

With senior policy makers talk about decoupling from China, a trade war erupts between the two largest economies, threats to impose tariffs on imported automobiles in the United States are made repeatedly, and when the World Trade Organization’s Appellate Body is at risk of ceasing to operate because its judges are not being replaces – the possibility of regime change is clear and present.

Economists know quite a bit about the effects of regime change in international trade, and they are huge. Computable General Equilibrium Models, which measure change at the margin are not able to capture these effects because it is the model that changes. People often refer to the dire consequences of Smoot-Hawley and the Great Depression, but that is actually not the best example because it is difficult to disentangle the effect of tariffs from that of the deeper causes of the crisis. Recent examples of trade regime change are the globalized sanctions in Iran in 2014-2015 which threw the country into a tailspin, and the blockade of Gaza which is estimated to have reduced living standards by over 12%. The opening of Japan in the wake of the Meiji restoration is an example of positive trade regime change and is estimated to have added some 10% to Japan’s GDP. Telling as these examples are, they do not convey the potential effects of trade wars in the modern economy where production, not just consumptions, has become internationally reliant and integrated. Nor do these calculations account for the long-term effects of trade on competition, productivity and innovation. The example is far from perfect, but it is worth noting that in the early 1900’s, before the Russian revolution, the cities of Moscow and St Petersburg had a higher standard of living than Milan; today, 30 years after the end of the Soviet Union, the per capita income of Moscow and St Petersburg is less than half of that in Milan.

Are we, in fact, on the verge of regime change? To answer this question, you must answer three other questions: will the US abandon the rules-based system or is Trump an aberration? Can China adapt its state capitalist system to conform more closely to a model that fits better with those of its major trading partners? Can the WTO recover from the failure of the Doha process and be revitalized as a rule-setter and can its dispute settlement be reformed to address some of the US concerns, which are long-standing?

No one knows the answer to these questions for sure. My best guess is that we are in for a few more years of disruption, but ultimately the rules-based trading system will remain and be reshaped in various ways.

It is difficult to believe that the United States – by which I mean all its stakeholders, from businesses to its national security establishment – prefers a global economy without rules – they made many of those rules. However, it would be naïve to think that the many concerns the US has about the present system will disappear with a new administration. Much work needs to be done for Americans to return to being supporters of the system.

Equally, there is no doubt that China is willing to engage in reforms that ease its trading partners’ concerns, tightening intellectual property rules, lowering tariffs, opening sectors to foreign investment with less stringent conditions, and even reducing subsidies in sensitive sectors. After all, China has allowed its real exchange rate to appreciate by 40% since 2000 and has seen its large current account surplus disappear. It is not possible to brand China as a trade predator, as some did in past years. However, it would be naïve to think that China is willing to abandon its highly successful state-driven model, which the Communist Party sees as an essential mechanism for control.

As for the WTO, its members realize that its body of rules, laws and norms is necessary for trade to function and for the global value chains to operate. Most of the membership will go some way to ensure its survival. Means can be found to move forward with plurilateral agreements, agreements on specific sectors and which include only a subset of the membership. But for this route to work the biggest trading nations will have to find ways of “paying off” the nonparticipants in specific pluri-laterals. These payoffs can take the form of granting MFN treatment to them (they get the rights without the obligations) or flexibilities in implementation with assistance as happened in the trade facilitation agreement.

What happens if the multilateral rules-based system falters? The costs will be huge but will affect different countries differently. The trade of individual EU members will be less vulnerable than most. They are part of a big block which has economic power, able to deal with the US and China as equals. And trade relations within the EU and that with dozens of countries with which the EU has a trade agreement, which now include Japan and Canada, will likely remain well regulated.

If trade tensions can be contained, which does not mean necessarily reversing tariffs, but at least conveying a sense that the conflict will not escalate and spread, then there is a fair likelihood that a global recession will be avoided. The world economy could then return to close to its long-term growth path in relatively short order. Unfortunately, this is a bet that many investors don’t want to take.

RELATED CONTENT

  • Authors
    Yana Myachenkova
    November 27, 2018
    - The trade agreements that the European Union has with North African countries – with Algeria, Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia – are often seen as having delivered disappointing results since they came into force during the 2000s. The four North African countries have seen insufficient growth in their exports to the EU, and have undergone only limited diversification. In the meantime, the EU’s exports to North Africa have grown quite rapidly. - Economic growth in North Africa has been ...
  • Authors
    Axel Berger
    Andreas Freytag
    Simon J. Evenett
    Christian von Haldenwang
    Ricardo Meléndez-Ortiz
    Raul Ochoa
    Agustin Redonda
    Karl P. Sauvant
    November 26, 2018
    *The recommendations put forth below have been published, both print and online, in the Financial Times.  The leaders of the G20 will meet on 30 November and 1 December in Buenos Aires for their annual summit. They need to acknowledge that the last two years have been characterized by strong headwinds for the world economy. This time, however, it is not a mixture of poor macroeconomic policies and bad business decisions – as in 2008 when they met in Washington for their first summi ...
  • Authors
    November 13, 2018
    Livelihoods of northern Niger’s population depended for centuries on trade and cross-border movement of licit goods with Libya. Historical trends of domestic and regional shocks demonstrated the ability of local communities to adapt and adjust to transformations caused by these shocks to survive. People moving through and living in the area have different motivations and reasons to cross to Libya and beyond, but economic drivers remain the key factor. The local economy has suffered ...
  • Authors
    Sabine Cessou
    October 8, 2018
    « Amérique latine, crises et sorties de crises », telle était la première des deux thématiques des 6èmes Dialogues stratégiques, organisés le 4 avril par HEC Paris (Centre de géopolitique) et OCP Policy Center. Un tableau mitigé a été dressé, avec des signes de reprise et une croissance supérieure à 2 % qui n’empêchent pas des situations de crise comme au Brésil, au Nicaragua ou au Vénézuela. Crise d’un modèle d’oligarchies anti-capitalistes Au Vénézuela, la corruption paraît si e ...
  • Authors
    Anabel Gonzalez
    August 30, 2018
    The agreement establishing the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) is a framework to create a free trade area across the region, bringing together the 55 members of the African Union into a continental market with a cumulative Gross Domestic Product (GDP) exceeding US$2.2 trillion and a total population of over one billion people. When concluded and successfully implemented, it will become the largest free trade area in the world in terms of membership, opening up significa ...
  • Authors
    August 13, 2018
    Depuis la fin de l’année 2017, le président Donald Trump mène plusieurs batailles commerciales, contre différents partenaires, sous prétextes de sauver des emplois industriels américains et de réduire le déficit commercial des États-Unis. S’il est difficile de se prononcer sur les effets des combats commerciaux amorcés par le président Trump, l’importance des opposants et des échanges pour l’économie mondiale en fait une source de risque pour la croissance, les emplois et les prix à ...
  • Authors
    August 13, 2018
    The Brazilian economy pays a price in terms of productivity foregone because of its lack of trade openness. A trade opening process would bring an adjustment impact that could nonetheless be mitigated with public policies that facilitate labor mobility and job migration. Benefits from trade opening would also hinge on policy improvements in complementary areas, such as infrastructure investments, business environment and others. The Brazilian economy would benefit from opening trad ...
  • Authors
    August 6, 2018
    The IMF released last July 24 its latest assessments of the current account balances for the 30 largest economies in its External Sector Report 2018 (ESR). There was no major change in 2017 relative to previous years and the reconfiguration of surpluses and deficits that has prevailed since 2013 was essentially extended. However, there are reasons to expect more abrupt alterations ahead, as the U.S. fiscal easing under high employment conditions unfolds. Given the context of ongoing ...
  • August 1, 2018
    “This article has been originally published in 'Morocco in Focus 2018,' the magazine of the Moroccan Embassy in New Delhi, India on the occasion of the Morocco National Day 2018.” Introduction In an article published last year, the author stressed the role of partnership between Morocco and India for the inclusive growth of small farmers. There is no doubt that agriculture remains a major instrument for human development both in India and in Africa. Several international reports h ...
  • Authors
    August 1, 2018
    “A WAKE UP CALL FOR THE WORLD” For Simon Elin, chief executive of the British Recycling Association, it’s “a tough time” his industry and country are facing just now. He does not think about Brexit, Britain trying to leave the E.U., dreaming to return to glorious times as a world power, one day soon. His colleague Arnaud Brunet, head of the Bureau of International Recycling, predicted “catastrophic environmental problems.” An assessment the London Times shared: “The world is drowni ...