Economic Nationalism: US Trade Policy VS. BREXIT

S. Mccorriston, I. Sheldon
{"title":"Economic Nationalism: US Trade Policy VS. BREXIT","authors":"S. Mccorriston, I. Sheldon","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3450670","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 2016, both the election of President Trump and the UK’s vote to leave the European Union represented important shifts in the approach of both countries to their international trading relationships. In the case of the US, the Trump administration has sought to target tariffs against countries such as China, while the UK is seeking to exit a highly integrated market and assert its sovereignty. In this article, it is shown that both events were a response to the China import shock, which in turn led to a dramatic rise in populism resulting in a substantive shift in each country’s trade policy, each generating substantive actual and expected economic costs. However, the policy responses to populism are quite different: the US has chosen to be explicitly protectionist, a feature of economic nationalism, while the UK is not seeking to raise trade barriers as it adjusts its trading arrangements. Nonetheless, both countries are following a path of economic “dis-integration”, the US undermining its multilateral obligations under the WTO, the UK seeking to leave the European Union of which it has been a member since 1973.","PeriodicalId":103245,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Trade Law (Topic)","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Trade Law (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3450670","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In 2016, both the election of President Trump and the UK’s vote to leave the European Union represented important shifts in the approach of both countries to their international trading relationships. In the case of the US, the Trump administration has sought to target tariffs against countries such as China, while the UK is seeking to exit a highly integrated market and assert its sovereignty. In this article, it is shown that both events were a response to the China import shock, which in turn led to a dramatic rise in populism resulting in a substantive shift in each country’s trade policy, each generating substantive actual and expected economic costs. However, the policy responses to populism are quite different: the US has chosen to be explicitly protectionist, a feature of economic nationalism, while the UK is not seeking to raise trade barriers as it adjusts its trading arrangements. Nonetheless, both countries are following a path of economic “dis-integration”, the US undermining its multilateral obligations under the WTO, the UK seeking to leave the European Union of which it has been a member since 1973.
经济民族主义:美国贸易政策与英国脱欧
2016年,特朗普当选美国总统和英国公投脱欧,都代表着两国在处理国际贸易关系方面的重要转变。就美国而言,特朗普政府试图针对中国等国征收关税,而英国正寻求退出一个高度一体化的市场,并维护自己的主权。本文表明,这两个事件都是对中国进口冲击的回应,这反过来又导致民粹主义的急剧上升,导致每个国家的贸易政策发生实质性转变,每个事件都产生了实质性的实际和预期经济成本。然而,各国对民粹主义的政策反应却大不相同:美国选择了明确的保护主义,这是经济民族主义的一个特征,而英国在调整贸易安排时并不寻求提高贸易壁垒。尽管如此,两国都在走一条经济“解体”之路,美国正在破坏其在世贸组织(WTO)下的多边义务,英国则在寻求退出自1973年以来一直是欧盟(eu)成员国的欧盟。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信