亚洲粮食市场贸易格局的变化:美国视角

Q3 Agricultural and Biological Sciences

Cereal Foods World Pub Date : 2020-01-01 DOI:10.1094/cfw-65-5-0050

T. Fortenbery

{"title":"亚洲粮食市场贸易格局的变化:美国视角","authors":"T. Fortenbery","doi":"10.1094/cfw-65-5-0050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Wheat markets on the Asian continent represent the most important destinations for U.S. wheat—both by volume and value. In addition, projected increases in population and incomes in Asian countries suggest there are significant growth opportunities for U.S. wheat exporters going forward. As Asian incomes grow, the transition from buying “wheat” to buying “quality wheat” will work in favor of U.S. producers. The key to maintaining current Asian markets, and growing in expanding markets, is developing and maintaining a stable and equitable trade environment. Although the United States is well positioned to compete in such an environment, it does face significant competition from other exporters. According to U.S. Department of Agriculture projections, the U.S. share of the world wheat trade is expected to decline over the next decade. Thus, maintaining current Asian relationships and expanding where growth opportunities exist will be key to the future of U.S. wheat exports. Any bilateral trade frictions between the United States and current or potential wheat customers could erode any competitive advantage the United States has in a more stable trade environment. The key to success, then, is a continued focus on quality and building strong, stable, and favorable relationships with U.S. customers. Trade between the United States and Asia has grown significantly over the last decade, but it has not been without controversy and has not impacted all sectors equally. Total U.S. exports, imports, and the balance of trade for goods between the United States and Asian countries are shown in Figure 1. As shown in the graph, the balance of trade has grown increasingly negative over the last decade from a U.S. perspective. The growing trade deficit has been a major concern of the current U.S. administration and was used to help justify the imposition of tariffs on goods imported into the United States, especially from China, beginning in 2018 (1). Much of the U.S. trade with Asian countries occurs under the umbrella of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). APEC is a forum organized to facilitate economic trade and investment and regional cooperation among its 21 members. Asian members of APEC include the People’s Republic of China; Hong Kong, China; Indonesia; Japan; the Republic of Korea; Malaysia; the Philippines; Singapore; Chinese Taipei; Thailand; Vietnam; Brunei Darussalam; and Papua New Guinea. Non-Asian member countries include Australia, Canada, Chile, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, the Russian Federation, and the United States. Together, APEC members account for about 60% of world gross domestic product (GDP), and 47% of all trade (7). All APEC decisions are made by consensus, and commitments among the individual trading partners are voluntary. However, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative argues that participation in APEC has led to a reduction in tariffs and other trade barriers between members over time and has led to economic growth in the region (7). In 2018 the U.S. trade deficit with all APEC countries was about US$677 billion, an increase of 9.6% from 2017 (7). As suggested by Figure 1, the great majority of this deficit was from trade with Asian partners. (Note, the difference between the trade deficit reported with APEC countries and the trade deficit with Asian countries illustrated in Figure 1 does not fully account for the U.S. trade deficit with non-Asian APEC countries. The trade deficit with APEC Asian countries shown in Figure 1 is slightly overstated because it includes non-APEC Asian countries like India, for example.) However, the United States did run trade surpluses with three of the four non-Asian APEC countries in 2018. Since APEC is a loosely formed consortium and decisions and commitments are not binding on individual trading partners, several member countries have entered into more substantive trade agreements with each other. For example, the United States entered into the original North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico, which was replaced by the more recent United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). The United States also has a separate agreement with specific APEC members, including the Republic of Korea, Australia, Chile, Peru, and Singapore; and in January 2020 signed an agreement with Japan. During the Obama Administration, there was a concerted effort to strategically focus on liberalizing trade between the United States and Asia (7). This effort was crystalized in the signing of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) by 12 countries. (The original 12 TPP signatories included Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, The Changing Trade Landscape in Asian Grain Markets: A U.S. Perspective T. Randall Fortenbery1 School of Economic Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, U.S.A. 1 Professor and Thomas B. Mick Endowed Chair, School of Economic Sciences, Washington State University, P.O. Box 646210, Pullman, WA 99164-6210, U.S.A. Tel: +1.509.335.7637; E-mail: r.fortenbery@wsu.edu https://doi.org/10.1094/CFW-65-5-0050 © 2020 Cereals & Grains Association CEREAL FOODS WORLD, SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2020, VOL. 65, NO. 5 / DOI: https://doi.org/10.1094/CFW-65-5-0050 Fig. 1. Balance of goods trade between the United States and Asia— nominal dollars. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau) Singapore, Vietnam, and the United States.) All 12 TPP signatories were members of APEC, and together accounted for about 40% of global GDP (or 2/3 of APEC GDP) at the time of the signing. The only non-Asian APEC country not included in TPP was the Russian Federation. Several Asian countries were also excluded, including China and Indonesia. To go into effect, the TPP agreement had to be ratified by the legislative bodies of all 12 signatories within 2 years of the initial signing. In the United States, this was put off until after the 2016 election, and it soon became clear that the agreement was not likely to be ratified by the United States since both major presidential candidates campaigned against ratification. Once sworn in, President Trump quickly directed the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to issue a letter to the other 11 signatories withdrawing from TPP. Most U.S. agricultural sectors favored TPP because it was expected to improve access to Asian markets and put U.S. exporters of agricultural products on even ground with export competitors from Australia and Canada (6,10). Further, there was concern that if the United States left TPP the other 11 signatories might move forward on a separate agreement, and the United States would be placed in a noncompetitive position for exporting agricultural products to Asian markets. In fact, the other 11 countries did continue negotiations, and in March 2018 signed the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) (2). U.S. Agriculture and Asian Trade The general U.S. trade balance with Asia, particularly China, at least partially led to the imposition of import tariffs against most U.S. trade partners and attempts to “rebalance” trade from the U.S. perspective. However, trade in agricultural products was already a bright spot in the overall U.S. trade picture, and as a result, retaliatory tariffs from trading partners were largely focused on U.S. agricultural exports. Combined with the United States’ rejection of TPP, there was significant concern regarding future trade prospects for U.S. agriculture, particularly with Asia in 2018 and 2019. For the last several decades leading up to the 2018 trade frictions, Asian markets had been viewed as a significant growth opportunity for U.S. agriculture. The generally increasing volume of major field crop exports to Asia over the last decade is shown in Figure 2. The expected export growth potential was based on two things: 1) Asian population growth; and 2) per capita income growth in many Asian countries. Asian and total world populations and relative growth rates since 1990 are shown in Figure 3. Over the last three decades, the total population in Asia has remained between 50 and 61% of the total world population (18). The population growth rate on the African continent has been more than double the Asian growth rate since 1990, but it applies to a much smaller total population. Between 1990 and 2020, the human population on the African continent increased from about 12% of the total world population to just over 17% (18). Thus, while Africa is also viewed as a growth market for U.S. agricultural exports, it does not represent nearly the market opportunities afforded by the population on the Asian continent. Further, incomes in most African countries have not grown at nearly the rate exhibited by most Asian countries (Fig. 4; per capita gross domestic product is shown illustrated as a proxy for per capita income) (17). Higher incomes not only result in increased demand for commodities, but, in the case of food, allows for purchases of higher valued products. The importance of Asian countries as trade partners for U.S. agriculture is illustrated in Figure 5. The graph shows the Asian trade share of all U.S. exports for the three largest U.S. field crops—soybeans, corn, and wheat). More than 80% of U.S. soyFig. 2. Select U.S. agricultural exports to Asia. (Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service) CEREAL FOODS WORLD, SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2020, VOL. 65, NO. 5 / DOI: https://doi.org/10.1094/CFW-65-5-0050 Fig. 3. World versus Asian population dynamics. (Source: World Popula-","PeriodicalId":50707,"journal":{"name":"Cereal Foods World","volume":"71 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Changing Trade Landscape in Asian Grain Markets: A U.S. Perspective\",\"authors\":\"T. Fortenbery\",\"doi\":\"10.1094/cfw-65-5-0050\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Wheat markets on the Asian continent represent the most important destinations for U.S. wheat—both by volume and value. In addition, projected increases in population and incomes in Asian countries suggest there are significant growth opportunities for U.S. wheat exporters going forward. As Asian incomes grow, the transition from buying “wheat” to buying “quality wheat” will work in favor of U.S. producers. The key to maintaining current Asian markets, and growing in expanding markets, is developing and maintaining a stable and equitable trade environment. Although the United States is well positioned to compete in such an environment, it does face significant competition from other exporters. According to U.S. Department of Agriculture projections, the U.S. share of the world wheat trade is expected to decline over the next decade. Thus, maintaining current Asian relationships and expanding where growth opportunities exist will be key to the future of U.S. wheat exports. Any bilateral trade frictions between the United States and current or potential wheat customers could erode any competitive advantage the United States has in a more stable trade environment. The key to success, then, is a continued focus on quality and building strong, stable, and favorable relationships with U.S. customers. Trade between the United States and Asia has grown significantly over the last decade, but it has not been without controversy and has not impacted all sectors equally. Total U.S. exports, imports, and the balance of trade for goods between the United States and Asian countries are shown in Figure 1. As shown in the graph, the balance of trade has grown increasingly negative over the last decade from a U.S. perspective. The growing trade deficit has been a major concern of the current U.S. administration and was used to help justify the imposition of tariffs on goods imported into the United States, especially from China, beginning in 2018 (1). Much of the U.S. trade with Asian countries occurs under the umbrella of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). APEC is a forum organized to facilitate economic trade and investment and regional cooperation among its 21 members. Asian members of APEC include the People’s Republic of China; Hong Kong, China; Indonesia; Japan; the Republic of Korea; Malaysia; the Philippines; Singapore; Chinese Taipei; Thailand; Vietnam; Brunei Darussalam; and Papua New Guinea. Non-Asian member countries include Australia, Canada, Chile, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, the Russian Federation, and the United States. Together, APEC members account for about 60% of world gross domestic product (GDP), and 47% of all trade (7). All APEC decisions are made by consensus, and commitments among the individual trading partners are voluntary. However, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative argues that participation in APEC has led to a reduction in tariffs and other trade barriers between members over time and has led to economic growth in the region (7). In 2018 the U.S. trade deficit with all APEC countries was about US$677 billion, an increase of 9.6% from 2017 (7). As suggested by Figure 1, the great majority of this deficit was from trade with Asian partners. (Note, the difference between the trade deficit reported with APEC countries and the trade deficit with Asian countries illustrated in Figure 1 does not fully account for the U.S. trade deficit with non-Asian APEC countries. The trade deficit with APEC Asian countries shown in Figure 1 is slightly overstated because it includes non-APEC Asian countries like India, for example.) However, the United States did run trade surpluses with three of the four non-Asian APEC countries in 2018. Since APEC is a loosely formed consortium and decisions and commitments are not binding on individual trading partners, several member countries have entered into more substantive trade agreements with each other. For example, the United States entered into the original North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico, which was replaced by the more recent United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). The United States also has a separate agreement with specific APEC members, including the Republic of Korea, Australia, Chile, Peru, and Singapore; and in January 2020 signed an agreement with Japan. During the Obama Administration, there was a concerted effort to strategically focus on liberalizing trade between the United States and Asia (7). This effort was crystalized in the signing of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) by 12 countries. (The original 12 TPP signatories included Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, The Changing Trade Landscape in Asian Grain Markets: A U.S. Perspective T. Randall Fortenbery1 School of Economic Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, U.S.A. 1 Professor and Thomas B. Mick Endowed Chair, School of Economic Sciences, Washington State University, P.O. Box 646210, Pullman, WA 99164-6210, U.S.A. Tel: +1.509.335.7637; E-mail: r.fortenbery@wsu.edu https://doi.org/10.1094/CFW-65-5-0050 © 2020 Cereals & Grains Association CEREAL FOODS WORLD, SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2020, VOL. 65, NO. 5 / DOI: https://doi.org/10.1094/CFW-65-5-0050 Fig. 1. Balance of goods trade between the United States and Asia— nominal dollars. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau) Singapore, Vietnam, and the United States.) All 12 TPP signatories were members of APEC, and together accounted for about 40% of global GDP (or 2/3 of APEC GDP) at the time of the signing. The only non-Asian APEC country not included in TPP was the Russian Federation. Several Asian countries were also excluded, including China and Indonesia. To go into effect, the TPP agreement had to be ratified by the legislative bodies of all 12 signatories within 2 years of the initial signing. In the United States, this was put off until after the 2016 election, and it soon became clear that the agreement was not likely to be ratified by the United States since both major presidential candidates campaigned against ratification. Once sworn in, President Trump quickly directed the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to issue a letter to the other 11 signatories withdrawing from TPP. Most U.S. agricultural sectors favored TPP because it was expected to improve access to Asian markets and put U.S. exporters of agricultural products on even ground with export competitors from Australia and Canada (6,10). Further, there was concern that if the United States left TPP the other 11 signatories might move forward on a separate agreement, and the United States would be placed in a noncompetitive position for exporting agricultural products to Asian markets. In fact, the other 11 countries did continue negotiations, and in March 2018 signed the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) (2). U.S. Agriculture and Asian Trade The general U.S. trade balance with Asia, particularly China, at least partially led to the imposition of import tariffs against most U.S. trade partners and attempts to “rebalance” trade from the U.S. perspective. However, trade in agricultural products was already a bright spot in the overall U.S. trade picture, and as a result, retaliatory tariffs from trading partners were largely focused on U.S. agricultural exports. Combined with the United States’ rejection of TPP, there was significant concern regarding future trade prospects for U.S. agriculture, particularly with Asia in 2018 and 2019. For the last several decades leading up to the 2018 trade frictions, Asian markets had been viewed as a significant growth opportunity for U.S. agriculture. The generally increasing volume of major field crop exports to Asia over the last decade is shown in Figure 2. The expected export growth potential was based on two things: 1) Asian population growth; and 2) per capita income growth in many Asian countries. Asian and total world populations and relative growth rates since 1990 are shown in Figure 3. Over the last three decades, the total population in Asia has remained between 50 and 61% of the total world population (18). The population growth rate on the African continent has been more than double the Asian growth rate since 1990, but it applies to a much smaller total population. Between 1990 and 2020, the human population on the African continent increased from about 12% of the total world population to just over 17% (18). Thus, while Africa is also viewed as a growth market for U.S. agricultural exports, it does not represent nearly the market opportunities afforded by the population on the Asian continent. Further, incomes in most African countries have not grown at nearly the rate exhibited by most Asian countries (Fig. 4; per capita gross domestic product is shown illustrated as a proxy for per capita income) (17). Higher incomes not only result in increased demand for commodities, but, in the case of food, allows for purchases of higher valued products. The importance of Asian countries as trade partners for U.S. agriculture is illustrated in Figure 5. The graph shows the Asian trade share of all U.S. exports for the three largest U.S. field crops—soybeans, corn, and wheat). More than 80% of U.S. soyFig. 2. Select U.S. agricultural exports to Asia. (Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service) CEREAL FOODS WORLD, SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2020, VOL. 65, NO. 5 / DOI: https://doi.org/10.1094/CFW-65-5-0050 Fig. 3. World versus Asian population dynamics. (Source: World Popula-\",\"PeriodicalId\":50707,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cereal Foods World\",\"volume\":\"71 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cereal Foods World\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1094/cfw-65-5-0050\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Agricultural and Biological Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cereal Foods World","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1094/cfw-65-5-0050","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Agricultural and Biological Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

亚洲大陆的小麦市场在数量和价值上都是美国小麦最重要的目的地。此外，预计亚洲国家人口和收入的增长表明，美国小麦出口商未来将有巨大的增长机会。随着亚洲收入的增长，从购买“小麦”到购买“优质小麦”的转变将有利于美国生产商。保持亚洲现有市场并在不断扩大的市场中发展壮大，关键在于发展和维护稳定、公平的贸易环境。尽管美国在这样的环境中处于有利地位，但它确实面临着来自其他出口国的重大竞争。根据美国农业部的预测，美国在世界小麦贸易中的份额预计将在未来十年下降。因此，维持目前与亚洲的关系，并在存在增长机会的地区进行扩张，将是美国小麦出口未来的关键。美国与现有或潜在小麦客户之间的任何双边贸易摩擦都可能侵蚀美国在更稳定的贸易环境中拥有的任何竞争优势。因此，成功的关键是持续关注质量，并与美国客户建立牢固、稳定和有利的关系。美国和亚洲之间的贸易在过去十年中显著增长，但也并非没有争议，并没有平等地影响到所有部门。图1显示了美国的总出口、进口以及美国和亚洲国家之间的货物贸易差额。如图所示，在过去十年中，从美国的角度来看，贸易差额越来越负。不断增长的贸易逆差一直是本届美国政府关注的主要问题，并被用来证明从2018年开始对进口到美国的商品征收关税的合理性(1)。美国与亚洲国家的大部分贸易都是在亚太经合组织(APEC)的框架下进行的。亚太经合组织是一个为促进21个成员之间的经贸投资和区域合作而组织的论坛。亚太经合组织的亚洲成员包括中华人民共和国;中国香港;印尼;日本;大韩民国;马来西亚;菲律宾;新加坡;中国台北;泰国;越南;文莱达鲁萨兰国;和巴布亚新几内亚。非亚洲成员国包括澳大利亚、加拿大、智利、墨西哥、新西兰、秘鲁、俄罗斯联邦和美国。APEC成员合计占世界国内生产总值(GDP)的60%左右，占所有贸易的47%(7)。APEC的所有决策都是通过协商一致做出的，单个贸易伙伴之间的承诺是自愿的。然而，美国贸易代表办公室认为，随着时间的推移，加入APEC导致成员之间的关税和其他贸易壁垒减少，并促进了该地区的经济增长(7)。2018年，美国对所有APEC国家的贸易逆差约为6770亿美元，比2017年增长9.6%(7)。从图1可以看出，这一逆差的绝大部分来自与亚洲伙伴的贸易。(注意，图1所示的与APEC国家的贸易逆差和与亚洲国家的贸易逆差之间的差异并不能完全解释美国与非亚洲APEC国家的贸易逆差。图1中显示的与亚太经合组织亚洲国家的贸易逆差略有夸大，因为它包括了非亚太经合组织亚洲国家，例如印度。)然而，2018年，美国对亚太经合组织4个非亚洲国家中的3个实现了贸易顺差。由于亚太经合组织是一个松散的联合体，决定和承诺对个别贸易伙伴没有约束力，一些成员国彼此之间签订了更实质性的贸易协定。例如，美国与加拿大和墨西哥签订了最初的北美自由贸易协定(NAFTA)，该协定被最近的美国-墨西哥-加拿大协定(USMCA)所取代。美国还与包括大韩民国、澳大利亚、智利、秘鲁和新加坡在内的特定亚太经合组织成员签署了一项单独协议;并于2020年1月与日本签署了协议。在奥巴马执政期间，各方齐心协力，在战略上把重点放在美国与亚洲之间的贸易自由化上(7)。这一努力在12个国家签署的《跨太平洋伙伴关系协定》(TPP)中得到了体现。(最初的12个TPP签署国包括澳大利亚、文莱、加拿大、智利、日本、马来西亚、墨西哥、新西兰、秘鲁)《亚洲粮食市场贸易格局的变化:美国视角》，美国华盛顿州普尔曼华盛顿州立大学经济科学学院教授、华盛顿州立大学经济科学学院客座教授Thomas B. Mick, P.O. 亚洲大陆的小麦市场在数量和价值上都是美国小麦最重要的目的地。此外，预计亚洲国家人口和收入的增长表明，美国小麦出口商未来将有巨大的增长机会。随着亚洲收入的增长，从购买“小麦”到购买“优质小麦”的转变将有利于美国生产商。保持亚洲现有市场并在不断扩大的市场中发展壮大，关键在于发展和维护稳定、公平的贸易环境。尽管美国在这样的环境中处于有利地位，但它确实面临着来自其他出口国的重大竞争。根据美国农业部的预测，美国在世界小麦贸易中的份额预计将在未来十年下降。因此，维持目前与亚洲的关系，并在存在增长机会的地区进行扩张，将是美国小麦出口未来的关键。美国与现有或潜在小麦客户之间的任何双边贸易摩擦都可能侵蚀美国在更稳定的贸易环境中拥有的任何竞争优势。因此，成功的关键是持续关注质量，并与美国客户建立牢固、稳定和有利的关系。美国和亚洲之间的贸易在过去十年中显著增长，但也并非没有争议，并没有平等地影响到所有部门。图1显示了美国的总出口、进口以及美国和亚洲国家之间的货物贸易差额。如图所示，在过去十年中，从美国的角度来看，贸易差额越来越负。不断增长的贸易逆差一直是本届美国政府关注的主要问题，并被用来证明从2018年开始对进口到美国的商品征收关税的合理性(1)。美国与亚洲国家的大部分贸易都是在亚太经合组织(APEC)的框架下进行的。亚太经合组织是一个为促进21个成员之间的经贸投资和区域合作而组织的论坛。亚太经合组织的亚洲成员包括中华人民共和国;中国香港;印尼;日本;大韩民国;马来西亚;菲律宾;新加坡;中国台北;泰国;越南;文莱达鲁萨兰国;和巴布亚新几内亚。非亚洲成员国包括澳大利亚、加拿大、智利、墨西哥、新西兰、秘鲁、俄罗斯联邦和美国。APEC成员合计占世界国内生产总值(GDP)的60%左右，占所有贸易的47%(7)。APEC的所有决策都是通过协商一致做出的，单个贸易伙伴之间的承诺是自愿的。然而，美国贸易代表办公室认为，随着时间的推移，加入APEC导致成员之间的关税和其他贸易壁垒减少，并促进了该地区的经济增长(7)。2018年，美国对所有APEC国家的贸易逆差约为6770亿美元，比2017年增长9.6%(7)。从图1可以看出，这一逆差的绝大部分来自与亚洲伙伴的贸易。(注意，图1所示的与APEC国家的贸易逆差和与亚洲国家的贸易逆差之间的差异并不能完全解释美国与非亚洲APEC国家的贸易逆差。图1中显示的与亚太经合组织亚洲国家的贸易逆差略有夸大，因为它包括了非亚太经合组织亚洲国家，例如印度。)然而，2018年，美国对亚太经合组织4个非亚洲国家中的3个实现了贸易顺差。由于亚太经合组织是一个松散的联合体，决定和承诺对个别贸易伙伴没有约束力，一些成员国彼此之间签订了更实质性的贸易协定。例如，美国与加拿大和墨西哥签订了最初的北美自由贸易协定(NAFTA)，该协定被最近的美国-墨西哥-加拿大协定(USMCA)所取代。美国还与包括大韩民国、澳大利亚、智利、秘鲁和新加坡在内的特定亚太经合组织成员签署了一项单独协议;并于2020年1月与日本签署了协议。在奥巴马执政期间，各方齐心协力，在战略上把重点放在美国与亚洲之间的贸易自由化上(7)。这一努力在12个国家签署的《跨太平洋伙伴关系协定》(TPP)中得到了体现。(最初的12个TPP签署国包括澳大利亚、文莱、加拿大、智利、日本、马来西亚、墨西哥、新西兰、秘鲁)《亚洲粮食市场贸易格局的变化:美国视角》，美国华盛顿州普尔曼华盛顿州立大学经济科学学院教授、华盛顿州立大学经济科学学院客座教授Thomas B. Mick, P.O. 美国华盛顿州普尔曼646210号信箱，99164-6210，电话:+1.509.335.7637;E-mail: r.fortenbery@wsu.edu https://doi.org/10.1094/CFW-65-5-0050©2020谷物和谷物协会谷物食品世界，2020年9 - 10月，第65卷，NO。5 / DOI: https://doi.org/10.1094/CFW-65-5-0050美国和亚洲之间的货物贸易差额-名义美元。(资料来源:美国人口普查局)新加坡、越南和美国。)TPP的12个签约国均为APEC成员，在签署TPP时占全球GDP的40%左右(占APEC GDP的2/3)。唯一没有加入TPP的亚太经合组织非亚洲国家是俄罗斯联邦。包括中国和印度尼西亚在内的几个亚洲国家也被排除在外。为了生效，TPP协议必须在最初签署后的两年内得到所有12个签署国立法机构的批准。在美国，这被推迟到2016年大选之后，很快就清楚地表明，美国不太可能批准该协议，因为两位主要总统候选人都在竞选中反对批准该协议。宣誓就职后，特朗普总统迅速指示美国贸易代表办公室向退出TPP的其他11个签署国发出一封信。大多数美国农业部门支持TPP，因为它有望改善进入亚洲市场的机会，并使美国农产品出口商与澳大利亚和加拿大的出口竞争对手处于平等地位(6,10)。此外，还有人担心，如果美国退出TPP，其他11个签署国可能会推进一项单独的协议，而美国将在向亚洲市场出口农产品方面处于无竞争力的地位。事实上，其他11个国家确实在继续谈判，并于2018年3月签署了《全面与进步跨太平洋伙伴关系协定》(CPTPP)。(2)美国农业与亚洲贸易美国与亚洲，特别是中国的总体贸易平衡，至少部分导致美国对大多数贸易伙伴征收进口关税，并试图从美国的角度“再平衡”贸易。然而，农产品贸易已经是美国整体贸易图景中的一个亮点，因此，贸易伙伴的报复性关税主要集中在美国的农产品出口上。再加上美国拒绝TPP，人们对美国农业的未来贸易前景，特别是2018年和2019年与亚洲的贸易前景感到非常担忧。在2018年贸易摩擦之前的几十年里，亚洲市场一直被视为美国农业的重要增长机会。图2显示了过去十年来向亚洲出口的主要大田作物数量普遍增加的情况。预期的出口增长潜力基于两点:1)亚洲人口增长;2)许多亚洲国家的人均收入增长。图3显示了1990年以来亚洲和世界总人口及相对增长率。在过去的三十年中，亚洲的总人口一直保持在世界总人口的50%到61%之间(18)。自1990年以来，非洲大陆的人口增长率是亚洲增长率的两倍多，但它适用于一个小得多的总人口。1990年至2020年间，非洲大陆的人口从占世界总人口的12%增加到略高于17%(18)。因此，虽然非洲也被视为美国农产品出口的增长市场，但它并不能代表亚洲大陆人口所提供的市场机会。此外，大多数非洲国家的收入增长速度远不如大多数亚洲国家(图4;人均国内生产总值作为人均收入的代表(17)。较高的收入不仅导致对商品的需求增加，而且，就食品而言，允许购买更高价值的产品。图5说明了亚洲国家作为美国农业贸易伙伴的重要性。该图显示了美国三种最大的大田作物(大豆、玉米和小麦)在美国全部出口中的亚洲贸易份额。超过80%的美国大豆。2. 选择美国对亚洲的农产品出口。(资料来源:美国农业部，对外农业局)《谷物食品世界》，2020年9月至10月，第65卷，NO。5 / DOI: https://doi.org/10.1094/CFW-65-5-0050世界与亚洲人口动态。(资料来源:世界人口美国华盛顿州普尔曼646210号信箱，99164-6210，电话:+1.509.335.7637;E-mail: r.fortenbery@wsu.edu https://doi.org/10.1094/CFW-65-5-0050©2020谷物和谷物协会谷物食品世界，2020年9 - 10月，第65卷，NO。5 / DOI: https://doi.org/10.1094/CFW-65-5-0050美国和亚洲之间的货物贸易差额-名义美元。(资料来源:美国人口普查局)新加坡、越南和美国。)TPP的12个签约国均为APEC成员，在签署TPP时占全球GDP的40%左右(占APEC GDP的2/3)。唯一没有加入TPP的亚太经合组织非亚洲国家是俄罗斯联邦。包括中国和印度尼西亚在内的几个亚洲国家也被排除在外。为了生效，TPP协议必须在最初签署后的两年内得到所有12个签署国立法机构的批准。在美国，这被推迟到2016年大选之后，很快就清楚地表明，美国不太可能批准该协议，因为两位主要总统候选人都在竞选中反对批准该协议。宣誓就职后，特朗普总统迅速指示美国贸易代表办公室向退出TPP的其他11个签署国发出一封信。大多数美国农业部门支持TPP，因为它有望改善进入亚洲市场的机会，并使美国农产品出口商与澳大利亚和加拿大的出口竞争对手处于平等地位(6,10)。此外，还有人担心，如果美国退出TPP，其他11个签署国可能会推进一项单独的协议，而美国将在向亚洲市场出口农产品方面处于无竞争力的地位。事实上，其他11个国家确实在继续谈判，并于2018年3月签署了《全面与进步跨太平洋伙伴关系协定》(CPTPP)。(2)美国农业与亚洲贸易美国与亚洲，特别是中国的总体贸易平衡，至少部分导致美国对大多数贸易伙伴征收进口关税，并试图从美国的角度“再平衡”贸易。然而，农产品贸易已经是美国整体贸易图景中的一个亮点，因此，贸易伙伴的报复性关税主要集中在美国的农产品出口上。再加上美国拒绝TPP，人们对美国农业的未来贸易前景，特别是2018年和2019年与亚洲的贸易前景感到非常担忧。在2018年贸易摩擦之前的几十年里，亚洲市场一直被视为美国农业的重要增长机会。图2显示了过去十年来向亚洲出口的主要大田作物数量普遍增加的情况。预期的出口增长潜力基于两点:1)亚洲人口增长;2)许多亚洲国家的人均收入增长。图3显示了1990年以来亚洲和世界总人口及相对增长率。在过去的三十年中，亚洲的总人口一直保持在世界总人口的50%到61%之间(18)。自1990年以来，非洲大陆的人口增长率是亚洲增长率的两倍多，但它适用于一个小得多的总人口。1990年至2020年间，非洲大陆的人口从占世界总人口的12%增加到略高于17%(18)。因此，虽然非洲也被视为美国农产品出口的增长市场，但它并不能代表亚洲大陆人口所提供的市场机会。此外，大多数非洲国家的收入增长速度远不如大多数亚洲国家(图4;人均国内生产总值作为人均收入的代表(17)。较高的收入不仅导致对商品的需求增加，而且，就食品而言，允许购买更高价值的产品。图5说明了亚洲国家作为美国农业贸易伙伴的重要性。该图显示了美国三种最大的大田作物(大豆、玉米和小麦)在美国全部出口中的亚洲贸易份额。超过80%的美国大豆。2. 选择美国对亚洲的农产品出口。(资料来源:美国农业部，对外农业局)《谷物食品世界》，2020年9月至10月，第65卷，NO。5 / DOI: https://doi.org/10.1094/CFW-65-5-0050世界与亚洲人口动态。(资料来源:世界人口

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

The Changing Trade Landscape in Asian Grain Markets: A U.S. Perspective

Wheat markets on the Asian continent represent the most important destinations for U.S. wheat—both by volume and value. In addition, projected increases in population and incomes in Asian countries suggest there are significant growth opportunities for U.S. wheat exporters going forward. As Asian incomes grow, the transition from buying “wheat” to buying “quality wheat” will work in favor of U.S. producers. The key to maintaining current Asian markets, and growing in expanding markets, is developing and maintaining a stable and equitable trade environment. Although the United States is well positioned to compete in such an environment, it does face significant competition from other exporters. According to U.S. Department of Agriculture projections, the U.S. share of the world wheat trade is expected to decline over the next decade. Thus, maintaining current Asian relationships and expanding where growth opportunities exist will be key to the future of U.S. wheat exports. Any bilateral trade frictions between the United States and current or potential wheat customers could erode any competitive advantage the United States has in a more stable trade environment. The key to success, then, is a continued focus on quality and building strong, stable, and favorable relationships with U.S. customers. Trade between the United States and Asia has grown significantly over the last decade, but it has not been without controversy and has not impacted all sectors equally. Total U.S. exports, imports, and the balance of trade for goods between the United States and Asian countries are shown in Figure 1. As shown in the graph, the balance of trade has grown increasingly negative over the last decade from a U.S. perspective. The growing trade deficit has been a major concern of the current U.S. administration and was used to help justify the imposition of tariffs on goods imported into the United States, especially from China, beginning in 2018 (1). Much of the U.S. trade with Asian countries occurs under the umbrella of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). APEC is a forum organized to facilitate economic trade and investment and regional cooperation among its 21 members. Asian members of APEC include the People’s Republic of China; Hong Kong, China; Indonesia; Japan; the Republic of Korea; Malaysia; the Philippines; Singapore; Chinese Taipei; Thailand; Vietnam; Brunei Darussalam; and Papua New Guinea. Non-Asian member countries include Australia, Canada, Chile, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, the Russian Federation, and the United States. Together, APEC members account for about 60% of world gross domestic product (GDP), and 47% of all trade (7). All APEC decisions are made by consensus, and commitments among the individual trading partners are voluntary. However, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative argues that participation in APEC has led to a reduction in tariffs and other trade barriers between members over time and has led to economic growth in the region (7). In 2018 the U.S. trade deficit with all APEC countries was about US$677 billion, an increase of 9.6% from 2017 (7). As suggested by Figure 1, the great majority of this deficit was from trade with Asian partners. (Note, the difference between the trade deficit reported with APEC countries and the trade deficit with Asian countries illustrated in Figure 1 does not fully account for the U.S. trade deficit with non-Asian APEC countries. The trade deficit with APEC Asian countries shown in Figure 1 is slightly overstated because it includes non-APEC Asian countries like India, for example.) However, the United States did run trade surpluses with three of the four non-Asian APEC countries in 2018. Since APEC is a loosely formed consortium and decisions and commitments are not binding on individual trading partners, several member countries have entered into more substantive trade agreements with each other. For example, the United States entered into the original North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico, which was replaced by the more recent United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). The United States also has a separate agreement with specific APEC members, including the Republic of Korea, Australia, Chile, Peru, and Singapore; and in January 2020 signed an agreement with Japan. During the Obama Administration, there was a concerted effort to strategically focus on liberalizing trade between the United States and Asia (7). This effort was crystalized in the signing of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) by 12 countries. (The original 12 TPP signatories included Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, The Changing Trade Landscape in Asian Grain Markets: A U.S. Perspective T. Randall Fortenbery1 School of Economic Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, U.S.A. 1 Professor and Thomas B. Mick Endowed Chair, School of Economic Sciences, Washington State University, P.O. Box 646210, Pullman, WA 99164-6210, U.S.A. Tel: +1.509.335.7637; E-mail: r.fortenbery@wsu.edu https://doi.org/10.1094/CFW-65-5-0050 © 2020 Cereals & Grains Association CEREAL FOODS WORLD, SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2020, VOL. 65, NO. 5 / DOI: https://doi.org/10.1094/CFW-65-5-0050 Fig. 1. Balance of goods trade between the United States and Asia— nominal dollars. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau) Singapore, Vietnam, and the United States.) All 12 TPP signatories were members of APEC, and together accounted for about 40% of global GDP (or 2/3 of APEC GDP) at the time of the signing. The only non-Asian APEC country not included in TPP was the Russian Federation. Several Asian countries were also excluded, including China and Indonesia. To go into effect, the TPP agreement had to be ratified by the legislative bodies of all 12 signatories within 2 years of the initial signing. In the United States, this was put off until after the 2016 election, and it soon became clear that the agreement was not likely to be ratified by the United States since both major presidential candidates campaigned against ratification. Once sworn in, President Trump quickly directed the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to issue a letter to the other 11 signatories withdrawing from TPP. Most U.S. agricultural sectors favored TPP because it was expected to improve access to Asian markets and put U.S. exporters of agricultural products on even ground with export competitors from Australia and Canada (6,10). Further, there was concern that if the United States left TPP the other 11 signatories might move forward on a separate agreement, and the United States would be placed in a noncompetitive position for exporting agricultural products to Asian markets. In fact, the other 11 countries did continue negotiations, and in March 2018 signed the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) (2). U.S. Agriculture and Asian Trade The general U.S. trade balance with Asia, particularly China, at least partially led to the imposition of import tariffs against most U.S. trade partners and attempts to “rebalance” trade from the U.S. perspective. However, trade in agricultural products was already a bright spot in the overall U.S. trade picture, and as a result, retaliatory tariffs from trading partners were largely focused on U.S. agricultural exports. Combined with the United States’ rejection of TPP, there was significant concern regarding future trade prospects for U.S. agriculture, particularly with Asia in 2018 and 2019. For the last several decades leading up to the 2018 trade frictions, Asian markets had been viewed as a significant growth opportunity for U.S. agriculture. The generally increasing volume of major field crop exports to Asia over the last decade is shown in Figure 2. The expected export growth potential was based on two things: 1) Asian population growth; and 2) per capita income growth in many Asian countries. Asian and total world populations and relative growth rates since 1990 are shown in Figure 3. Over the last three decades, the total population in Asia has remained between 50 and 61% of the total world population (18). The population growth rate on the African continent has been more than double the Asian growth rate since 1990, but it applies to a much smaller total population. Between 1990 and 2020, the human population on the African continent increased from about 12% of the total world population to just over 17% (18). Thus, while Africa is also viewed as a growth market for U.S. agricultural exports, it does not represent nearly the market opportunities afforded by the population on the Asian continent. Further, incomes in most African countries have not grown at nearly the rate exhibited by most Asian countries (Fig. 4; per capita gross domestic product is shown illustrated as a proxy for per capita income) (17). Higher incomes not only result in increased demand for commodities, but, in the case of food, allows for purchases of higher valued products. The importance of Asian countries as trade partners for U.S. agriculture is illustrated in Figure 5. The graph shows the Asian trade share of all U.S. exports for the three largest U.S. field crops—soybeans, corn, and wheat). More than 80% of U.S. soyFig. 2. Select U.S. agricultural exports to Asia. (Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service) CEREAL FOODS WORLD, SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2020, VOL. 65, NO. 5 / DOI: https://doi.org/10.1094/CFW-65-5-0050 Fig. 3. World versus Asian population dynamics. (Source: World Popula-

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Cereal Foods World 工程技术-食品科技

CiteScore

1.40

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

>36 weeks

期刊介绍： Food industry professionals rely on Cereal Foods World (CFW) to bring them the most current industry and product information. Contributors are real-world industry professionals with hands-on experience. CFW covers grain-based food science, technology, and new product development. It includes high-quality feature articles and scientific research papers that focus on advances in grain-based food science and the application of these advances to product development and food production practices.