24/9/15: The Ugly Faces of Trade Protectionism

Neat chart from Credit Suisse summarising the extent (and distribution) of new protectionist policies across several key economies:

Several points worth making:

• The obvious one: the U.S. leads in terms of protectionism. Which is ironic, given the U.S. championship of open trade agreements (TTIP and TPP being the most current ones) and the U.S. tendency to de-alienate the world into 'Free Trade' and 'Protectionist' groups of countries.
• BRIC come second and Europe comes third. Which is again highly ironic as BRIC rely heavily on trade-driven model for growth and Europe can't get over how (allegedly) free trade it is.
• Everywhere, save Russia and the U.S., state aid & bailouts is minor segment of trade protectionism policies.
• Export subsidies are meaningful in China and India.
• Trade defence and finance measures dominate in the U.S., India, Brazil and Europe, and are weaker in Japan and China, while virtually non-existent in Russia.

All-in - a pretty ugly picture of reality post-crisis.

3/1/2015: Trade Protectionism Since the Global Financial Crisis

A year ago, ECB paper by Georgiadis, Georgios and Gräb, Johannes, titled "Growth, Real Exchange Rates and Trade Protectionism Since the Financial Crisis" (ECB Working Paper No. 1618. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2358483) looked at whether the current evidence does indeed support the thesis that "…the historically well-documented relationship between growth, real exchange rates and trade protectionism has broken down."

Looking at the evidence from 2009, the authors found that "the specter of protectionism has not been banished: Countries continue to pursue more trade-restrictive policies when they experience recessions and/or when their competitiveness deteriorates through an appreciation of the real exchange rate; and this finding holds for a wide array of contemporary trade policies, including “murky” measures. We also find differences in the recourse to trade protectionism across countries: trade policies of G20 advanced economies respond more strongly to changes in domestic growth and real exchange rates than those of G20 emerging market economies. Moreover, G20 economies’ trade policies vis-à-vis other G20 economies are less responsive to changes in real exchange rates than those pursued vis-à-vis non-G20 economies. Our results suggest that — especially in light of the sluggish recovery — the global economy continues to be exposed to the risk of a creeping return of trade protectionism."

One thing to add: the above does not deal with trade-restrictive policies relating directly to financial repression, such as outright regulatory protectionism of incumbent domestic banks and asset managers, or direct and indirect subsidies pumped into the incumbent banking system.

16/7/2013: Doing Good By Altering Trade Flows & Incentives? Not so fast...

An interesting paper on commodities prices and policy responses to these based on actual experience with food prices inflation in 2008.


CEPR DP9555, titled "Food Price Spikes, Price Insulation, and Poverty" by Kym Anderson, Maros Ivanic, and Will Martin, published this month "considers the impact on world food prices of the changes in restrictions on trade in staple foods during the 2008 world food price crisis".

Those changes ranged from reductions in import protection (allowing for more imports to flow into the countries heavily dependent on imports of food) to increases in export restraints (aimed at reducing exports of food from the countries experiencing rising domestic prices).

The changes "were meant to partially insulate domestic markets from the spike in international prices. We find that this insulation added substantially to the spike in international prices for rice, wheat, maize and oilseeds". In other words, domestic measures to ease prices by distorting international trade flows resulted in higher international prices for these foodstuffs.

"As a result, while domestic prices rose less than they would have without insulation in some developing countries, in many other countries they rose more than in the absence of such insulation." Thus, domestic measures to combat food inflation have been beggar-thy-neighbour in their effect on other markets.

The study also estimates "the combined impact of such insulating behavior on poverty in various developing countries and globally." The study found "that the actual poverty-reducing impact of insulation is much less than its apparent impact, and that its net effect was to increase global poverty in 2008 by8 million, although this increase was not significantly different from zero." Doing good, it turns out, can cause harm. Or alternatively, you might think global trade regime in food is evil, but try telling that to 8 million people impoverished by altering that regime to superficially re-direct flows of food away from established trade patterns in just one (single and short-lived) episode.

Authors point of view on policies? "Since there are domestic policy instruments such as conditional cash transfers that could now provide social protection for the poor far more efficiently and equitably than variations in border restrictions, we suggest it is time to seek a multilateral agreement to desist from changing restrictions on trade when international food prices spike." No knee-jerk reactions, please...