quotas under 2 - Πανεπιστήμιο Ιωαννίνωνusers.uoi.gr/ntsak/ch08....
TRANSCRIPT
IMPORT TARIFFS AND QUOTAS UNDER
PERFECT COMPETITION
1 A Brief History of the
World Trade Organization
2 The Gains from Trade
3 Import Tariffs for a
Small Country 4
Import Tariffs for a Large Country
5 Import Quotas
6 Conclusions
8
2 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Chapter Outline
• Introduction • A Brief History of the World Trade Organization • The Gains from Trade
Consumer and Producer Surplus Home Welfare
No-Trade Free Trade for a Small Country Gains from Trade
Home Import Demand Curve
3 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Chapter Outline
• Import Tariffs for a Small Country Free Trade for a Small Country Effect of the Tariff
Effect of the Tariff on Consumer Surplus Effect of the Tariff on Producer Surplus Effect of the Tariff on Government Revenue Overall Effect of the Tariff on Welfare Production Loss Consumption Loss
Why are Tariffs Used?
4 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Chapter Outline
• Import Tariffs for a Large Country Foreign Export Supply Effect of the Tariff
Terms of Trade Home Welfare Foreign and World Welfare
• Import Quotas Import Quota in a Small Country
Free Trade Equilibrium Effect of the Quota Effect on Welfare
• Allocation of Quota
5 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Chapter Outline
Costs of Import Quotas in the US Growth in Exports from China Welfare Cost of MFA Import Quality Reaction of the United States and Europe
• Conclusions
6 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Learning Objectives
• Understand what a trade policy is and why it is used
• Understand the history of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)
• Understand what a tariff is and why it is used • Understand and be able to explain the effect of
a tariff on a small country • Understand and be able to explain the effect of
a tariff on a large country
7 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Learning Objectives
• Understand how a large country could potentially gain from implementing a tariff
• Understand what a quota is and why it is used • Understand and be able to explain the effects
of a quota on a country • Understand how the quota can have costs even
greater than tariffs
8 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Introduction
• During the 2000 presidential campaign, President George W. Bush promised to consider implementing a tariff on the imports of steel
• This was a political move to secure votes in large steel-producing states as the tariffs would “protect” the domestic producers of steel
• The steel tariff is an example of a trade policy—a government action meant to influence the amount of international trade
9 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Introduction
• Because gains from trade are unevenly spread, producers often feel the government should help them limit losses due to competition from trade
• Trade policy can include the use of import tariffs (taxes on imports), import quotas (limits on imports), and subsidies for exports
• This chapter will focus on the use of tariffs and quotas as trade policy
• The international governing body, the World Trade Organization (WTO), acts as a forum for trade issues between countries
10 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Introduction
• We will look at the history of the WTO, beginning with its precursor, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)
• We will then examine in detail the most commonly used trade policy, the tariff, looking at why they are used and the consequences of their use
• The chapter will also examine the use of import quotas, showing that although their costs are similar to tariffs, they can also be greater
11 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Introduction
• Given the potentially greater costs of quotas, they have been greatly reduced under the WTO
• We will assume that firms are perfectly competitive. They produce a homogeneous good and are small compared to the market
• Under perfect competition, each firm is a price-taker in its market
• Imperfect competition will be evaluated in the next chapter
12 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
A Brief History of the World Trade Organization
• When peace was reestablished following WWII, representatives of 44 countries met in Bretton Woods, NH, to discuss the rebuilding of Europe and issues with high trade barriers and unstable exchange rates
• The outcome was an agreement outlining an international system of free trade, convertible currencies, and fixed exchange rates
• As part of this Breton Woods Agreement, the GATT was established in 1947 to reduce barriers to trade between nations
13 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
A Brief History of the World Trade Organization
• Under GATT, countries met periodically to negotiate for lower trade barriers between them
• Each meeting was named for the location where it took place and at the Uruguay Round, the WTO was established
• The WTO greatly expanded GATT by adding rules that govern an expanded set of global interactions through binding agreements
• The most recent round of the WTO was the Doha Round, in Doha, Qatar November 2001
14 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
A Brief History of the World Trade Organization
• Some Articles of GATT which still govern trade in the WTO: 1. A nation must extend the same tariffs to all trading
partners that are WTO members. This is the “most favored nation” clause
2. Tariffs may be imposed in response to unfair trade practices such as dumping
3. Countries should not limit the quantity of goods and services that they import. Article XI states that countries should not maintain quotas against imports
4. Countries should declare export subsidies provided to particular firms, sectors, or industries
15 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
A Brief History of the World Trade Organization
5. Countries can temporarily raise tariffs for certain products. Article XIX is called the safeguard provision or the escape clause and is our focus in this chapter The importing country can temporarily raise a tariff when
domestic producers are suffering due to import competition European governments strenuously objected to the US
steel tariffs, and filed a complaint against the US with the WTO
A panel at the WTO ruled in favor of the European countries, entitling them to retaliate by placing tariffs of their own on $2.2 billion worth of US exports
This lead President Bush to remove the steel tariffs in December 2003
16 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
A Brief History of the World Trade Organization
6. Regional trade agreements are permitted under Articles XXIV of the GATT Free trade areas Customs unions
17 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
The Gains from Trade
• We will now demonstrate the gains from trade using Home demand and supply curves, together with the concepts of consumer and producer surplus
• Consumer and Producer Surplus Figure 8.1 (a) shows the Home demand curve D,
consumers facing a price of P1
A person buying unit D2 is willing to pay P2, but only has to pay of P1
The individual obtains a surplus of (P2 – P1) from being able to purchase the good for less than their willingness to pay
18 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
The Gains from Trade
• Consumer and Producer Surplus For each unit before D1, the consumer’s value
exceeds the purchase price of P1
Adding up the surplus obtained on each unit purchased, from zero to D1, gives the total surplus The total satisfaction that consumers receive from the
purchased quantity D1, over and above the amount P1D1 that they have paid
Consumer surplus is then the shaded region between the demand curve and the market price, up to the total quantity purchased; D1 in this case
19 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
The Gains from Trade
D
P1
Price
D2 D1 Quantity
Total Consumer surplus, CS
P2
Surplus for consumer purchasing quantity D2
The demand curve gives us the consumer’s value for each unit of the good. Given P1, consumers will buy a total of D1. A consumer who purchases D2 has a value of P2, but only has to pay P1 – that gives surplus equal to (P2-P1)
Adding up all the individual surplus for each point on the demand curve gives us total consumer surplus—the area between the demand and the price paid—up to the quantity sold
Figure 8.1 (a)
20 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
The Gains from Trade
• Part (b) of Figure 8.1 illustrates producer surplus
• At the price of P1, the industry will supply S1 • Remember that the supply curve represents a
firm’s marginal cost of production • The firm supplying unit S0 could produce it with
a marginal cost of P0, but is able to sell it for P1 This gives the firm a surplus of (P1 – P0)
21 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
The Gains from Trade
• For each unit sold before S1, the marginal cost to the firm is less than the sale price of P1
• If we add up all these individual surpluses obtained for each unit sold from zero to S1, we get the total producer surplus (PS)
• Producer surplus is the area above the supply curve to the price received, up to the quantity sold
• We can also refer to PS as the return to fixed factors of production in the industry, and can loosely refer to it as “profit”.
22 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
The Gains from Trade
S
Price
S0 S1 Quantity
Total Producer surplus, PS
P0
P1
Surplus for firm producing quantity S0
Figure 8.1 (b) The supply curve gives us the consumer’s value for each unit of the good. Given P1, producers will sell a total of S1.
A producer who sells S0 has a MC of P0, but gets P1. That gives surplus equal to (P1-P0)
Adding up all the individual surpluses for each point on the supply curve gives us total producer surplus—the area between the supply and the price received—up to the quantity sold.
23 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
The Gains from Trade
• Home Welfare Again we consider the world of two countries, Home
and Foreign, with producers and consumers Total Home welfare can be measured by adding up
consumer and producer surplus The greater the total surplus, the greater the total
home welfare, the better off the country is We will compare the welfare in a Home in no-trade
and the free trade situations
24 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
The Gains from Trade
• No-Trade In Figure 8.2 (a), the no trade equilibrium occurs at
the autarky price of PA, where quantity demanded equals quantity supplied at Q0
Consumer and producer surplus are shown as the areas defined before. Adding these gives total surplus for Home before trade
25 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
The Gains from Trade
A PA
D
Price
S
Q0 Quantity
CS
PS
No-trade equilibrium
(a) No-Trade Figure 8.2
26 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
The Gains from Trade
• Free Trade for a Small Country Suppose Home can now engage in trade in figure
8.2 (b) The world price PW is determined by the supply and
demand in the world market Suppose Home is a small country
Price taker in the world market Faced a fixed price at PW
Assume PW is below the Home no-trade price PA
At the lower price, Home quantity demanded will increase to D1 and Home quantity supplied will decrease to S1
Home will be an importer of the product at the world price
27 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
The Gains from Trade
PA
PW
Price
S1 D1 Quantity
S
D
Figure 8.2 At the free trade price of PW, Home supply will fall to S1 and Home demand will rise to D1.
Imports will make up for the excess demand and will equal (D1 – S1)
Imports
(b) Free Trade
28 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
The Gains from Trade
• Consumers gain more than the producers lose indicating total Home welfare increased
• By looking at the changes in surplus we see: Rise in consumer surplus +(b+d) Fall in producer surplus -b Net effect on Home welfare d
• d is a measure of the gains from trade for the importing country due to free trade
• We can measure this gain directly using the formula for the area of the triangle = ½ bh Welfare increase = ½ (M1)(PA-PW)
29 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
The Gains from Trade
• Gains from Trade We can now measure the welfare effects for
producers and consumers under free trade Since price has fallen under trade, we would expect
this to be good for consumers and therefore consumer surplus to increase Consumer surplus increases by b+d in Figure 8.2 (b)
Similarly, a lower price is worse for producers so we would expect producer surplus to fall Producer surplus falls by b in Figure 8.2 (b)
30 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
PA
PW
The Gains from Trade
Price
S1 D1 Quantity
S
a
b
c
D
Figure 8.2 At lower world price, consumer surplus increases to a+b+d an increase of b+d from no-trade
At lower world price, producer surplus falls to c a decrease of b from no-trade
Imports, M1
Gain in trade is triangle d with area equal to ½(M1)(PA-PW)
d
(b) Free Trade
31 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
The Gains from Trade
• Home Import Demand Curve We can now derive the import demand curve,
shown in Figure 8.3 The relationship between the world price of a good and the
quantity of imports demanded by Home consumers
At the no-trade equilibrium, there are zero imports This is shown as point A’ in panel (b)
At the world price of PW, the quantity demanded is greater than quantity supplied, and we import M1 This is point B in panel (b)
Joining A’ and B gives import demand curve M
32 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
B
The Gains from Trade
D
PA
PW
Price
S
S1 Q0 D1 Quantity
Price
M1 Imports
Import demand curve, M
A
A'
No-trade equilibrium
Imports, M1
Each point on the import demand curve is a point that corresponds to Home imports at a given Home price
Figure 8.3 (a) (b)
33 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Tariffs for a Small Country
• We can also use the supply/demand framework to show what happens when a small country imposes a tariff
• Remember a small country is one where its imports does not have any effect on world price
• This means the price charged to Home consumers will increase by the amount of the tariff
34 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Tariffs for a Small Country
• Free Trade for a Small Country We start with the free trade equilibrium for the Home
country in figure 8.4 The Foreign export supply curve X* is horizontal at
the world price PW
This means that Home can import an amount at the price PW without having an impact on that price
In free trade equilibrium, home demand is D1, Home supply is S1, and imports are M1
35 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Tariffs for a Small Country
• Effect of the Tariff With an import tariff of t dollars, the export supply
curve facing Home shifts up by exactly the amount of the tariff
The new export supply curve shifts up to X*+t The new intersection now occurs at the price of PW+t
and the import quantity of M2
The import tariff has reduced the amount imported, from M1 under free trade to M2 under the tariff, due to the higher price
36 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Tariffs for a Small Country
• Effect of the Tariff At the higher import price, the quantity demanded at
Home falls and the quantity supplied at Home rises, from S1 to S2
However, as firms increase the quantity produced, the marginal costs of production rise
The home supply curve reflects marginal costs so the Home price rises along S until firms are supplying quantity S2 at a MC just equal to the new price, PW+t
The domestic price will equal the import price.
37 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Tariffs for a Small Country
• Effect of the Tariff Home price rises to PW+t thereby decreasing the
quantity of Home demand Higher prices increase the quantity of Home supply Less excess demand therefore imports fall Foreign exporters still receive the “net of tariff” price,
PW
These changes affect producer and consumer surplus, and overall Home welfare
38 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Quantity M1 Imports
Foreign export supply, X*
B
Import Tariffs for a Small Country
M
Price
M2
C
Figure 8.4
A
D
X*+t PW+t
Price
S
No-trade equilibrium
M2
Home price rises by the amount of the tariff.
Home supply increases and Home demand decreases Imports fall to M2
PW
S1 D1 S2 D2
39 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Tariffs for a Small Country
• Effect of the Tariff on Consumer Surplus With the tariff, consumers now pay the higher price,
PW+t, and their surplus is the area under the demand curve and above the higher price, PW+t
The fall in consumer surplus due to the tariff is the area in-between the two prices and to the left of Home demand, (a+b+c+d) in panel (a.1) of figure 8.5
This area is the amount that consumers lose due to the higher price caused by the tariff
40 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
PW+t
PW
Import Tariffs for a Small Country
A
D
Price
S
S1 S2 D2 D1 Quantity
No-trade equilibrium
M2
Lost consumer surplus due to the higher price with the tariff is equal to the shaded area (a+b+c+d)
a
b d
c
Figure 8.5 (a.1)
41 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Tariffs for a Small Country
• Effect of the Tariff on Producer Surplus With the tariff, producer surplus is the area above
the supply and below the higher price, PW+t Since the tariff increased Home price, firms can sell
more goods, and producer surplus increases This area, a in figure 8.5 (a.2), is the amount that
Home firms gain due to the higher price caused by the tariff.
Increases in producer surplus can benefit Home workers but at the expense of Home consumers
42 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
PW+t
PW
Import Tariffs for a Small Country
A
D
Price
S
S1 S2 D2 D1 Quantity
No-trade equilibrium
M2
The gain in producer surplus due to the higher price with the tariff is equal to the shaded area (a)
a
b d
c
Figure 8.5 (a.2)
43 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Tariffs for a Small Country
• Effect of the Tariff on Government Revenue In addition to the tariff’s impact on consumers and
producers, it also affects government revenue The amount of revenue collected is the tariff t times
the quantity of imports (D2 – S2) In figure 8.5 panel (a.3), the revenue is shown by
area c The collection of revenue is a gain for the
government in the importing country
44 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
PW+t
PW
Import Tariffs for a Small Country
A
D
Price
S
S1 S2 D2 D1 Quantity
No-trade equilibrium
M2
The gain in government revenue due to the tariff is equal to the shaded area (c)
This equals the tariff, t, times the quantity of imports, M2
a
b d
c
Figure 8.5 (a.3)
45 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Tariffs for a Small Country
• Overall Effect of the Tariff on Welfare We can now summarize the total impact of the tariff
on the welfare of the Home importing country by adding the gains and losses for each party
Note, we do not care whether the consumers facing higher prices are rich or poor, and do not care whether the specific factors in the industry earn a lot or a little
Under this approach, transferring one dollar from consumer to producer surplus will have no impact on overall welfare
We are simply evaluating the efficiency of the tariff
46 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Tariffs for a Small Country
• Overall Effect of the Tariff on Welfare The overall impact of the tariff in the small country
can be summarized as follows: Fall in consumer surplus -(a+b+c+d) Rise in producer surplus +a Rise in government revenue +c Net effect on Home welfare -(b+d)
• The areas b and d in figure 8.5 (a) correspond to the triangle (b+d) in figure 8.5 (b) and is the net welfare loss We refer to this area as a deadweight loss—it is
not offset by a gain elsewhere in the economy
47 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
PW+t
PW
Import Tariffs for a Small Country
A
D
Price
S
S1 S2 D2 D1 Quantity
No-trade equilibrium
M2
The deadweight loss is the loss to Home that is not offset by a corresponding gain
a
b d
c
Figure 8.5 (a)
a is a transfer from consumers to producers
c is a transfer from consumers to government
(b+d) is deadweight loss—losses not offset by other gains
48 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Tariffs for a Small Country Figure 8.5 (b)
M1 Imports
X*
M
Price
M2
X*+ t C
Dead weight loss due to tariff, b+d
49 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Tariffs for a Small Country
• Overall Effect of the Tariff on Welfare The area a is effectively a transfer from consumers
to producers via the higher domestic prices induced by the tariff
The area c, the gain in government revenue, is a transfer from consumers to the government
The deadweight loss, (b+d), is measured by the two triangles b and d
The two triangles can each be given a precise interpretation
50 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Tariffs for a Small Country
• Production Loss The base of b is the net increase in Home supply
due to the tariff, from S1 to S2 The height of this triangle is the increase in marginal
costs due to the increase in supply The fact that marginal costs are greater than world
price means that this country is producing the extra supply inefficiently Fewer resources would be used if imported rather than
produced at home
The area of b is the production loss or efficiency loss—due to producing at marginal costs above world price
51 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Tariffs for a Small Country
• Consumption Loss The triangle d also has a precise definition Due to the tariff, the price increase from, PW to PW+t
reduces quantity consumed at Home from D1 to D2
The area of the triangle can be interpreted as the drop in consumer surplus for those individuals who are no longer able to consume the units from D1 to D2 because of the higher price
We refer to this drop in consumer surplus as the consumption loss for the economy
52 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Why are Tariffs Used?
• Finding that tariffs always lead to deadweight losses for small countries explains why most economists are opposed to them
• Why then do so many countries use tariffs? One idea is that developing countries do not have
any other source of revenue Import tariffs are “easy to collect” because every country
has customs agents at major ports checking the goods crossing the borders
However, to the extent that developing countries recognize that tariffs have a higher deadweight loss, we would expect that over time they will shift away from such “easy to collect” taxes
53 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Why are Tariffs Used?
• Why then do so many countries use tariffs? A second reason is politics If the government cares more about producer
surplus than consumer surplus, it might decide to use the tariff despite the deadweight loss it incurs
The benefits to producers (and their workers) are typically more concentrated on specific firms and states than the costs to consumers which are spread nation-wide
SIDE BAR
54 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Globalization and Developing Countries
• Developing countries rely on “easy to collect” tariffs over “hard to collect” income and value-added taxes
• As globalization expands, we would expect these countries to move away from tariffs to the more “hard to collect” revenues
• According to one research study, the ratio of tax revenue to GDP obtained from “easy to collect” taxes fell by about 20% in developing countries between 1980’s and 1990’s
SIDE BAR
55 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Globalization and Developing Countries
• At the same time the ratio of tax revenue to GDP from “hard to collect” revenue rose by 9% in the developing countries
• The loss from “easy to collect” taxes was not enough to make up for the gain from “hard to collect” taxes It is harder to improve the performance of “hard to collect”
taxes than it is to shift away from the “easy to collect” taxes for low income countries
• High and middle income countries were able to obtain a net increase in tax revenue from this process
APPLICATION
56 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
U.S. Tariffs on Steel
• We can use our small country model from above to calculate a rough estimate of how costly these tariffs were in terms of welfare
• We will estimate the deadweight loss due to the US steel tariff in place from March 2002 to December 2003
• President Bush requested that the US International Trade Commission (ITC) initiate a Section 201 investigation into the steel industry
APPLICATION
57 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
U.S. Tariffs on Steel
• The ITC determined that the conditions were met and recommended that tariffs be put in place to protect the US steel industry
• The tariffs varied across products, ranging from 10 to 20%—shown in Table 8.1—then falling over time to be eliminated after 4 years
• The ITC decision showed that the losses from rising imports and falling prices met the conditions of “serious injury”
APPLICATION
58 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
U.S. Tariffs on Steel
• President Bush took the recommendation of the ITC but applied even higher tariffs, ranging from 8% to 30%
• Knowing the US trading partners would be upset by this, President Bush exempted some countries from the tariffs These included Canada, Mexico, Jordan, and
Israel, which all have free trade agreements with the US and 100 small developing countries that were exporting only a very small amount of steel to the US
APPLICATION
59 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
U.S. Tariffs on Steel
Table 8.1
APPLICATION
60 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
U.S. Tariffs on Steel
• Deadweight Loss due to the Steel Tariff We need to estimate the areas of triangle b+d we
found in figure 8.5 (b) The base is the change in imports, ΔM, and the
height is the increase in domestic price, ΔP = t. Deadweight loss then equals, DWL = ½ t ΔM It is convenient to measure the deadweight loss
relative to the value of imports, which is PW*M We will also use the percentage tariff, t/PW, and
the percentage change in the quantity of imports, %ΔM = ΔM/M
APPLICATION
61 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
PW
PW+t
U.S. Tariffs on Steel
Price
M2 M1 Imports
M
Deadweight loss due to the tariff, b+d
c
Figure 8.5 (b)
ΔM
t
We can measure DWL with the area of the triangle b+d from figure 8.5 (b)
DWL = ½ t ΔM
APPLICATION
62 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
U.S. Tariffs on Steel
• Using these definitions, the deadweight loss relative to the value of imports can be rewritten as:
• The most commonly used products had a tariff of 30%, so the percentage increase in the price is t/PW = 0.3, leading to %ΔM = 0.3
APPLICATION
63 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
U.S. Tariffs on Steel
• This leads to a DWL of
• The value of steel imports affected by the tariff was about $4.7 billion prior to March 2002 and $3.5 billion after March 2002 Average imports over the two years was then
$4.1 billion
APPLICATION
64 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
U.S. Tariffs on Steel
• Applying the DWL of 4.5% to the average import value of $4.1 billion gives the dollar magnitude of deadweight loss equal to $185 million
• This deadweight loss reflects the net annual loss to the US from applying the tariff A steel worker might think this is ok in order to
protect jobs, but consumers would probably not agree
APPLICATION
65 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
U.S. Tariffs on Steel
• Response of the European Countries The tariffs on steel most heavily affected Europe,
Japan, and South Korea, along with some developing countries
The countries in the European Union therefore took action by bringing the case to the WTO
The WTO has a formal dispute settlement procedure, under which countries can bring complaint and have it evaluated
The WTO ruled that the US had failed to prove its steel industry had been harmed by imports and therefore did not have the right to impose the tariffs
APPLICATION
66 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
U.S. Tariffs on Steel
• Response of the European Countries Even if we accept that there might be an
argument on equity or fairness grounds for temporarily protecting an industry facing import competition, it is hard to argue that such protection should occur due to a change in exchange rates
The appreciation of the dollar lowered prices for all other imports too, so many industries faced competition
Why should the steel industry be protected and not the others?
APPLICATION
67 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
U.S. Tariffs on Steel
• Response of the European Countries The WTO ruling entitled the European Union and
other countries to retaliate against the US by imposing tariffs of their own against US exports
The EU quickly began to draw up a list of products and naturally picked products that would have the greatest impact on the US
The threat of tariffs led President Bush to reconsider the US tariffs on steel, and on December 5, 2003, he announced that they would be suspended
You can see how these chain of events could lead to a tariff war
HEADLINES
68 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Europe’s Little List
• How are steel and orange juice related? • When the WTO ruled that the US tariffs on
steel violated international trade law, it allowed the European Union to implement $2.2 billion in retaliatory taxes on US exports
• On the list were oranges and orange juice, big exports of Florida, a major swing state with Jeb Bush as Governor—the President’s brother
• Michigan and Wisconsin apples and California farm products were also on the list
HEADLINES
69 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Europe’s Little List
• Another group targeted were makers of industrial farm equipment like John Deere and Caterpillar—both based in the key electoral state of Illinois
• Toilet paper might seem like an odd item for the hit list, but is part of the paper industry, which was targeted affecting many other important states
70 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Tariffs for a Large Country
• Under the small country assumption that we have used so far, the importing country is always harmed due to the tariff Small country is a world price taker
• If we consider a large enough importing country or a large country, however, then we might expect that its tariff will change the world price Their imports are large enough that they can affect
world price with a change in their imports
71 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Tariffs for a Large Country
• Foreign Export Supply If the Home country is large, then the Foreign export
supply curve X* is no longer horizontal at the world price PW
We need to derive the foreign export supply curve using the Foreign market demand and supply curves
In panel (a) of Figure 8.6, we show the Foreign demand curve D* and supply curve S*, giving price of PA* at A* At this point, Foreign exports are zero
72 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Tariffs for a Large Country
• Foreign Export Supply Now suppose the world price is PW above PA* At the higher price, Foreign quantity demanded is
lower at D1*, but quantity supplied by foreign firms is higher at S1*
Foreign excess supply of X1* = S1* - D1*, will be exported at the price of PW at point B*
Connecting A* and B* gives the upward sloping Foreign export supply curve, X*
Combining with Home import demand, M, we get an equilibrium at PW and X1*
73 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Tariffs for a Large Country
Price Price
Quantity Exports
D* S*
Home import demand, M
D1* S1*
A* A*'
PA*
PW B*
X1*
Foreign exports, X1*
Foreign export supply, X*
World price increases to PW, increasing exports to X1*
Figure 8.6
This gives us our Foreign export supply curve for the large country At the world price, PA*,
exports are zero at A*’
(a) Foreign Mkt (b) World Mkt
74 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Tariffs for a Large Country
• Effect of the Tariff Figure 8.7 we show the effect when Home applies a
tariff of t dollars on imports The tariff increases the cost to Foreign producers of
supplying to the Home market Foreign export supply curve shifts up by exactly the
amount of the tariff, shifting from X* to X*+t The new supply crosses demand at C, giving a new
Home price However, notice that the price that Foreign
producers receive, P*, ends up below the original free trade price
75 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Tariffs for a Large Country
• Effect of the Tariff The price Home pays for its imports P*+t rises by
less than the amount of the tariff, t, as compared to the initial world price, PW
This is because the price received by foreign exporters, P*, has fallen as compared to the initial world price, PW
Foreign producers are essentially “absorbing” a part of the tariff, by lowering their price from PW to P*
The tariff drives a wedge between what Home consumers pay and what foreign producers receive, with the difference, t, going to the Home government
76 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
M2 M1
Import Tariffs for a Large Country
A
Price
P*+t
S
Price
Imports
D
S1 S2 D2 D1 Quantity M2 M1
M
X*+t
(a) Home market
X*
B*
C
C*
No-trade equilibrium
t
(b) Foreign market
t t
Figure 8.7 (without welfare effects)
PW
P*
77 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Tariffs for a Large Country
• Terms of Trade Remember terms of trade is the ratio of export
prices to import prices In order to measure terms of trade, we want to use
the net-of-tariff import price, P* Since P* is lower than PW, it follows that the Home
terms of trade has increased We might expect, therefore, that the Home country
gains from the tariff We need to analyze the impact of the tariff on Home
consumers, producers, and government
78 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Tariffs for a Large Country
• Home Welfare The higher Home price, makes consumers worse off
by lowering consumer surplus, shown by (a+b+c+d) in figure 8.7
Home firms are better off with the higher price and increased surplus, a
Revenue collected from the tariff equals the amount of the tariff, t, times the new amount of imports, M2, giving total revenue of (c+e)
Summing all the gains and losses, we obtain the overall impact of the tariff in the large country
79 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Tariffs for a Large Country
• Home Welfare Fall in consumer surplus -(a+b+c+d) Rise in producer surplus +a Rise in government revenue +(c + e) Net effect on Home welfare e – (b+d) + (e)
• The triangle (b+d) is the deadweight loss due to the tariff.
• But notice, there is a source of gain, e, that offsets part of the loss
• If e > (b+d), then Home is better off • If e < (b+d), then Home is worse off
80 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Tariffs for a Large Country
A
Price
a c P*+t
PW
P*
S
b d
Price
Imports
e D
S1 S2 D2 D1 Quantity M2 M1
M
X*+t
e
X*
B*
C
C*
b+d
No-trade equilibrium
t
(a) Home market (b) Foreign market
Figure 8.7 (with welfare effects)
If the gain of e is greater than the loss of (b+d), Home gains
81 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Tariffs for a Large Country
• Home Welfare We see that a large importer might gain due to the
application of a tariff However, for the large country, any net gain due to
the tariff comes at the expense of the Foreign exporters
Although Home might gain from the tariff, Foreign definitely loses
82 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Tariffs for a Large Country
• Foreign and World Welfare The Foreign loss, measured by (e+f) also in figure
8.7, is the loss in Foreign producer surplus from selling fewer goods to Home at a lower price
The area e is the terms of trade gain for Home but an equivalent terms of trade loss for Foreign
Additionally, there is an extra deadweight loss in Foreign of f, giving a combined total greater than the benefits to Home Therefore, it is sometimes called the “beggar thy neighbor”
tariff
83 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Tariffs for a Large Country
A
Price
a c P*+t
PW
P*
S
b d
Price
Imports
e D
S1 S2 D2 D1 Quantity M2 M1
M
X*+t
e
X*
B*
C
C*
b+d
No-trade equilibrium
t
(a) Home market (b) Foreign market
Figure 8.7 (with welfare effects)
Foreign loses (e+f) as loss of Foreign producer surplus, from selling fewer goods at a lower price
f
84 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Tariffs for a Large Country
• Foreign and World Welfare Adding together the change in Home and Foreign
welfare, e cancels out leaving a net loss to world welfare of -(b+d+f)
We saw this triangle in panel (b) of figure 8.7, which is the deadweight loss for the world
The fact that the large country tariff leads to a world deadweight loss, is another reason that most economists oppose the use of tariffs
APPLICATION
85 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
U.S. Tariffs on Steel Once Again
• Returning to the US tariff on steel, we can reevaluate the effect on US welfare in the large country case
• If the US is a large enough importer of steel, then the foreign export price will fall and the US import price will rise by less than the tariff It is possible that the US gained from the tariff
APPLICATION
86 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
U.S. Tariffs on Steel Once Again
• Optimal Tariff We can compute the deadweight loss (area b+d)
and the terms of trade gain (area e) for each imported steel product
This would give us the information to see if the US gained from the steel tariffs
Rather than do all these calculations, however, we can use the concept of the optimal tariff
This is the tariff that leads to the maximum increase in welfare for the importing country
We have shown that for a small tariff, a large country can gain. But if the tariff is too large, the country will still lose
APPLICATION
87 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
U.S. Tariffs on Steel Once Again
• Optimal Tariff Figure 8.8 graphs Home welfare against the level
of the tariff Free trade is at point B where the tariff is zero Starting at B, increasing the tariff can increase the
importer’s welfare, to a point If the tariff is too large, then welfare will fall below
the free trade level of welfare For example, a prohibitive tariff is one so high there are
no imports—this is point A Given this, you can see that the highest point of
welfare for the importing country is shown by C
APPLICATION
88 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Free Trade
Importer’s Welfare
No Trade
U.S. Tariffs on Steel Once Again
B
A
C
Terms of trade gain exceeds deadweight loss
Terms of trade gain is less than deadweight loss
B'
Optimal Tariff
Prohibitive Tariff
Tariff
The Optimal tariff maximizes the Importer’s welfare, Point C Too high of a tariff will decrease importer’s welfare and can increase to the point where there is no trade
Figure 8.8
APPLICATION
89 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
U.S. Tariffs on Steel Once Again
• Optimal Tariff Formula The optimal tariff depends on the elasticity of
Foreign export supply, EX* This is the percentage change in the quantity exported in
response to a percent change in the world price of the export
If the export supply curve is very steep, there is little response in quantity supplied—inelastic—EX* is low
If the export supply curve is very flat, there is a large response in quantity supplied—elastic—EX* is high
APPLICATION
90 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
U.S. Tariffs on Steel Once Again
• Optimal Tariff Formula Optimal Tariff = 1/EX*
For a small importing country, the elasticity of Foreign export supply is infinite, and so the optimal tariff is zero
As the elasticity of Foreign export supply decreases, Foreign export supply curve is steeper, the optimal tariff is higher With a steep Foreign export supply curve, Foreign
exporters will lower their price more in response to the tariff
APPLICATION
91 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
U.S. Tariffs on Steel Once Again
• Optimal Tariffs for Steel If we apply this formula to the US steel tariffs, we
can see how the tariffs applied compare to the theoretical optimal tariff
Table 8.2 shows various steel products along with their respective elasticities of export supply to the US
We can compare the actual tariff to the optimal tariff to see where there were gains and where there were losses from the tariffs
APPLICATION
92 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
U.S. Tariffs on Steel Once Again
• For alloy steel flat-rolled products, its actual tariff was 30%, which is far below its optimal tariff The terms of trade gain for that product was
higher than the deadweight loss US welfare is above its free trade level
• In summary, two products had terms of trade greater than the deadweight loss, but the third had a larger deadweight loss The first two illustrate the large country case,
while the third illustrates the small country case
APPLICATION
93 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
U.S. Tariffs on Steel Once Again
Table 8.2
APPLICATION
94 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
U.S. Tariffs on Steel Once Again
• Even if there was an overall terms of trade gain for the US when adding up across all steel products, that gain would be at the expense of the European countries and other steel exporters
• By allowing exporting countries to retaliate with tariffs, the WTO prevents importers from using optimal tariffs to their own advantage
95 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Quotas
• On January 1, 2005 China was poised to become the world’s largest exporter of textiles and apparel On that date, the Multifibre Arrangement (MFA) was
abolished Under the MFA, import quotas restricted the amount
of nearly every textile and apparel product that was imported to Canada, Europe, and the US
The quotas were to protect their own domestic firms producing those products
With the end of the MFA, China was ready to enjoy greatly increased imports
96 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Quotas
• The threat of import competition from China led the US and Europe to negotiate new quotas with China
• These are not the first quotas Europe had a quota on the imports of bananas that
allowed for a greater number of bananas to enter from its former colonies in Africa than from Latin America (now a tariff)
• In the next section, we explain how quotas affect the importing and exporting countries, and examine the differences between quotas and tariffs
HEADLINES
97 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Europe Reaches Deal on Banana Imports
• The European Union changed their trade barriers to allow banana imports from countries that were once European colonies and to restrict imports from other countries, primarily in Latin America
• The proposal was to implement one import tariff but no quotas on bananas except for former French, British, and Portuguese colonies which will continue to enjoy duty-free access
HEADLINES
98 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Europe Reaches Deal on Banana Imports
• This change replaces the prior trade policy that was a mixture of tariffs and quotas, but is still higher than the Latin American countries are content with
• The European countries are split over what to do about these policies. Some want to protect their own growers’ interests
and others want to keep prices low for consumers
HEADLINES
99 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Sweet Opportunity
• The current US sugar program guarantees that American sugar producers receive a set price for their product
• If they are not able to sell all their sugar at the “break-even” price after accounting for their loans, they can sell the excess to the US Department of Agriculture
• To keep from storing a large stock of sugar, the US regulates supply by imposing import quotas on sugar
HEADLINES
100 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Sweet Opportunity
• But, the US price of sugar has been two to three times higher than the world price of sugar for about 25 years
• The longer the protection holds, the more inefficient the US producers become, and the more powerful they become as a special interest group
• Given that the current world price of sugar has increased and put foreign producers on par with the US, there is an opportunity to do away with the sugar program
101 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Quotas
• Import Quota in a Small Country • Free Trade Equilibrium
Figure 8.9 (a) shows the free trade equilibrium at a world price of PW, home quantity demanded of D1, quantity supplied of S1, with imports of M1 as before
Assuming the country is small, meaning the world price is not affected by the import quota, the Foreign export supply curve, X*, is horizontal at PW
We can see the free trade amount of imports in panel (b) as well: M1 at PW
102 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
B
M1
M1
A
Import Quotas
S1 D1 Quantity
D
Price S
Price
Imports
Home import demand, M
PW
Foreign export supply, X*
No-trade equilibrium
(a) Home market (b) Import market
Figure 8.9 (without quota) At PW, Home Supplies
S1, Demands D1, and Imports M1
In free trade equilibrium for a small country, Foreign faces a horizontal export supply curve, X*, at the world price PW
103 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Quotas
• Effect of the Quota Suppose the import quota of M2<M1 is imposed
Quantity imported cannot exceed this amount
The essentially gives us a vertical supply curve, X in panel b Fixes the import quantity at M2
The vertical export supply curve now intersects import demand at point C, which establishes the Home price of P2
In panel a, the price of P2 leads firms to increase the quantity supplied to S2 and consumers to decrease their quantity demanded to D2
104 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Quotas
• Effect of the Tariff The import quota leads to an increase in the Home
price, and a reduction in Home imports, just like the tariff
We can see what the equivalent tariff, the tariff that would be set to give the same quantity and price as the quota, would be: t = P2 – PW
For every level of import quota, there is an equivalent import tariff
105 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Quotas
• Effect on Welfare The rise in price from the quota leads to a fall in
consumer surplus: (a+b+c+d) The increase in price facing Home producers leads
to a gain in producer surplus: a What changes with the quota is the area c which
was government revenue under the tariff With a quota, whoever is actually importing the good
will be able to earn c, the difference between the world price and the higher Home price times the imports sold in the Home market
106 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Quotas Figure 8.9 (with quota)
B
A
Quantity
D
Price S
Price
Imports M1
Foreign export supply, X*
Home import demand, M
P2 C
No-trade equilibrium
c a
d
b+d
c
b
(a) Home market (b) Import market
Foreign export supply with quota
With the Quota, the Foreign export supply becomes vertical at the quota quantity
The new Export Supply curve crosses the Import Demand curve at a new price and quantity of imports
At the new higher price P2, Home Supply increases to S2, Demand decreases to D2 and imports fall to M2
Always have a deadweight loss of (b+d) like the tariff
Consumers loses surplus of (a+b+c+d), producers gain (a).
Welfare of Home depends on what happens to (c).
PW
S1 S2 D2 D1 M2
107 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Quotas
• The difference between these two prices is the rent associated with the quota
• Area c represents the total quota rents • There are four possible ways these rents can
be allocated 1. Giving the Quota to Home Firms
Quota licenses can be given to Home firms Permits to import the quantity allowed under the quota
system
The net effects on Home welfare due to the quota are then as follows:
108 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Quotas
Fall in consumer surplus -(a+b+c+d) Rise in producer surplus +a Quota rents earned at Home +c Net effect on Home welfare: -(b+d)
• This is the same loss we saw with a tariff • (b+d) is still a deadweight loss associated with
the quota
109 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Quotas
2. Rent Seeking Because of the gains associated with owning a
quota license, firms have an incentive to engage in inefficient activities in order to obtain them
How licenses are allocated matters a. If licenses are allocated in proportion to each firm’s
production, Home firms will likely produce more than they can sell just to obtain the import licenses for the following year
b. Firms might engage in bribery or other lobbying activities to obtain the licenses
110 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Quotas
• Rent Seeking Some suggest that the waste of resources devoted
to rent seeking could be as large as the value of the rents themselves – waste c
If rent seeking occurs, welfare loss of quota is: Fall in consumer surplus -(a+b+c+d) Rise in producer surplus +a Net effect on Home welfare: -(b+c+d)
This loss is larger than a tariff It is thought rent seeking is worse in developing
countries
111 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Quotas
3. Auctioning the Quota The government of the importing country to auction
off the quota licenses In a well-organized, competitive auction, the
revenue collected should exactly equal the value of the rents
Fall in consumer surplus -(a+b+c+d) Rise in producer surplus +a Auction revenue earned at Home +c Net effect on Home welfare: -(b+d)
This is the same loss as the tariff
SIDE BAR
112 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Auctioning Import Quotas in Australia and New Zealand
• During the 1980’s, Australia and New Zealand both auctioned the quota licenses to import specific goods
• Table 8.3 shows the value of imports covered by quotas curing 1981–1987
• In 1988, New Zealand announced plans to phase out import quotas as part of a liberalization of trade, and all quota licenses were eliminated by 1992
SIDE BAR
113 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Auctioning Import Quotas in Australia and New Zealand
• Table 8.3 also shows the value of bids for the quota licenses These are estimates of rents
• If we take the ratio of the value of bids to the value of imports covered by the quota, we obtain an estimate of the tariff equivalent to the quota These are shown in the final column of 8.3
• Since there was no penalty from not following through, some firms decided not to purchase the licenses after all
SIDE BAR
114 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Auctioning Import Quotas in Australia and New Zealand
Table 8.3
SIDE BAR
115 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Auctioning Import Quotas in Australia and New Zealand
• The government therefore did not collect all the winning bids as revenue
• For those that did buy their licenses, they could be resold and some were at much higher prices
• This makes it appear that the government was not collecting all of the rents in area c
116 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Quotas
4. “Voluntary” Export Restraint The importing country can give authority for
implementing the quota to the exporting government
This is often called a “voluntary” export restraint (VER) or a “voluntary” restraint agreement (VRA)
In the 1980’s the US used this type of arrangement to restrict imports of Japanese automobiles The Japanese government told each Japanese firm how
much it could export to the US
117 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Quotas
• With VER’s, quota rents are earned by foreign producers, making Home welfare:
Fall in consumer surplus -(a+b+c+d) Rise in producer surplus +a Net effect on Home welfare: -(b+c+d)
• This is of course higher than with a tariff • Why would we do this?
It is typically political—the exporting country is less likely to retaliate since they gain the area c
This can often avoid a tariff or quota war
118 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Quotas
• Costs of Import Quotas in the US Table 8.4 presents some estimates of home
deadweight losses and quota rents for some major US quotas
In all cases except Dairy, the rents were earned by Foreign exporters
Adding up the costs in the table, the total US deadweight loss due to these quotas ranged from $8–$12 billion annually
Quota rents transferred another $7–$17 billion to foreigners
Some, but not all, of these costs are relevant today since many of the quotas are no longer in place
119 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Import Quotas
Table 8.4
APPLICATION
120 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
China and the Multifibre Arrangement
• One of the principles of GATT was that countries should not use quotas to restrict imports
• The MFA was a major exception to that which allowed the industrialized countries to restrict imports of textile and apparel products from the developing countries
• Organized under GATT, importing countries could join the MFA and arrange quotas bilaterally or unilaterally
APPLICATION
121 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
China and the Multifibre Arrangement
• While the amount of the quotas was occasionally revised upward, they did not keep up with the increasing ability of new supplying countries to sell
• Under the Uruguay round of WTO, developing countries were able to negotiate an end to this system of import quotas.
• Given that China was a large supplier of textiles, the expiration of the MFA meant that China could win big
• Some developing countries and large producers in importing countries were concerned with the potential of Chinese exports on their economies
APPLICATION
122 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
China and the Multifibre Arrangement
• Growth in Exports from China Immediately after January 1, 2005, exports of
textiles and apparel from China grew rapidly In 2005, China’s textile and apparel imports to the
US rose by more than 40% compared to 2004 Figure 8.10 (a) shows the change in the value of
exports of textiles and apparel from different countries. Note China
The increases from China came at the expense of some higher-cost exporters, some of whose exports to the US declined by 10 to 20%
APPLICATION
123 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
China and the Multifibre Arrangement
Figure 8.10
APPLICATION
124 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
China and the Multifibre Arrangement
• Panel (b) of Figure 8.10 shows the percentage change in the prices of textiles and apparel products from each country, depending on whether the products were subject to the MFA quota before January 1, 2005 or not
• China had the largest drop in the prices from 2004 to 2005
• Many other countries had a substantial fall in their prices due to the end of the MFA quota
APPLICATION
125 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
China and the Multifibre Arrangement
Figure 8.10
APPLICATION
126 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
China and the Multifibre Arrangement
• Welfare Cost of the MFA Given the drop in prices in 2005, it is possible to
estimate the welfare loss due to the MFA Quota rents were earned by foreign exporting
firms, giving a welfare loss to Home of area (b+c+d) shown in Figure 8.9 previously
Using the price drops from Figure 8.10 above, (b+c+d) for the US is estimated at $6.5 to $16.2 billion in 2005 from the MFA
Averaging out all losses and dividing among households gives an estimate of $100 per household, or 7% of total annual spending on apparel
APPLICATION
127 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
China and the Multifibre Arrangement
• Import Quality There was also an interesting pattern to the price
drops: the price dropped the most for the lowest priced items An inexpensive T-shirt had a greater drop in price than a
more expensively priced item
US demand shifted towards the lower-priced items imported from China: there was “quality downgrading” in the exports from China
When a quota like the MFA is applied, there is an effect on quality
APPLICATION
128 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
China and the Multifibre Arrangement
• Import Quality Remember that quotas are set on the quantity,
not the quality of items that are imported This means that exporting countries have an
incentive to upgrade the quality of the product Selling a higher value good for the same quantity
will still meet the quota limit but will bring more money back home
MFA’s bring “quality upgrading” in the exports Similarly, when the MFA is removed, you will see
“quality downgrading”
APPLICATION
129 of 136 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
China and the Multifibre Arrangement
• Reaction of the United States and Europe The EU threatened to impose new quotas on
Chinese exports In response, China agreed on June 11, 2005 to
”voluntarily” restrict exports limiting the growth of textile exports to about 10% per year through the end of 2008
The US had the ability to negotiate a new system of quotas since China had joined the WTO in 2001
The US deal limited growth to 7.5% until 2008
130 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Conclusions
• A tariff on imports is the most commonly used trade policy tool
• First considered a small country with no effect on world price Price faced by consumers and producers in the
importing country will rise by the full amount of the tariff
There is a drop in consumer surplus, a rise in producer surplus, and the government collects revenue
Net loss for the importing country
131 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Conclusions
• Why are tariffs used? Easy way for governments to raise revenue,
especially in developing countries The government might care more about protecting
firms than avoiding loses for consumers The small-country assumption may not hold in
practice—countries may be large enough to gain from a tariff
• If a country is large enough, they can have an effect on the world price
132 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Conclusions
In this case, prices rise by less than the full amount of the tariff
It is therefore possible for a small tariff to generate welfare gains for the importing country
This does come at the expense of the foreign exporters—“beggar thy neighbor” policy
Overall still have world losses
• Countries also may choose quotas, which restrict the quantity of imports into a country WTO has tried to restrict the use of quotas Deletion of MFA quotas still lead to new quotas
against China
133 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Conclusions
• Import quotas lead to similar welfare effects of tariffs Increase domestic price with loss for consumers and
gains for producers Quota rents instead of guaranteed government
revenues If resources are wasted by firms to gains rents,
additional deadweight losses are incurred More common for foreign exporters to earn the
quota rents - VER
134 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Key Points
1. The government of a country a can use laws and regulations, called trade policies, to affect international trade flows
2. The rules governing grade policies in most countries are outlined by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), now the World Trade Organization (WTO)
3. In a small country, the world price faced is fixed, so the price faced by consumers and producers will rise by the full amount of the tariff
135 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Key Points
4. The use of a tariff by a small importing country always leads to a net loss in welfare
5. In a large country, the change in imports from a tariff will lower world price so the price to the importing country does not rise by the full amount of the tariff
6. The use of a tariff for a large country can lead to a net gain in welfare
7. The optimal tariff is the tariff amount that maximizes welfare for the importer
8. The formula for the optimal tariff depends inversely on the foreign export supply elasticity
136 of 136 © 2008 Worth Publishers ▪ International Economics ▪ Feenstra/Taylor
Key Points
9. Import quotas restrict the quantity of a particular import, thereby increasing the domestic price, benefiting domestic production and creating a benefit for those who are allowed to import the quantity allotted. Benefits are quota rents
10. Assuming perfectly competitive markets for goods, quotas are similar to tariffs since the restriction in the amount imported leads to a higher domestic price. Rents, however, can be earned by the foreign country and can create additional dead weight losses