Protectionist US Policy and Expansionary Fiscal Policy: Ongoing Contradictions
This chapter considers the development of US trade policy and fiscal policy under the Trump Administration. Several inconsistencies are identified and the medium-term challenges which can be expected are identified. Since the US is a big economy, Washington’s protectionist tariff policy and inconsistent fiscal policy are shown to have direct negative medium-term effects on the US as well as negative effects on Europe and Asia/China. This US populist policy approach in turn will cause new conflicts and problems.
- Bernet, L. (2018). Der Fiebertraum von der selbstbestimmten Schweiz. Neue Zürcher Zeitung, NZZ, November 3. Retrieved from https://nzzas.nzz.ch/hintergrund/der-fiebertraum-von-der-selbstbestimmten-schweiz-ld.1433659?reduced=true.
- Bhagwati, J. (2004). In Defense of Globalization. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Blinder, A. S. (2019). The Free-Trade Paradox—The Bad Politics of a Good Idea. Foreign Affairs, 98(1). Online resource, Jan/Feb 2019. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2018-12-11/free-trade-paradox.
- Council of Economic Advisers. (2017, January). Economic Report of the President. Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2017_economic_report_of_president.pdf.
- Evenett, S., & Fritz, J. (2017). Will Awe Trump Rules—The 21st Global Trade Alert Report. Centre for Economic Policy Research: London.Google Scholar
- Frankel, J. (2006). Twin Deficits and Twin Decades. In R. Kopcke, G. Tootell, & R. Triest (Eds.), The Macroeconomics of Fiscal Policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Furman, J., Russ, K,, & Shambaugh, J. (2017, January 12). US Tariffs are an Arbitrary and Regressive Tax. VoxEU blog.Google Scholar
- Ghemawat, P. (2017). Globalization in the Age of Trump. Harvard Business Review, July/August Issue.Google Scholar
- IMF. (2018). United States of America: Staff Concluding Statement of the 2018 Article IV Mission, dated June 14, 2018, Country Report 18/207. IMF: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- Kim, S. H., & Shikher, S. (2017). Can Protectionism Improve Trade Balance? Working Paper 2017-10-B, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- Krishna, A. (2018). Poverty Dynamics and Opportunity. Presented at the Expert Group Meeting on “New Research on Inequality and Its Impacts” at UN Headquarters in New York, September 12–13, 2018, New York.Google Scholar
- Kutlina-Dimitrova, Z. (2017, March). Can We Put a Price on Extending the Scope of the GPA? First Quantitative Assessment, DG Trade, Chief Economist Note, Issue 1, Brussels.Google Scholar
- Kutlina-Dimitrova, Z. (2018, September). Government Procurement: Data, Trends and Protectionist Tendencies, DG Trade, Chief Economist Note, Issue 3, Brussels.Google Scholar
- Kutlina-Dimitrova, Z., & Lakatos, C. (2017). The Global Costs of Protectionism. Policy Research Working Paper No. 8277, World Bank Group, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- Lawrence, R. (2017, November). Recent US Manufacturing Employment: The Exception that Proves the Rule, Peterson Institute for International Economics. Working Paper 17-12.Google Scholar
- OECD. (2018, June). OECD Economic Surveys: United States. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/oecd-economic-surveys-united-states-2018_eco_surveys-usa-2018-en.
- Pew Research Center. (2018, September). Americans, Like Many in Other Advanced Economies, Not Convinced of Trade’s Benefits, Pew Research Center.Google Scholar
- Vandenbussche, H. (2014). Quality in Exports, DG Economic and Financial Affairs. Economic Papers No. 528. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
- Welfens, P. J. J. (2018). Import Tariffs, Foreign Direct Investment and Innovation: A New View on Growth and Protectionism. EIIW Discussion Paper No. 252, www.eiiw.eu.
- Woodward, B. (2018). Fear: Trump in the White House. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
- Zoller-Rydzek, B., & Felbermayr, G. (2018, November). Who is Paying for the Trade War with China? EconPol Policy Brief 11.Google Scholar