US-Asia-EU Perspectives

  • Paul J. J. Welfens


This chapter looks into the US-China tariff conflict and the impact on the EU28 and Asia more broadly. The analysis includes the effects of the conflict on the profitability of multinational US companies in China and Chinese companies in the US. Moreover, the transportation challenges of US-China and EU-China trade are also considered. The differences in the respective logistics have favorable implications for EU-Sino economic cooperation, on the one hand, and for security issues, on the other hand. China’s One Belt One Road Initiative will clearly have a long-run impact on both Asia and Europe as will China’s global port investments. There is a triangular economic logic of US protectionism to be taken into account, namely, the triplolar US-China-EU world, which is more difficult to understand and manage than traditional US-Asia policy approaches prior to 1990.


  1. ADB. (2011). Asia 2050: Realizing the Asian Century (H. S. Kohli, A. Snood, & A. Sharma, Eds.). Singapore: Asian Development Bank.Google Scholar
  2. Gros, D. (2018, November). US China Trade War and Europe: ‘If Two Quarrel, the Third Rejoices’, EconPol Europe Opinion 13.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Jungmittag, A., & Welfens, P. J. J. (2016). Beyond EU-US Trade Dynamics: TTIP Effects Related to Foreign Direct Investment and Innovation. EIIW Discussion Paper No. 212. Retrieved from
  5. Kierzenkowski, R., Pain, N., Rusticelli, E., & Zwart, S. (2016). The Economic Consequences of Brexit: A Taxing Decision. OECD Economic Policy Papers, No. 16, OECD Publishing, Paris.Google Scholar
  6. Kynge, J. et al. (2017). Beijing’s Global Power Play—How China Rules the Waves. Financial Times, Online, January 12. Retrieved October 24, 2018, from
  7. Merics. (2018). Mercator Institute for China Studies. Retrieved from https://
  8. MGI. (2016, March). Digital Globalization—The New Era of Global Flows. McKinsey Global Institute, McKinsey & Company.Google Scholar
  9. OECD. (2013). International Migration Outlook 2013. Paris: OECD Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Pepel-Srebrny, J. (2017, June). Government Borrowing Cost and Budget Deficits: Is Investment Spending Different? University of Oxford. Department of Economics Discussion Paper No. 827, Revised August 2018.Google Scholar
  11. United Nations. (2017). World Population Prospects—Key Findings and Advance Tables, 2017 Revision, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. Working Paper ESA/P/WP//248. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  12. Vandenbussche, H. (2018). US-EU Trade: The Cost of non-TTIP. Presented at EconPol Europe’s Annual Conference 2018, International Trade and Protectionism, November 18, Brussels.Google Scholar
  13. Wagner, H. (2017). The Building Up of New Imbalances in China: The Dilemma with ‘Rebalancing’. International Economics and Economic Policy, 14, 701–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Zoller-Rydzek, B., & Felbermayr, G. (2018, November). Who is Paying for the Trade War with China? EconPol Policy Brief 11.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul J. J. Welfens
    • 1
  1. 1.European Institute for International Economic Relations (EIIW)University of WuppertalWuppertalGermany

Personalised recommendations