Trade Policy and International Marketing Under Reagan and Trump: An Abstract

The following is an abstract of a new piece I have been working on with my colleague Professor Gary Knight. I hope you enjoy it and please feel free to leave your comments below.

Michael Czinkota, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA, czinkotm@georgetown.edu
Gary Knight*, Willamette University, Salem, OR, USA, gknight@willamette.edu

                                                                  ABSTRACT

We investigate the international marketing implications of the international trade policies of US Presidents Ronald Reagan (‘Reagan’) and Donald Trump (‘Trump’). Today, in international trade, tariffs are low, averaging about 3% in the advanced economies and 10%-15% in the emerging markets. The average tariff across all goods worldwide is about 6%, down from 18% in 1990.  Meanwhile, world trade has increased consistently. China is now the most important trading partner of the US, providing both a huge market and supplying a great variety of products.


In the 1970s, a goods trade deficit emerged in the US and persists to the present day. In our research, we found that the administrations of both presidents sought to reduce the US trade deficit, and defend and enhance the international marketing performance of US firms.  In the early phase of his administration, trade policy under Reagan was restrained but became more assertive. Reagan focused on the trade deficit with Japan and on enhancing international market opportunities for US firms. But Reagan’s policies fell short of their goals. Today, the US faces a much larger trade deficit, primarily with China. Trump adopted policy goals similar to those of Reagan. Trump’s approach has been more assertive. Like Reagan, however, Trump’s policies have fallen short of achieving the intended goals.

In this paper, we provided empirical background and discussed the policies and outcomes of the policies of Reagan and Trump. We highlighted implications for firms’ international marketing efforts and performance, and as well as directions for future research.  We pointed to research opportunities for scholars. Research might investigate better, smarter trade policy, and examine benchmarking by reviewing various trade policy approaches, of the US and other nations, and then examining those successful in achieving intended goals.  Scholars might seek to identify appropriate strategies and tactics for enhancing the performance, of nations and of firms. 

Implications suggest that companies need to increase their competitive advantages in global trade. The US needs to increase its national competitive advantages by improving national factors of production and implementing smarter economic policies that promote US business. Public policymakers should emphasize investing in infrastructure, for example, in communications technologies that can increase the effectiveness of the management of firms’ value chain operations. Broadly, firm strategy and public policy should aim to improve performance on in the areas of entrepreneurship, innovation, and productivity, in order to make US companies more competitive in the global marketplace. An important research step will be the anticipated identification of trade policy shifts and the concurrent effects on business planning and policy development. Looking forward, the Biden administration will have to juggle its promise of bolstering domestic investment in infrastructure and US firms while also growing US importance within World Trade.

Keywords: International trade policy; International marketing; Tariffs; Protectionism; Public policy

References Available Upon Request

No Bull: The State of the global economy Pt 2 How serious is it?

On October 12, I posted part 1 of the interview I did with Nicolette Devidar of the TV segment Smart Sustainability. In part 2, please find the rest of the interview. In this section, we discussed US-China relations, the concept of interdependency, and the potential ramifications of the upcoming US election.

Please click on part 2 down below to watch the second half!

Let Us Organize World Trade

There is broad historic agreement that the World Trade Organization (WTO) has been one the most successful international institutions; its membership accounts for more than 98 percent of world trade. However, today’s global economic landscape is changing rapidly, coupled with retrenchment and distancing from multilateral agreements. Combined, these factors impact the discernible value and role of the WTO going forward.

Changed Patterns of Trade and Investment

The expansion and development of IT infrastructure, telecommunications, and computing made the global revolution of the last few decades possible. New technologies, nonexistent when the WTO was established in 1995, have become crucial for growth and development in this decade. The outsourcing revolution has affected the developing world in a major way: global manufacturing and new services have dramatically changed supply chains; corporate espionage and intellectual property infringements supported many corporate changes in developing countries; and WTO negotiations and augmented enforcement procedures have not been able to slow that trend.

Moreover, one of the most critical issues in global trade is the aspect of unprecedented imbalances. Today, China is the new top global merchandise exporter with a total of $2.263 trillion, or 16.25 percent of world exports, according to WTO reports. It is the largest global exporter of goods, 17 percent of world exports, and the third largest importer, 12 percent of global imports.

The United States is the main goods importer with 13.4 percent of the global imports, totaling $2.4 trillion. In 1994, the United States was running an annual merchandise trade deficit of about $120 billion; by 2017, the U.S. annual trade deficit with China alone has ballooned to over $375 billion.

Stalemate at the WTO: Too Big to Be Effective?

The last successful WTO negotiation — the Uruguay Round — was a result of a strengthened, single market in Europe, the creation of NAFTA, and several plurilateral agreements, such as the Information Technology Agreement (ITA).

The Doha Round of negotiations, beginning in November 2001, aimed to achieve major reforms in the international trading system, with an explicit focus on developing nations. Nevertheless, this premise failed; disagreements concerning the agricultural sector, free trade of services, and intellectual property rights have stalled negotiations.

Twenty years ago, the principal WTO concerns were pollution, global warming, disease, and structural unemployment — none of these agenda items, arguably, have been addressed effectively, much less solved.

Size is also an issue. The WTO is comprised of 164 members, with widely diverse perspectives, levels of development, linkages, and ambitions. The WTO system has become unwieldy because of the unanimity requirement of its voting process. The result: progress with new agreements is at a standstill. Case in point is the reduction of trade tariffs, which, at a global 3 percent of Most Favored Nations status, is at the same level as in 2000.

China: A “Rule Shaker” or a “Rule Maker”?

The West’s open invitation for China to join the WTO in 2001 paved the way for its rise to a global economic power. Since then, the balance of power at the WTO has changed dramatically. Chinese outward investment in the global economy has increased thirtyfold, from $7 billion (making up only one percent of the global FDI) to almost $200 billion (13 percent of the global FDI).

China entered the WTO as a “rule taker,” evolved into a “rule shaker,” and now aims to become a “rule maker.”

In fact, economic relations between China, the United States, and the EU define many of the agreements and disputes at the WTO. Xi Jinping’s “China Dream” of national rejuvenation could be seen as a way to reshape the international economic system, putting China at the center.

China has not been an easy partner for the West. Initial optimism that China would turn toward a free market economy has yet to come to fruition. Moreover, with its “capitalism with Chinese characteristics,” the country has taken the main benefits of the open trade system by creating major distortions and causing disputes that the WTO lacked the capacity to handle. Controversial issues include intellectual property rights (IPR), free market revisions through government subsidies and state-owned enterprises (SOEs), unequal conditions for market access with major restrictions to market entry in China, and unfair technology transfer. Foreign firms operating in China struggle against restrictive regulations — the government often requires them to hand over their intellectual property as a condition of market access. Asymmetrical market access and lack of reciprocity are magnified further at political levels.

With the existing WTO rule book, it is difficult to hold China accountable. Implications of Chinese “market distortion” and “unfair competitive conditions” consume global trade relations rhetoric; these opinions, voiced loudly by the current U.S. administration, are also shared broadly by other players, such as the EU and Japan. Due to high trade deficits, the United States is pushing for WTO reforms, increasing tariffs, and blocking the nominations of seats on the WTO’s appellate body (where the U.S. is a major player in the dispute resolution process) as leverage. Desired reforms aim to regulate market distortions caused by government interventions, simplifying the process of gathering information on unfair trade and investment practices, broadening the scope of banned subsidies, and setting boundaries to proportionate retaliations. But, at the end of the day, why would China agree on reforms that jeopardize its state-run economic model?

The WTO as a Reflection of a “New World”

The WTO does not operate in isolation from changes and new developments impacting trade. In the last two decades, the world’s macroeconomic environment was shaken by at least two significant events: the spread of terrorism, and the financial crisis of 2008. Terrorism has enhanced the inward focus of the political and economic aspects of national security; the global recession has caused an inward retraction of production and services. International economic issues were largely ignored as attention shifted to domestic job creation, the security and protection of domestic credit markets, and enhancing liquidity. Further, financial and political conflicts seem to foster greater polarization among legislators in many countries around the world.

As a result of continued stalemates and disagreements at the WTO, external actors are adopting a new “do-it-yourself” approach defined by preferential plurilateral trade negotiations — handmade for and benefitting only a limited number of players.

In addition, there is the issue of China’s growth in influence. In September 2018, the United States together with  the EU and Japan signed a brief statement voicing shared concerns regarding the future of the WTO, questioning its validity as a primary platform for multilateral trade. As an immediate result of difficult trade relations between the United States and China, and tremendous  pressure applied by the current U.S. administration, China afforded European companies access to some sectors, while pledging to cooperate with the EU on WTO reforms — a decision taken in July 2018 during the EU-China Summit.

Since the appearance of President Xi Jinping at the World Economic Forum two years ago, Beijing has been signaling that it is willing and prepared to assume the role of a new custodian of globalization. However, it seems obvious that China would not accept any reforms at the WTO, or any level, that would jeopardize its own economic model and welfare. At the same time, China wants to preserve the existing global trade order, as the outside world is more crucial than ever for its economic development.

Today’s global economic realities are not only introducing a new set of concerns and means of doing business, they are also challenging the very effectiveness of the WTO’s historical role as an arbiter of world trade.

Valbona Zeneli is the Chair of the Strategic Initiatives Department at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies. The views presented are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent views and opinions of the Department of Defense or the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies. 

Michael R. Czinkota is a professor at the University of Kent in Canterbury and at the McDonough School of Business at Georgetown University, He is a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce in the United States Department of Commerce. 

Bridges Built Through Trust

Why does a Georgetown University professor write about the soul and international business? Because they’re closely interlinked! An analysis of a new world, terrorism, the future of trade, and the search for the soul are what you find in this book. “In Search for the Soul of International Business”, by Michael Czinkota hits the shelves just when needed most, given new environments, new approaches, new emotions and new commitments. “I consider the soul the center of our aspirations and inspirations. Loss of soul typically connotes death. Maintaining a soul offers a reference point and stability. For one’s progress in thinking I aim to supply both content and context.”Author Bio: Professor Michael R. Czinkota teaches international marketing and business at the McDonough School of Business of Georgetown University and the University of Kent in Canterbury. He served in the U.S. government as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce, as head of the U.S. Delegation to the OECD Industry Committee in Paris and as senior trade advisor for Export Controls. Over the past 30 years he is consistently listed in every international marketing and business ranking as a top 20 author. He is a distinguished fellow of the Academy of Marketing Science and of the Chartered Institute of Marketing. He received the AMA Lifetime Achievement Award in 2007. The Universidad Ricardo Palma of Lima. Peru named its new International Marketing School after Czinkota. Book Info: Trade and globalization inundate us with constant information, new concepts, and endless data. Individuals are caught in the whirl-wind of a fast-paced world, often without the ability to stop and think, particularly when it comes to issues of the soul. With a foreword by Ambassador Dr. László Szabó ,a preface by the Rev. Horkan, and the humorous yet pensive illustrations by award-winning cartoonist David Clark, this book jumpstarts the reader’s ability for a comprehensive understanding of pressing international business and trade issues and their linkage to the soul. “In Search for the Soul of International Business”, by Michael Czinkota hits the shelves just when needed most, given new environments, new approaches, new emotions and new commitments.

Contact Info: Book Ordering Link:https://bit.ly/2B2LAZS

Authors Website: http://www.michaelczinkota.com,

email: czinkotm@georgetown.edu

Phone: 202-687-4204

Social Media: https://www.facebook.com/czinkotm 

Sheri E. Dean, Marketing Director, Business Expert Press and Momentum Press 919-612-6706

Get the inside scoop on the story behind this book by contacting Michael Czinkota at czinkotm@georgetown.edu

Buy this book at https://bit.ly/2B2LAZSor at Amazon.com

Trumps Wirtschaftspolitik in den USA / ZIB 2 vom 02.11.2018 um 22.00 Uhr

Trumps Wirtschaftspolitik in den USA / ZIB 2 vom 02.11.2018 um 22.00 Uhr