Publications /

From ‘Rule of Law’ to ‘Law of the Jungle’: Global Trade seen through Twitter
June 10, 2019

This article was originally published on Center for Macroeconomics and development's website

Friday night, US President Donald Trump announced by Twitter that he would suspend the implementation of tariffs on Mexican imports, which would start with 5% on Monday, June 10, to reach 25% in October. A signed agreement between the two countries, also confirmed by Twitter by Mexico’s foreign minister Marcelo Ebrard, would have included Mexican government’s commitments to take “strong measures” to “reduce – or eliminate – illegal immigration to the United States,” in Trump’s words.

The obvious immediate reaction on the Mexican side is one of relief. The business relationship is uneven (Gertz, 2019). 80% of the country’s exports go to its northern neighbor, whose economy is more than 16 times higher. US investment in Mexico is 6 times higher than in the reverse direction. The shock over the Mexican economy would immediately lead to the worsening of a precarious macroeconomic situation that year.

But there are also reasons for relief on the American business side, given the degree of productive and commercial integration between the two countries (Fleming, 2019). Only China comes above Mexico as a source of US imports.

Take, for example, the automotive industry in which parts and components cross the border multiple times until the finalization of the product, and where the impact of tariffs on costs would be substantial. The price effect on the basket of domestic consumer goods imported from Mexico would also be significant. As imports from Mexico are not easily substitutable with domestic production, the result would be spikes in production costs and in the tax burden on households ultimately tariff payers.

However, there are at least four reasons why Friday’s relief through tweets cannot be taken as definitive. First, it is yet to be seen how the commitment of the Mexican government can be fulfilled (O’Neill, 2019). It will be subject to subjectivity in the evaluation by President Trump, even with his chief of staff referring to a “significant and substantial” decrease in the number of migrants arriving at the southern border of the country. The Mexican government has deported more than 50,000 people this year, but more families continue to arrive. Mexico has already announced that it will send 6,000 more troops to the border with Guatemala, but the US government also wants to send more people seeking asylum as refugees to the neighbor to the south until their cases are evaluated.

Second, the mere threat of imposing penalty rates on what Trump called a Mexican lack of effort to curb illegal immigration into the US through its territory can be interpreted as a move beyond the rules of trade policy authorized by Congress to the Executive, even more than in the previous cases (Alden, 2019). Steel and aluminum tariffs, as well as the restrictive review of foreign investment and the blocking of commercial operations with Chinese telecommunication company Huawei had national security reasons as justification. This has also been alluded to as a motivation for possible additional tariffs on cars and their parts.

In turn, ties of immigration to trade in this latest case regarding Mexico have led some to suggest a reaction from Congress to what might be considered an “abuse” relative to the legal authority granted to the executive branch (Collins and Shesgreen, 2019).The White House alluded to “economic emergencies” and such justification had already generated resistance from Congress when a budget to “build the wall” was proposed. Friday’s tweets have reduced the risk of such a confrontation for now, but President Trump’s taste for tariffs – and allegedly “increased local manufacturing and agricultural jobs” – may lead him to stretch the use of rules in other directions. It is symptomatic that on May 31 the end of India’s long-standing trade preferences was announced, as well as the intention to apply tariffs more sharply on whichever countries be classified as exchange rate manipulators.

Third, despite the tweets, the degree of uncertainty about the future of US trade measures, already high because of the recent track record and, especially, the worsening of the trade war with China, rose with the episode with Mexico. Such uncertainty has already affected locational investment decisions, with caution and delay predominating over the option to internalize production in the US as a kind of insurance, despite its costs. It is for no other reason that the OECD, World Bank and IMF last month came with even more strident warnings than before about the negative impact of trade tensions on global economic performance. Members of the Federal Reserve, in turn, have also alluded to lowering interest rates as a possible reaction to trade shocks (Boesler and Condon, 2019).

Lastly, it should be noted the additional step taken in this episode toward deepening the distance from the multilateral rules regime, which, even with failures and shortcomings, was fundamental to the expansion and inclusion of countries in global trade in the past decades (Goldberg, 2019). Instead of “rule of (multilateral) law”, the US’s bilateral handling of its super-strong market condition (24 percent of global GDP) more closely resembles a “law of the jungle” where the stronger imposes with force its will on the weaker. In such a context, trust in negotiations is lessened, as is the willingness to seek integration by minors.

In my December note on the subject, I laid out reasons why one might find then a potential convergence of interests between China and Trump toward reaching an agreement, subsequently to that dinner at the end of the G20 meeting in Buenos Aires (Canuto, 2018). After all, it looked to me that China would be able to deliver a substantial agenda both in terms of ramping up purchases of goods from the US and reinforcing intellectual property protection, while Mr. Trump would be able to declare victory in his bilateral approach. Instead, now one has the old blame game for the failure of recent negotiations, with China citing increasing demands by the US and the latter urging that Chinese concessions have to be shaped into legal changes, amenable to external monitoring, even if this could be seen as capitulation.

There has even been a mention of a “cultural gap” between delegations, with economists on the Chinese side facing US lawyers who do not “understand” that administrative rules in China prevail over legally binding ones (Xin, 2019)! What I really think is that the taste for bilateral confrontation of forces and for trade protectionism seems far from exhausted. The episode of trade and immigration with Mexico can end up being just that … one episode of many.


  • Authors
    December 30, 2020
    According to this month’s OECD economic outlook, global GDP --- which took a huge hit from the pandemic and is still 3% below its level of a year ago – will not recover its pre-pandemic level until the end of 2021. In a downside scenario, the return could take almost a year longer. The OECD predictions, which imply high and protracted unemployment, are in line with the view of many other official and private organizations. The arrival of effective vaccines such as Pfizer-BioNTech wa ...
  • Authors
    June 12, 2020
    The United States has suffered more COVID-19 casualties than any other country and continues to report large numbers of new cases and deaths, and – as evident recently in stock markets – investors remain extremely sensitive to the epidemic’s shifting trends. As every state reopens, including most recently the New York epicenter, the fates of the American economy and of the global economy depend on whether the United States has put the worst of the epidemic behind it, or whether it w ...
  • Authors
    November 8, 2019
    The Trump government has been imposing restrictions on access to technologies by Chinese telecommunications firms. Why and what are the consequences? The Federal Communications Commission is about to ban carriers from using government funds to buy equipment from Huawei and ZTE. Other government agencies are expected to take similar measures. This is just the latest episode of a gradual squeeze that the Trump government has been giving over China's telecommunications giant Huawei, ...
  • Authors
    September 30, 2019
    Despite some short-term benefits, trade deviation to the region shouldn’t be expected to last. Has the U.S. trade war with China been good for Latin America? An increase in Chinese demand for primary products from the region, as well as recent news of production transfers from China to Mexico, might give the impression that it has. But any positive short-term effects of the confrontation should also take into account its negative medium- and long-term impacts on the region and on gl ...
  • Authors
    Laurence Kotlikoff
    August 15, 2019
    Thirty months into President Trump's radical trade policy, it is time to take stock. American firms tend to give the President the benefit of the doubt - that the aim is not protection (which most don't want) but opening up markets overseas, striking better trade deals, and reducing the nation's big trade deficit. So far, however, none of this has happened. Instead, there is virulent uncertainty, barriers against American firms are going up, Europe, Japan and China have struck impor ...
  • Authors
    June 10, 2019
    This article was originally published on Center for Macroeconomics and development's website Friday night, US President Donald Trump announced by Twitter that he would suspend the implementation of tariffs on Mexican imports, which would start with 5% on Monday, June 10, to reach 25% in October. A signed agreement between the two countries, also confirmed by Twitter by Mexico’s foreign minister Marcelo Ebrard, would have included Mexican government’s commitments to take “strong mea ...
  • Authors
    June 3, 2019
    In a recent brief, titled” The Crisis in World Trade”, my co-authors and I conclude that whether we still have a rules-based system a few years from now depends on the answer to three questions: Can the WTO be revitalized? Is protectionism in the United States a temporary aberration? Will China reform and fit the liberal economic order? If the answer to these three questions is yes, the system will likely endure. If the answer is no, we will return to the power based non system that ...
  • Authors
    May 22, 2019
    The trade tensions between the United States and China will cause only minor immediate damage to their giant economies. However, tariffs have important and diverse effects on individual sectors and cause heightened uncertainty. The main adverse effects on Sub-Saharan Africa will therefore be through global investor confidence, economic growth and commodity prices, and these effects could be severe if the dispute escalates further and endangers the rules-based trading system. The tra ...
  • Authors
    Yana Myachenkova
    November 27, 2018
    - The trade agreements that the European Union has with North African countries – with Algeria, Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia – are often seen as having delivered disappointing results since they came into force during the 2000s. The four North African countries have seen insufficient growth in their exports to the EU, and have undergone only limited diversification. In the meantime, the EU’s exports to North Africa have grown quite rapidly. - Economic growth in North Africa has been ...