Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

US trade policy in an unbalanced world economy

  • Report
  • Published:
Intereconomics

Abstract

Both the national as well as the international debate on US trade policy are overshadowed, and strongly influenced, by the large external inbalances of major trading nations. What do these disequilibria mean for US trade policy? Moreover, is the USA losing comparative advantage in agriculture and high-technology manufacturing? Do industrial policies in other countries distort American trade?

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cf. Information technology in Brazil-the national firms take the lead, in: EIU Multinational Business, No. 3, 1986, p. 35.

  2. Cf. l. Dawnay: Brazil cools conflict with US, in: Financial Times, 28. 10. 1986.

  3. L. Thurow: The need for industrial policies. The case of the USA, in: Annalen der Gemenschaft, 1984/1, p. 8.

  4. Cf. D. Stockman: The triumph of politics. Why the Reagan revolution failed, New York etc. 1986, p. 158.

  5. Cf. R. Driscoll, J. Behrman (eds.): National Industrial Policies, Cambridge (Mass) 1984, p. 21.

  6. Cf. G. Kaplan: The President’s steel program is working, in: Buslness America March 31st, 1986, p. 11.

  7. For details of, J. Hatch ill: The Harley-Davidson case escaping the escape clause, in: Law and Policy in ternational Business, Vol. 16, No. 1, 1984, pp. 325 ff.

  8. For detalls of Lektion für Amerika, in: Wirtschaftswoche, No. 37, 5. 9. 1986, pp.52 ff.

  9. Earlier expansions include those beginning after 1954 Q2, 1958 Q2, 1961 Q1, 1970 Q4, and 1975 Q1. For details, in particular regarding the performance of individual industries of. B. Ortner (in collaboration with H. K. Stokes Jr). Domestic demand spurs factory output, offsets rise in trade deficit, in Business America, May 26th, 1986, pp. 10 f.

  10. Cf. N. Fieleke: The foreign trade deficit and American industry, in: Economic Impact, 1986/1, pp. 51 f.

  11. Cf. The state of the world economy and the US trade position. Statement by chairman Volcker, in: Deutsche Bundesbank: Auszüge aus Presseartikeln, No. 69, October 10th, 1986.

  12. Cf. President Reagan relterates commitment to free trade, in: Business America, August 4th, 1986.

  13. Cf. The President’s trade policy actor plan, in: Business America. September 30th, 1985.

  14. Cf. L. Thurow, op. cit., The need for industrial policies. The case of the USA, in: Annalen der Gemelnschaft, 1984/1, p. 9.

  15. For the data base cf. US Department of Commerce: Survey of Current Business, various issues.

  16. Cf. J. Cathie: US and EEC agricultural trade policies: a long-run view of the present conflict, in: Food policy, Vol. 10, No. 1, February 1985, p. 22.

  17. Cf. G. E. Sohuh: International agriculture and trade policies implications for the United States in: B. Gardner (ed.) US agricultural policy: the 1985 farm legislation, Washington D.C., 1985. p. 72.

  18. Cf. H. Brooks: Technology as a factor in U.S. competitiveness, in: B. Scott, G. Lodge (eds.): U.S. competitiveness in the world economy Boston 1985, p. 328.

  19. For details cf. U.S. Department of Commerce: U.S. high technology trade and competitiveness, Washington, D.C., February 1985.

  20. Ibid., For details cf. U.S. Department of Commerce: U.S. high technology trade and competitiveness, Washington, D.C., February 1985. p. 5.

  21. Cf. C. F. Bergsten: Gearing up world growth, in: Challenge, May/June 1986, pp. 35 ff.; W. Branson: Adjusting to global competition, in: Economic impact, 1984/2, pp. 14 ff.; R. Lawrence: Can America compete?, Washington, D.C. 1984.

  22. Cf. for example B. Scott: U.S. competitiveness: concepts, performance, and implications, in: B. Scott, G. Lodge (eds.), op. cit. U.S. competitiveness in the world aconomy Boston 1985, p. 328.

  23. As Figure 1 shows, since 1979 the US share has risen again. But this largely reflects a mere arithmetic effect of the revaluation of the dollar. Cf. U.S. Department of Commerce, op. cit., U.S. high technology trade and competitiveness, Washington, D.C., February 1985. p. 9.

  24. Cf. J. Mutti, P. Morici: Changing patterns of U.S. industrial activity and comparative advantage, Washington, D.C., 1983, p. 8.

  25. Cf. for example U.S. Department of Commerce: An assessment of U.S. competitiveness in high technology industries, Washington, D.C., February 1983, p. 25.

  26. Cf. for example E. Buffa: Making American manufacturing competitive, in: California Management Review, Vol. 26, No. 3, Spring 1984, pp. 29–49; and L. Thurow: Revitalizing American industry: Managing in a competitive world economy, in: California Management Review, Vol. 27, No. 1, Fall 1984, pp. 9–41.

  27. Cf. P. Stephens: When the Pentagon turns consumer, in: Financial Times, August 14th, 1986.

  28. For an official account of trade policy actions cf. Business America, Vol. 9, 1986, No. 19, pp. 2 ff.

  29. Cf. H.-H. Härtel et al.: Neue Industriepolitik oder Stärkung der Marktkräfte? Strukturpolitische Konzeptionen im internationalen Vergleich, Hamburg 1986.

  30. Cf. P. Krugman: The U.S. response to foreign industrial targeting, in: Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1/1984, p. 115.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. WWA-Institut for Wirtschaffstorschung, Hamburg

    Georg Koopmann

Authors
  1. Georg Koopmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Koopmann, G. US trade policy in an unbalanced world economy. Intereconomics 21, 300–308 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02925177

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02925177

Keywords

Search

Navigation