The news item on the present state of the global political economy that I have decided to write about concerns the ongoing trade conflict featuring China and the United States. The US authorities imposed their tariffs upon more than $360 billion worth of imports coming from China, in response to which China has struck back with its own set of tariff measures against American goods (Choucri, 2019). At issue here are perceived economic disparities between both countries where America asserts that unfair trading practices – such as artificial currency control, pilfering of intellectual property rights, and forced technology transfers are being used by Chinese incumbents, thereby providing them with an ill-begotten advantage over other nations.
From the point of view of Neo-mercantilism, the imposition by America on Chinese imports would be regarded as tolerable (Yu, 2019). The reasoning behind this assertion lies in their belief that China’s unjust trade practices, which include intellectual property thefts, subsidizing state-owned enterprises, and currency manipulation, have provoked an appropriate response from America through tariffs (Goldthau & Keating, 2018). These taxes are intended to safeguard American businesses against detrimental repercussions due to China’s economic policies while maintaining competitiveness in worldwide markets.
Also noteworthy is how neo-mercantilists may object to retaliatory measures taken by China since they opine that the US should not cater for costs accrued under Chinese economic directives (De Graaff et al., 2020). While opinions among them differ regarding the efficacy of tariff regimes, some suggest strengthening punitive duties. Hence, as increase their impact or impose countervailing levies targeting Chinese companies found wanting concerning unfair trading activities (Mueller & Farhat, 2022). Furthermore, others propose the possible adoption of other tactics like limiting access to American markets or slapping sanctions onto individual Chinese firms until a change happens within policy decisions executed by Beijing. Thereby demonstrating clearly that implementation of Tariffs serves us – interests with competitive advantage heightened when across global market scenes.
In Neo-mercantilism, opinions may vary regarding a preferable method to reduce the trade deficit between China and the US. While some proponents of Neo-mercantilism might suggest tariffs serve as an adequate solution to diminish this equity gap, others would propose that negotiations with free-trade agreements exist as superior alternatives (Mueller & Farhat, 2022). Tariffs could function successfully by safeguarding domestic industries while increasing control for the state over the economy. In contrast, it is plausible that negotiation tactics partnered with welcoming levels of commerce are consequential methods towards leveling out disparities existing within mutually beneficial trading relationships between these two nations.
Although adopting tariff strategies can be seen as being expeditious both efficiently short-term solutions capable reducing deficits substantially; however implementing such policies ultimately display limitations when juxtaposed against contractual accord formed via commitment cemented from immersion into congenial co-dependence under one common goal: promoting economic stability through enhanced cooperation bringing enormous future rewards seemingly unattainable before resorting back solely on imposing crippling fees and costs – hence displaying ambiguity around likely outcome regarding which strategy will prove most triumphant amongst differing schools-of-thoughts (De Graaff et al., 2020) surrounding Neo-Mercantalistic ideology upon confronting pressing issues at hand encompassed within tacking sources leading toward rectifying prevailing fiscal imbalances shared amid USA & China bilateral exchange fronts – despite all parties acknowledges possibilities exist honoring every viable option available presenting itself (Mueller & Farhat, 2022).
Benefiting conclusion produced although underlying assumptions backing up varying insights makes them appear far-reaching achievable goals yet not impossible transitioning current status quo thinking to usher us deeper into intertwined reality determining our collective future growth momentum hinges heavily on how well we prioritize navigating complex web woven tightly among multiple stake-holders intrinsic collaboration combined vision paired keen instinctual leadership prowess resonating beyond boardroom echelons affecting vastly broader shades human existence across time-space continuum valuable weighing-in carefully each side debating tenets underlying (Linsi & Mügge, 2019) Neomercatist paradigm forming backdrop alongside hosting different forms coherent arguments put forth needing addressing ahead solve situation presently.
The US’s imposition of duties and counteractive actions on Chinese imports has garnered a polarizing response. There exists an amalgamation of opinions towards this development. Its opponents argue that the move only exacerbates trade tensions between the two countries further, while supporters of Neo-mercantilism endorse it (Linsi & Mügge, 2019). This is because the tariffs affect imports from China and other countries, potentially disrupting the global trade system. Some experts have debated the impact of these tariffs on the US economy, suggesting that the higher costs resulting from them may outweigh any economic benefits they may bring (Mukand & Rodrik, 2020). Some neo-mercantilists have proposed negotiation and free trade agreements as alternatives to tariffs. Reducing the trade deficit, such agreements could benefit both countries.
Both sides will undoubtedly keep debating Neo-mercantilism. Tariffs may cut the US-China trade deficit, but diplomatic solutions may work better. Negotiations and free trade agreements could help both countries develop. Tariffs and other retaliatory measures may address unjust trade practices but may hurt the global economy (Mueller & Farhat, 2022). Such policies can disrupt cross-border trade, which can hurt the global economy. Thus, all options should be considered before deciding how to handle the US-China trade gap. Neo-mercantilism will be debated for some time, with both sides arguing for and against different approaches to uneven trading practices. However, reducing the US-China trade deficit requires thoroughly examining all options. To gain from enhanced trade relations, both countries require a balanced approach that considers their economic and political interests.
It seems that Liberal individuals have a particular way of perceiving and approaching America’s decision to impose tariffs on China. Rather than considering this move as simply an act of safeguarding their economy against trade inequities, Liberals believe such actions may lead to detrimental consequences for global economies (Mukand & Rodrik, 2020). Instead, they would prefer negotiable talk between parties instead of implementing protective measures like imposing more taxes or, even worse, leading towards impending possible wars due to escalations in conflict situations caused by these moves, which is unacceptable from their standpoint or a desirable option according to them (Mukand & Rodrik, 2020). Some supporters among liberal circles could suggest adopting a unilateral negotiation approach, while others might argue inclusiveness through multilateral negotiations amongst other nations.
However, any retaliatory tariff imposed unilaterally upon the US by China will be regarded as counterproductive since further exacerbating hostilities can trigger endless escalation scenarios hurting all involved economically, especially those countries vulnerable within this context (Bhambra & Holmwood, 2018). Ultimately what liberals hope for most is diplomacy-based resolution rather than disrupting economic stability (as well as promoting fairness) via policies beneficial both ways without escalating conflicts unnecessarily generating risks perceived unacceptable compared with potential outcomes embracing mutually rewarding compromises satisfied enough regarding everyone’s needs, thus reducing inequalities above across borders where necessary though fair market practices contributing positive results globally speaking (Bhambra & Holmwood, 2018).
Disagreement about reducing the US trade deficit with China is also present within liberalism. For some Liberals, tariffs may not be an apt solution for curtailing this problem and could unavoidably result in unconstructive spillover effects on global commerce and economic development. Conversely, there exists a faction that claims free-trade agreements coupled with negotiations provide more viable prospects for achieving this objective.
In addition, liberals are also concerned about the potential consequences of the tariffs on American citizens. As a potential outcome, the possibility of augmented expenses for American customers who procure Chinese imported commodities is not to be dismissed. As well as this, businesses could experience significant setbacks caused by China imposing retaliatory tariffs upon them (Ozawa, 2019). Furthermore, the tariffs may result in unemployment since industries could be unable to rival other corporations globally due to amplified business expenditures. Moreover, those who hold liberal beliefs are unsettled about the probable repercussions that may transpire about the international financial system.
Additionally, there is a sense of apprehension encompassing this matter as it pertains to economic stability on a worldwide scale. Instead of rectifying lopsided trade ratios, the tariffs may catalyze augmented economic turbulence. Imposing tariffs on certain goods may interrupt the interconnected network that underpins global trade, thereby creating a potential for suppressed inflationary tendencies within select emerging economies. Such a scenario’s potential ramifications could manifest as an economic stasis, amplifying preexisting worldwide fiscal troubles.
Furthermore, the tariffs may result in unemployment since industries could be unable to rival other corporations globally as a consequence of amplified business expenditures. Moreover, those who hold liberal beliefs are unsettled about the probable repercussions that may transpire about the international financial system. Additionally, there is a sense of apprehension encompassing this matter as it pertains to economic stability on a worldwide scale. Instead of rectifying lopsided trade ratios, the tariffs may catalyze augmented economic turbulence (Linsi & Mügge, 2019). The imposition of tariffs on certain goods may trigger an interruption in the interconnected network that underpins global trade, thereby creating a potential for suppressed inflationary tendencies within select emerging economies. Such a scenario’s potential ramifications could manifest as an economic stasis, amplifying preexisting worldwide fiscal troubles.
Furthermore, liberals are concerned about the environmental impact of tariffs. There is a growing concern among policymakers that nations will resort to tariffs to constrain imports of products manufactured in ways that are deleterious to the environment (Milanovic, 2020). The possibility of a tariff imposition has enticed apprehension. The chief concern is that it may trigger an environmental race to the bottom, where nations compete by lowering their respective standards to obtain any possible edge over rivals.
Finally, liberals worry that tariffs could be used as a tool for foreign policy. It is their apprehension that the United States may employ tariffs as a tool to coerce other nations into submission with regard to its policies (Rodrik, 2018). Some are concerned that the United States government could employ tariffs as leverage to compel other countries into accepting policies of dubious merit. A scenario where global cooperation is jeopardized could result in the deterioration of international relations over a sustained period.
In conclusion, adopting a Neo-mercantilist standpoint would support actions taken by the US administration regarding trade relations with China. On the other hand, adherents of liberalism are likely to be unconvinced and could strongly oppose such measures. In particular, proponents of Neo-mercantilism contend that America’s reaction is warranted in light of China’s inequitable business practices (De Graaff et al., 2020). At the same time, advocates for liberalism believe discussions between both nations should occur instead towards resolving this issue at hand. Although there may exist some variance among each school of thought on certain aspects relating thereof said matter – it remains clear overall; a Neo-mercantilist perspective would favorably look upon these recent developments, whereas an opposing opinion within liberal frameworks seems forthcoming.
References
Begović, B. (2020). Capitalism, Alone: The Future of the System That Rules the World by Branko Milanović. Panoeconomicus, 67(1), 127-137.
Bhambra, G. K., & Holmwood, J. (2018). Colonialism, postcolonialism, and the liberal welfare state. New Political Economy, 23(5), 574-587.
Choucri, N. (2019). International political economy: a theoretical perspective. Change in the international system, 103-129.
De Graaff, N., Ten Brink, T., & Parmar, I. (2020). China’s rise in a liberal world order in transition–introduction to the FORUM. Review of International Political Economy, 27(2), 191-207.
Goldthau, A., & Keating, M. F. (Eds.). (2018). Handbook of the international political economy of energy and natural resources. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Helleiner, E. (2019). Varieties of American neomercantilism: From the first years of the Republic to Trumpian economic nationalism. European Review of International Studies, 6(3), 7-29.
Linsi, L., & Mügge, D. K. (2019). Globalization and the growing defects of international economic statistics. Review of international political economy, 26(3), 361-383.
Milanovic, B. (2020). The clash of capitalisms: The real fight for the global economy’s future. Foreign Aff., 99, 10.
Mueller, M. L., & Farhat, K. (2022). Regulation of platform market access by the United States and China: Neo‐mercantilism in digital services. Policy & Internet, 14(2), 348-367.
Mukand, S. W., & Rodrik, D. (2020). The political economy of liberal democracy. The Economic Journal, 130(627), 765-792.
Ozawa, T. (2019). A note on Dani Rodrik,”Populism and the economics of globalization.” Journal of International Business Policy, 2, 182-193.
Rodrik, D. (2018). Populism and the economics of globalization. Journal of international business policy, 1, 12-33.
Yu, F. L. T. (2019). Neo-mercantilist policy and China’s rise as a global power. Contemporary Issues in International Political Economy, 175-196.
write