One of the criticisms of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is that it’s “not about trade.” While it is true that the TPP goes beyond trade, and addresses issues such as labor, environment and intellectual property protection (in ways that I’m not always happy about), its impact on traditional protectionist measures such as tariffs should not be ignored. Here is Politico on this issue:
Vietnam slaps tariffs of 70 percent on U.S. cars and machinery, 35 percent on U.S. chemicals, 30 percent on U.S. biscuits and baked goods, and 25 percent on U.S. recording equipment. Japan marks up our oranges 16 percent from June through November and 32 percent from December through May; it marks up our beef exports 38.5 percent all year long. Cars made in America face a 30 percent tariff in Malaysia, which might not seem stiff compared to 50 percent on motorcycles or 35 percent on plywood, except that cars made in Japan and other Asian nations don’t face any tariff in Malaysia.
These burdensome overseas tariffs, provided to POLITICO by US Trade Representative Michael Froman, are the kind of problems President Obama hopes to address with the free trade deal known as the Trans‐Pacific Partnership, which has not yet been finalized but has recently erupted into one of the most contentious topics on Washington’s agenda.
Overall, the U.S. imposes an average tariff of 1.4 percent on foreign goods, less than half the average for the rest of the nations Froman is negotiating with, barely a fourth the average in Vietnam and Malaysia. And it can get much worse for specific industries and products. TPP nations have tariffs ranging up to 100 percent on textiles, 87 percent on corn, and 75 percent on consumer goods, not to mention selected Japanese tariffs that amount to 189 percent on U.S. shoes and a don’t-even-think-about-it 778 percent on U.S. rice above a certain annual quota.
Even our friendly trading partner to the north has some brutal anti‐American protectionism on its books. The North American Free Trade Agreement of 1994 broke down a slew of barriers between the U.S. and Canada, but it exempted the poultry and dairy industries, which is why U.S. eggs face tariffs of up to 163.5 percent—and not less than 79.9 cents per dozen—in the land of ice hockey and eh. U.S. yogurt, milk, cheese, and frozen chicken all face tariffs between 237.5 percent and 249 percent in Canada.
Of course, when you talk to a U.S. government official, the focus will be on the protectionism of others, and U.S. protectionism will be ignored. In reality, the U.S. is not all that great either. Among other things, we have some “tariff peaks” of our own, we abuse anti‐dumping duties, and there is lots of protectionism in government procurement (e.g., Buy America laws). But the overall point is still valid: There is plenty of protectionism for trade agreements to take on. The key, from my perspective, is how much of it the TPP actually gets rid of. For that, we need to wait for the TPP to be completed, and see what the negotiators have accomplished. Then, whatever has been achieved in this regard needs to be balanced against the other parts of the TPP.