Trade Blocs and Trade Wars During the Interwar Period

Jacks, David S.; Novy, Dennis

doi:10.2139/ssrn.3422247

Cited by 1 publication

(5 citation statements)

References 7 publications

(11 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The trade wars of the 1930s have recently attracted attention among policy makers with the recent souring of relations between China and the USA. David Jacks and Dennis Novy () examine: the differences and similarities between recent changes in commercial policy and the experience of the world economy during and after the Great Depression; the causes and consequences of the trade wars in the 1930s; and the lessons that can be drawn from the 1930s for today.…”

Section: Summary Of Papers and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…He also saw a danger in suggesting that the trade wars led to World War II, when it was really World War I that was the cause. Jacks also acknowledged that there was a missing element related to currency wars that had been sidestepped in Jacks and Novy (), but suggested that from today's perspectives the nominal exchange rates of the 1930s were remarkably stable. Despite what is found in Jacks and Novy (), Novy emphasized that contrary to Cairncross' () death of distance theory, distance has not died, but if anything has happened the importance of distance has increased over time.…”

Section: Summary Of Papers and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hoekman () argues that open plurilateral agreements (OPAs) offer a means to revitalize the WTO. Jacks and Novy () focus on the trade wars in the interwar period and Urata () examines trade frictions between Japan and the USA with the intention to drawing out similarities/differences between the historical episodes and today as well as indicating the lessons that might be learnt from the historical episodes. Urata () examines what hints the trade disputes between Japan and the USA and their solutions might have for solving the disputes between China and the USA.…”

Section: Trade Warsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The China-US trade war is not the first trade war the world has experienced as a quick historical check will turn up several other instances, for example, the trade war between England and Holland on the one side and France and Spain on the other in the early 18th century (see Clark, 1928), and the trade wars of the 1930 (see Jacks & Novy, 2020).…”

Section: Trade Warsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As Jacks and Novy () indicate, a trade war may involve more than one country on both sides of the war. In contrast to a trade war, a “trade spat” is much narrower in definition than a trade war being a tit‐for‐tat retaliation involving industrial and tradeable service products between two or more countries.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Trade Wars: Editors' Overview

Ito

Iwata

McKenzie

et al. 2020

Asian Economic Policy Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

March 22, 2018 Pursuant to section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, President Trump issues a Memorandum to the United States Trade Representative (USTR) directing (a) the USTR to take appropriate action under section 301 "to address the acts, policies, and practices of China that are unreasonable or discriminatory and that burden or restrict U.S. commerce"; (b) the USTR to "pursue dispute settlement in the WTO to address China's discriminatory licensing practices"; and (c) the Secretary of the Treasury to propose executive action "to address concerns about investment in the United States directed or facilitated by China in industries or technologies deemed important to the United States". March 23, 2018 WTO receives a request (DS542) from the USA for consultations with China regarding certain measures concerning the protection of intellectual property rights. April 3, 2018 Pursuant to section 301 and the 22 March Memorandum from the President, the USTR proposes that an additional duty of 25% be imposed on a list of products of Chinese origin with a total value estimated to be about $US50 billion. The products listed include aircraft parts, batteries, flat-panel televisions, medical devices, and satellites. The Chinese Customs Tariff Commission of the State Council decides to impose additional tariffs of 15% (including fruit, nuts, and steel piping) or 25% (including aluminum, airplanes, cars, pork, and soybeans) on 128 items of products imported from the USA since April 2, 2018. April 4, 2018 WTO receives a request from China for consultations with the USA regarding tariff measures on certain goods from China (DS543). Trump tweets that "We are not in a trade war with China, that war was lost many years ago by the foolish, or incompetent, people who represented the U.S." April 6, 2018 USTR announces a list of goods imported from China that will be subject to an additional tariff of 25%. The value of the list is estimated to be $50 billion. This list later becomes US' Lists 1 and 2. May 19, 2018 Joint statement by China and the United States states that "to substantially reduce the United States trade deficit in goods with China…China will significantly increase purchases of United States goods and services." June 20, 2018 USTR announces a list of goods (US' "List 1", total value $34 billion) that will be subject to additional tariffs of 25% effective on July 6, 2018. USTR announces a list of goods (US' "List 2", total value $16 billion) that will be subject to additional tariffs of 25%. July 1, 2018 China announces additional tariffs of 25% will be imposed on China's List 1 goods. July 6, 2018 Additional tariffs of 25% come into effect for US List 1 goods (value $34 billion). August 3, 2018 China announces that additional tariffs ranging from 5% to 25% will be imposed on China's List 2 goods (value $16 billion). August 7, 2018 China announces additional tariffs of 25% will be imposed on China's List 2 goods effective August 23, 2018. August 14, 2018 WTO receives a request from China for consultations with the USA reg...

show abstract

Section: Summary Of Papers and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Summary Of Papers and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%