Discussions are now underway as to whether EU antitrust policies need to be relaxed in order to allow greater latitude to meet the challenge posed by Chinese mega-firms.
China went from a net importer of critical intermediary goods such as glass, paper, steel, and auto parts, to becoming the leading producer and dominant global exporter of these products. How could this seismic shift occur in industries where China does not maintain a particular advantage in labor, technology, or natural resources? The answer in large part is subsidization of Chinese production in the form of state-directed capital flows.
Government subsidies to fishing industries may be accelerating the depletion of fish stocks. Nearly 90 percent of the world’s fish stocks are at risk of being overfished. WTO members first started negotiating on fisheries subsidies in 2001 and have vowed to reach an agreement restraining these kinds of subsidies by the end of 2019.
After a decade of setting the topic aside in the WTO, concerns appear to be rising to surface again that certain anti-competitive government practices may not be covered sufficiently – or at all – by provisions in global trade agreements.
Domestic competition policies aim to promote equitable opportunities to compete in the marketplace. They are oriented toward fostering the most efficient use of resources and increasing the incentives to innovate, both of which result in lower prices, better quality, and more choice for consumers. But domestic competition policies have limitations when it comes to cross-border transactions.For over two decades in international forums, governments have discussed whether and how to develop common approaches to national competition policies.
Jayme Smaldone noticed that knockoffs of his Mighty Mug were selling on e-Bay for very cheap and included free shipping. But for his company, the cost was about $6.30 to ship the same (original) mug from their New Jersey warehouse to a U.S. location, even one across the street. How could that be?
In its June 2018 report, the White House creates a taxonomy of ways the Chinese government acquires American technologies and intellectual property to aggrandize Chinese productive capabilities, stand on the shoulders of American innovation, siphon information from open and proprietary sources, and enlist Chinese nationals to accrue knowledge through research arms of universities and companies in the United States.
President Trump just announced $50 billion worth of tariffs and other penalties on China for its theft of intellectual property, technology, and trade secrets. China will not change its behavior absent external pressure — pushing back against the constant drain from Chinese IP theft is long overdue.
The problem steels tariffs are supposed to address isn’t receiving much attention — a number of countries are undeniably engaging in unfair and even predatory trade practices in the steel and aluminum sectors which are damaging to their trade partners.