Search results

Trade relations between China and the USA have been marked by conflict, especially since China’s membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO). These conflicts have been analyzed from a variety of perspectives, including the loss of jobs in the USA due to Chinese imports, competition in high technology sectors and the balance of trade. Conceptual frameworks have employed models of domestic differences as well as models of international power distribution. Among domestic differences examined are the existence of state-owned enterprises in China compared to the domination of the USA economy by private firms, the large role of the Communist Party in China and the influence of labor and environmental and labor groups in the USA. Power distribution theories focus on the systemic effects of the distribution of power on trade openness and on the pattern of intra-bloc versus between-bloc trade. This paper aims to examine the role of macroeconomic policy factors in China and the USA, in particular, the role of national patterns of savings, investment and consumption (both private and government). The paper concludes that insofar as the balance of trade is an important component of the trade conflict, domestic macroeconomic factors continue to be important. The resolution of the conflict will have to take into account the respective macroeconomic policies of China and the USA.

The design is an analytic case study of US–China trade relations with a particular focus on the balance of trade. The conceptual framework employed involves an analysis of macroeconomic policy categories, especially the overall pattern of savings (household, firm and government), investment and consumption. Process tracing over time since China's membership in the WTO is carried out with an eye toward the relationship between the balance of trade and macroeconomic policy.

The main findings are that there is a strong relation between the respective macroeconomic policies of the USA and China and their trade relations. The domestic political economy of the USA encourages consumption and a low rate of savings. The opposite is true of China where household income is low by design and national savings are high. China depends on the USA to consume what is not consumed domestically. The USA depends on Chinese imports for additional consumption encouraged by its low rate of savings. The two economies are locked in a mutual dependence.

Key research implications are that there should be more focus on domestic macroeconomic policies since these are the root causes of the trade imbalance. This is not to say that trade frictions centering on jobs, subsidies and competition in high technology are unimportant. However, without the resolution of differences in the management of macroeconomic policies, trade conflicts between the USA and China will continue.

Practical implications are huge, in some ways much more important than the academic implications. Macroeconomic policy differences in savings, investment, government spending, taxation and infrastructure are important. Furthermore, there are available tools in both China and the USA to manage the macroeconomy, particularly, monetary and fiscal policy.

One implication of this paper is that satisfaction or dissatisfaction of workers is dependent on income distribution which in turn affects trade. Treatment of people in different socioeconomic categories, such as the elderly, the young, and those at working age are a function of macroeconomic policies.

Many people have written about macroeconomics. It is a conventional subfield of economics. The originality of this paper lies in its advocacy of a shift of focus and attention and in the argument that traditional macroeconomics is related to trade. Despite its importance, macroeconomics has not been the center of attention for most political scientists, though economists have made it more central.

The dynamic effect of globalization on socio-economic disparity measured by the income inequality is always a noteworthy issue of research interests. Globalization is mostly appreciated from the aspect of economic growth, but it has been blamed for influencing the imperfect competition, environmental degradation, economic inequality, etc. Under this backdrop, this chapter seeks to examine the impacts of international trade and informational globalization on income inequality in both developing and developed groups of nations of the world using dynamic panel Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) estimates. The results of first difference dynamic panel GMM estimates imply the analogous impacts of trade and informational globalization on income inequality in both developing and developed groups of nations. However, the financial and political measures of globalization have dissimilar effects on income inequality across developing and developed economies.

The present study aims to investigate the non-linear relationship between trade and income inequality to address goal 10 of sustainable development goals (SDGs) using the Kuznets Curve (KC) framework for major emerging countries during 1991–2020.

For this purpose, recent econometric techniques, such as Common Correlated Effect (CCE) and Dynamic Common Correlated Effect (DCCE) estimators have been employed to deal with the cross-section dependence (CD) that arises in panel data, while the robustness of the study is checked through Driscoll–Kraay standard errors method.

The empirical results of the study confirm the existence of inverted “U-shaped” relationship between trade and income inequality suggesting evidence for the trade-led KC in the panel of emerging countries. Along with the non-linear model, the threshold value is estimated to be between 3.5 and 4% of gross domestic product (GDP).

The authors' findings support that trade contributes significantly toward reducing income inequality and helps in achieving goal 10 of SDGs. Hence, trade policies appear to be more egalitarian. The results widen the scope for further research and provide insights for regulators and policymakers in modeling trade policies and changing the status quo trade policy framework accordingly.

The present study is a pioneering attempt to examine the non-linear relationship between trade and income inequality under the KC framework in light of the Agenda 2030 for sustainable development. The study also considers other explanatory factors that have an impact on income inequality. Furthermore, the study considers other explanatory factors that have an impact on income inequality, and the attempt to estimate the threshold value for the trade-led KC is novel and interesting.

Existence of working poverty reduces the effectiveness of the strategy of “increasing employment to reduce poverty”. Developed countries are already concerned about it but insufficient attention has been made by developing countries. Focusing on developing countries this study identifies (1) the effects of trade openness (TO) on working poverty and (2) whether the working poverty trap exists or not in developing countries. Both objectives are also analyzed for three subsamples of low income, lower-middle income and upper-middle income developing countries.

Panel data for 98 developing countries over the period of 2000–2016 have been collected for the study. Fixed effect and GMM methods are applied for static and dynamic analysis, respectively.

The study finds that TO significantly reduces working poverty rate (WPR) (mainly driven up by upper-middle income developing countries). The positive association between WPR with its previous year's rate proves the existence of working poverty trap.

The study's outcome is subject to selected time, countries and methods. Future research should use more improve methods and should identify the channels through which TO could affect working poverty.

Middle income and upper-middle income developing countries should increase TO to reduce the working poverty. Low income developing countries that have the highest working poverty should search the way to derive beneficial effects of trade on working poverty.

Working poverty is not only a developed country issue rather it is a global phenomenon. Hence, it is expected that the study will raise the social consciousness about this phenomenon in developing countries too.

The study fulfills the gaps of identifying the effects of TO on working poverty and existence of in-work poverty trap in developing countries.

The study evaluates the effects of GVC participation on firm productivity and profitability. Hence this study aims to find evidence whether there is a clear difference between the productivity and profitability effects of simple and complex backward and forward participations for Turkish firms.

The authors employ a firm level data from the Türkiye's both first and second top 500 industrial enterprises from 1993 to 2019. In addition, the authors calculate country-sector level both backward and forward GVC participation indices with their simple and complex sub-indices for each year from 1990 to 2015 from the Full Eora data of the Eora Global Supply Chain Database. The authors estimate the model with OLS and fixed effects. To understand the role of the 2008 global crisis, the authors also undertake estimations for the pre-crisis and post-crisis. The authors also divide the data by R&D intensity of sectors.

While backward GVC participation lowers both labor productivity and profitability growth, forward GVC participation promotes both. Moreover, simple and complex backward participation have similarly negative effects on productivity and profitability growth, simple and complex forward participation have the completely opposite effects though. The authors then provide substantial evidence for the differing effects of participation on productivity and profitability growth between pre-crisis and post-crisis periods. Interestingly, backward participation has a negative impact for both hi-tech and low-tech firms while forward participation boosts the productivity growth only for low-tech firms, probably due to the relatively more upstream position of low-tech firms.

To the best of the knowledge, no previous study has yet examined the profitability effects of GVC for firms. Second, in addition to overall backward and forward GVC participation rates, the authors also calculate and utilize simple and complex GVC measures in the estimations. Third, to reveal whether the global financial crisis leads to a shift in the productivity and profitability effects of GVCs, the authors separately run the regressions for the pre- and post-crisis periods. Fourth, the authors then investigate the argument that hi-tech sectors/firms could benefit more from joining GVCs compared to firms in low-tech technology sectors.