Friday, 16 March 2018

The Conversation/Amitrajeet A. Batabyal and Arthur J. Gosnel: What is a tarrif? An economist explains

The Conversation

Edition:

Available editions
Africa

    Job Board

    Become an author
    Sign up as a reader
    Sign in

The Conversation
Academic rigour, journalistic flair

    Arts + Culture
    Business + Economy
    Education
    Environment + Energy
    Health + Medicine
    Politics + Society
    Science + Technology
    In French

What is a tarrif? An economist explains
March 15, 2018 12.42pm SAST
Foreign goods wait to be unloaded at the Port of Los Angeles. AP Photo/Nick Ut
Author

    Amitrajeet A. Batabyal

    Arthur J. Gosnell Professor of Economics, Rochester Institute of Technology

Disclosure statement

Amitrajeet A. Batabyal has received research funding in the past from the United States Department of Agriculture, the Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, the Utah Agricultural Experiment Station, the Regional Studies Association, and the Charles Koch Foundation
Partners

Rochester Institute of Technology

Rochester Institute of Technology provides funding as a member of The Conversation US.

The Conversation is funded by Barclays Africa and seven universities, including the Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Rhodes University and the Universities of Cape Town, Johannesburg, Kwa-Zulu Natal, Pretoria, and South Africa. It is hosted by the Universities of the Witwatersrand and Western Cape, the African Population and Health Research Centre and the Nigerian Academy of Science. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a Strategic Partner. more
Republish this article

Republish
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under Creative Commons licence.

    Email
    Twitter6
    Facebook28
    LinkedIn
    Print

President Donald Trump recently slapped tariffs of 25 percent on imported steel and 10 percent on foreign aluminum, prompting significant concern and discussion about the wisdom of this action.

As an economist who shares some of those concerns, I believe it’s important to first understand what a tariff actually is and does before we can determine whether Trump’s new trade barriers are good or bad.
Two kinds of tariffs

A tariff, simply put, is a tax levied on an imported good.

There are two types. A “unit” or specific tariff is a tax levied as a fixed charge for each unit of a good that is imported – for instance $300 per ton of imported steel. An “ad valorem” tariff is levied as a proportion of the value of imported goods. An example is a 20 percent tariff on imported automobiles. Both tariffs act in similar ways.

Tariffs are one of the oldest trade policy instruments, with their use dating back to at least the 18th century. Historically, the main objective of a tariff was to raise revenue. In fact, before ratifying the 16th Amendment in 1913 and formally creating the income tax, the U.S. government raised most of its revenue from tariffs.

Even so, the main purpose of a tariff these days tends to be about protecting particular domestic industries from foreign competition, alongside raising revenue.
Men work with cocoa beans in Enchi, Ghana, the world’s top exporter of the commodity. Reuters/Thierry Gouegnon
Examining a tariff’s impact

The impact of a tariff depends on whether the levying country is large or small – not in terms of size but the potency of its trade and ability to influence world prices.

Ghana, for example, roughly the size of Minnesota with a population similar to Texas, is the world’s top exporter of cocoa. The Netherlands, meanwhile, slightly smaller than New Jersey, is the commodity’s biggest importer. As such, both countries’ trade policies can have a significant impact on the price of cocoa on global markets.

So if the Netherlands were to levy a tariff on imports of Ghanaian cocoa to protect a nascent – and currently imaginary – industry of small Dutch cocoa bean growers, there would generally be three effects.

First, the price of the import good, cocoa, would rise, making it more costly for domestic consumers of the product. This would be bad news for Dutch chocolatiers – the Netherlands is the world’s biggest exporter of cocoa butter – and citizens – who eat a lot of chocolate. But it’d be good news for companies in the domestic import-competing industry – the experimental Dutch farmers growing cocoa plants in a greenhouse – because the good they produce is now cheaper than the import, and so the cocoa butter makers would buy more of the local variety.

Second, because the tariff-levying country is large, it drives down the export price of the good in question. So the pre-tariff price at which Ghana can export cocoa to the Netherlands declines, Ghanaian growers and producers make less money, and the country’s economy is hurt. Economists call this a “terms of trade gain” for the country imposing the tariff. Such a tariff ensures that the price of cocoa in the Netherlands does not rise by the entire amount of the tariff.

Finally, the overall volume of trade in the product between the countries involved decreases because the demand for and supply of the good falls.

If the tariff-levying country is small, however, there are only two effects: The good’s price will go up – domestic consumers will pay more, while producers will sell more – and the country’s trade of the product will decline. The action will have no impact on global prices.
Benefits and costs

For a “large” country, the benefits of a tariff are mixed.

Consumers, whether businesses like Dutch cocoa butter makers or individuals who enjoy a tasty bar of dark chocolate, face higher prices and hence are the losers. The industry being protected, however, benefits by becoming more competitive and selling more of its wares. In addition, the government will gain a new source of revenue.

The net effect boils down to whether any gains in the terms of trade are greater than the resulting “efficiency loss” – that is, how much the tariff artificially distorts consumption and production decisions in negative ways.

If the magnitude of the terms of trade gain is larger than that of the efficiency loss, then the country benefits from the tariff. If not, then it loses.

For a small country with no market impact, the terms of trade gain is zero, hence a tariff unambiguously makes it worse off.
Political economy of tariffs

The fact that a large country can, in some cases, be better off with a tariff has led some to suggest that such nations ought to, when necessary, levy “optimal tariffs” against their trade partners.

An optimal tariff maximizes the difference between the terms of trade gain and the efficiency loss and hence is essentially a “beggar-thy-neighbor” trade policy.

In other words, the problem with such strategic tariffs is that in addition to frequently being illegal, they are not implemented in a vacuum. Aggrieved trade partners are likely to respond with appropriate tariffs or other trade policy instruments of their own.

These kind of sequential “tit-for-tat” actions can easily degenerate into a trade war. This is in part why trade economists are typically against restricted trade and for free trade.

    Trade
    Explainer
    Free trade
    Tariffs
    Trade War
    steel tariffs

    Tweet
    Share
    Get newsletter

You might also like
What is March Madness – and the nonprofit that manages the mayhem?
Rise in protest votes sounds warning bell for major parties
Why Canada shouldn’t always count on special treatment from the U.S.
Australia can’t afford to forget smaller businesses when negotiating trade deals
Sign in to comment
7 Comments
Oldest Newest

    William Passas

    When the U.S. Balance of trade with another country has a large deficit, we are buying more from them than they are buying from us. There results in a net revenue increase per person of that country. If the balance of payments was looked at in relation to population, if China bought $1,147 more in goods per person from the US we would be even. If we bought $ 1,147 less per person from China, we would be even. China could reduce their prices or buy more from the US.China - $636 billion traded with a $375 billion deficit.Population   1,389,660,000Canada -   $582 billion traded with a   $18 billion deficit.Population       37,040,000Mexico -   $557 billion traded with a   $71 billion deficit.Population     123,982,528Japan -      $204 billion traded with a   $69 billion deficit.Population     126,560,000Germany - $171 billion traded with a $65 billion deficit.Population       82,576,900United States
    Population     326,757,000

    NET REVENUE PER PERSONChina makes   $270 per person, each of us is paying $1,147Canada losses $486 per person, each of us is paying $ .11Mexico makes  $573 per person, each of us is paying $ 217Japan makes   $545 per person, each of us is paying $ 211Germany makes $$79 per person, each of us is paying $ 199Tariffs alone are not the whole story. Exchange Rates, lowering imported Product Pricing, Raising Exported Product Pricing, Resourcing supply to other partners need to be considered.  Fair Trade does not necessarily mean equal trade. Trade with Canada looks fair when you consider population.
    Read more
    16 hours ago
    Report
        William Passas

        In reply to William Passas

        Tariff considerations seem to leave out the number of people (size?) in a country and the other issues. Trade policy on a bi-lateral basis is preferable. Trade imbalance with Germany is a problem because they claim that trade agreements must be negotiated with the EU. The prices and sourcing of purchases is set by Germany, not the EU. Exchange rates with the Euro impact all EU countries, not just Germany. The structure of the EU is already showing signs of instability.
        16 hours ago
        Report

Show all comments
Most popular on The Conversation

    Survey shows Zuma and ANC’s mutual dance to the bottom
    What ‘blackface’ tells us about China’s patronising attitude towards Africa
    South Africa’s land debate is clouded by misrepresentation and lack of data
    African universities are ignoring a rich, invaluable resource: their alumni
    How Kinshasa’s markets are captured by powerful private interests

    What led to world’s worst listeriosis outbreak in South Africa
    Six challenges that impede entrepreneurs with disabilities in South Africa
    Why China’s removal of term limits is a gift to African despots
    Three major mistakes Tiger Brands made in response to the listeriosis crisis
    Black people beware: don’t let Black Panther joy mask Hollywood’s racism

Expert Database

    Find experts with knowledge in:*

Want to write?

Write an article and join a growing community of more than 64,200 academics and researchers from 2,278 institutions.

Register now
The Conversation
Community

    Community standards
    Republishing guidelines
    Research and Expert Database
    Analytics
    Job Board
    Our feeds

Company

    Who we are
    Our charter
    Our team
    Partners and funders
    Contributing institutions
    Resource for media
    Contact us

Stay informed and subscribe to our free daily newsletter and get the latest analysis and commentary directly in your inbox.
Email address
Follow us on social media

Privacy policy Terms and conditions Corrections

Copyright © 2010–2018, The Conversation Africa, Inc.

No comments: