The International Economic Consequences of Mr. Trump

What has fundamentally changed with the Trump administration is not that it behaves more selfishly than its predecessors, but that it seems unconvinced that the global system serves US strategic interests. For the rest of the world, the key question is whether the global system is resilient enough to survive its creator’s withdrawal.

By: Date: January 31, 2018 Topic: Global Economics & Governance

This blog was originally published by Project Syndicate (c) 2018

This year’s World Economic Forum in Davos proved to be yet another opportunity for US President Donald Trump’s administration to display its customary verbal incontinence and send shockwaves through the global economy. This time, there were two sources.

The first shock came from US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who broke with more than two decades of strict discipline by suggesting that a weaker dollar would be in America’s interest. The second came from Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who seemed to rejoice at the prospect of waging and winning a trade war.

For once, it was Trump himself who restored calm by denying that the US was pursuing a beggar-thy-neighbor strategy. But he did so only after his cabinet secretaries’ statements had attracted sharp responses from international partners.

If Trump’s first year in power provides an indication of what is to come, there is little reason to look forward to more stable US economic leadership. A year after his inauguration, Davos provided a powerful reminder that he is far from being normalized.

To be fair, the Trump administration is certainly not the first to put “America first.” Owing to its inward-looking political system and the persistence of strong isolationist undercurrents, the US has been consistently more reluctant than European countries to enter into or to abide by international commitments. The 1948 rejection of the Havana Charter (an early attempt to create a global trade organization), congressional hostility to the Bretton Woods institutions, or the refusal by President George W. Bush to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on climate change are just a few examples.

Likewise, taking ruthless measures to defend US interests did not start with Trump. President Richard Nixon’s unilateral decision in 1971 to abandon the gold standard was a major blow to the international monetary system. The US Federal Reserve’s monetarist experiment in the late 1970s precipitated the Latin American debt crisis. Arm-twisting with Japan in the 1980s circumvented established trade rules. And in the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis, the Fed implemented quantitative easing despite protests that it was allowing the US to export deflation.

Yet there is something different this time. From the moment it inherited global leadership from the United Kingdom – symbolically with the signing of the Atlantic Charter in the summer of 1941 – until Trump was elected 75 years later, few could doubt that the US was the ultimate owner of the international economic regime. Depending on timing and political conditions, it could fudge the rules or help enforce them; it could behave more selfishly or more generously; and it could pursue narrow, short-term interests or broad, long-term goals. But whatever the US did, it remained the dominant shareholder of the global system. And the rest of the world knew that perfectly well.

There were strong geopolitical reasons for this stance. Until the Cold War’s end, the system of rules and organizations that formed the institutional infrastructure of international trade, investment, and finance was considered by the US establishment to be vital to the prosperity of the “free world” and the containment of Soviet influence. After the Soviet Union collapsed, the system served as a strategic means for integrating former communist countries into the international capitalist economy.

Eventually, in the early 2000s, the global economic system came to be regarded as providing the best platform to accommodate China’s rise. China was invited to join the club, with the implicit promise that after it had learned to play by the rules, it could contribute to amending them. It would have a chance to participate in steering the international system, and gradually gain in power and influence. China’s accession to the World Trade Organization in 2001 was an important milestone here.

What has fundamentally changed with the Trump administration is not that it behaves more selfishly than its predecessors. It is that it seems unconvinced that buttressing the global system serves US strategic interests. Critically, it seems unconvinced that integrating China into this system and offering it a place at the top table is the best way to accommodate its rising economic might.

For the rest of the world, the key question now is whether the global system is resilient enough to outlive its creator’s withdrawal.

Superficially, the international economic consequences of Trump seem remarkably benign. Concerns over currency wars have waned. The global economy has not descended into a protectionist spiral. Even the US withdrawal from the fragile Paris climate agreement has not resulted in its collapse. On the contrary, all other leaders – starting with China’s President Xi Jinping – have confirmed their commitment to it, and 174 countries have formally ratified it. Concerns in the security field look more serious, owing to disputes over the Iran nuclear agreement and uncertainty over the handling of North Korean missile launches.

But the view that the economy, at least, is on firm ground is dangerously misguided, as it assumes that global economic rules and institutions have created the equivalent of an economic and financial constitution. Indeed, the system remains too incomplete to self-regulate, and its functioning requires constant guidance and frequent discretionary initiatives. This is why informal groupings like the G7 and the G20 remain essential: they provide the necessary political impetus. But they, too, depend crucially on US backing and leadership.

For example, it was not the rules of the system that offered a response to the 2008 crisis; it was a series of ad hoc initiatives – a standstill on trade protectionism, coordinated bank rescues, a global stimulus, and the provision of dollar liquidity through swap lines, to name only the main ones – that owed much to the US. Absent its leadership and the initiatives of key players like the UK and France, the crisis would have been much worse.

True, the other major players – Europe, China, India, and Japan – may eventually be able to exercise global leadership. But, for the time being, they lack the will, the capacity, and the cohesion this would require. So the world should be under no illusion. To keep the boat on course after the pilot has left the wheel is one thing; to steer it in a storm is another matter. Let’s hope the next storm does not gather too soon.

Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint.

Due to copyright agreements we ask that you kindly email request to republish opinions that have appeared in print to [email protected].

Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Is the United States reneging on international financial standards?

The new Fed rule is a material breach of Basel III, a new development as the US had hitherto been the accord’s main champion. This action undermines the global order without being ostensibly justified by narrower considerations of US national interest.

By: Nicolas Véron Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Date: April 16, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author


Explaining the triumph of Trump’s economic recklessness

The Trump administration’s economic policy is a strange cocktail: one part populist trade protectionism and industrial interventionism; one part classic Republican tax cuts skewed to the rich and industry-friendly deregulation; and one part Keynesian fiscal and monetary stimulus. But it's the Keynesian part that delivers the kick.

By: Jean Pisani-Ferry Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: January 29, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author



Will Iran disrupt the global economy?

Last Friday, Qassem Soleimani, head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ QUDS force, was killed by an American airstrike outside Baghdad airport. The Ayatollah was not pleased and Tehran has promised to retaliate. At the time of recording, the world is still waiting to see how Iran might respond. Some of have speculated that they could disrupt the world’s oil markets by closing the Strait of Hormuz, which acts as a vital artery for around a third of the world’s liquefied natural gas and almost a quarter of the world’s oil. Today, oil prices surpassed $70 and if tension escalates the price is bound to grow. How dependent is the global economy on affordable Middle Eastern fossil fuel? This week, Nicholas Barrett is joined by Maria Demertzis and Niclas Poitiers to discuss how the US-Iran hostilities are affecting global economy.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: January 6, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author


Could the U.S. economy be experiencing a hidden tech-driven productivity revolution?

In the last decade, most advanced economies have grown more slowly than before. Slower growth has frequently been seen as a legacy of financial crises, especially that of 2007–2009.

By: Marek Dabrowski Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: January 6, 2020
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

The Great Reversal-Causes and implications of the rising corporate concentration in the US

During this event, Thomas Philippon presented his thesis on market concentration and explained the reasons behind the rising corporate market power in the US.

Speakers: Thomas Philippon, Georgios Petropoulos and Reinhilde Veugelers Topic: Global Economics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: December 11, 2019
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Implications of the Japan – United States Mini Trade Agreement

Details of the US-Japan mini-trade deal are lacking but the agreements’ direct impact on the US and Japanese economies is likely to be minuscule. The deal seems to have been made to compensate American farmers – a crucial electoral base of the President – for their losses from the trade war with China.

By: Sybrand Brekelmans and Uri Dadush Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: October 11, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author


Europe: en finir avec la politique en silos

Projetée dans un monde de rapport de force dont les principaux protagonistes ne séparent pas géopolitique et économie, l’UE va devoir conduire un changement de logiciel culturel, une mutation organisationnelle et un rééquipement opérationnel, explique l’économiste Jean Pisani-Ferry.

By: Jean Pisani-Ferry Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: October 8, 2019
Read article More on this topic


Trump's Backfiring Trade Policy

President Trump’s radical trade policy continues, as do trade disputes with China. The president promised to sign far better trade deals, ensure fair treatment of American firms and reduce the United States’ trade deficit. None of these objectives have been met.

By: Uri Dadush and Laurence Kotlikoff Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: September 17, 2019
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

Working Paper

EU trade policy amid the China-US clash: caught in the crossfire?

What risks face the EU with regard to China’s strategic aims in trade policy and how can the EU respond? The US effort to isolate China poses particular risks for Europe. How can the EU counter such efforts with the aim of forging its own distinct trade policy? How should the EU move forward with reform of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in light of differing demands and aims of trading blocs like China and the US?

By: Anabel González and Nicolas Véron Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: September 17, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author



Backstage at BAM19: Enhancing Europe's economic sovereignty

Backstage at the Bruegel Annual Meetings, Nicholas Barrett talks with Jean Pisani-Ferry on Europe's monetary union.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: September 5, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author



Backstage at BAM19: Europe's trade policy

Backstage at the Bruegel Annual Meetings, Giuseppe Porcaro talks with André Sapir on European trade policy.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: September 4, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author


Why Europe needs a change of mind-set to fend off the risks of recession

Recession! This is the new worry in Europe and the US. A simple look at google trends shows that in Germany, France and the US, search interest for recession peaked in the last weeks. In Italy, the peak already occurred end of January. Whether a recession is actually occurring is difficult to gauge in real time. But there can be no doubt that significant risks such as the trade war and no-deal Brexit exist.

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: September 2, 2019
Load more posts