Opinion

What Are the Targets in the US–China Trade War?

Following the US announcement of new, high tariffs on imports, China is answering the Trump administration by applying its own series of tariffs. In this article, the author identifies the list of products that each country will be targeting, going beyond purely trade issues as each attempts to weaken the other.

By: Date: April 10, 2018 Topic: Global Economics & Governance

This opinion piece has been published in Brink

The U.S.–China trade war is escalating faster than expected, but the real question is: What are the ultimate targets for the two countries? To answer this question, we analyzed the 1,333 products covered by the U.S.’s latest action against China’s breach of intellectual property rights and classified them based on two criteria: the technological content and the weight in China’s total exports to the U.S. We then applied the same methodology to China’s second round of export tariffs announced this week and compared the two.

We found that the U.S. tariff package appears to be much smaller than the estimate produced by the U.S. administration of $60 billion, based on our bottom-up estimation of the export value of the 1,333 products (Chart 1). However, 84 percent of the total value of the products are high-end exports, while the low-end ones only constitute 3 percent of total value (see Chart 2).

As for China’s list of targeted imports from the U.S. (106 in total), our estimated value is almost the same as the one announced by the Chinese government ($50 billion). However, 50 percent of the products on China’s list are at the lower end of the value chain.

Automotive Industry the Most Affected

Our estimation of value of imported products covered by the tariffs of $29 billion is equivalent to 25 percent of U.S. imports from China.

Among all products, there are three key targets. Automobile is the most affected sector, and equal to 7.7 percent of U.S. exports into China. Advance instruments (optical, measuring and medical instruments) and nuclear reactors, machinery and mechanical appliances constitute 6.4 percent and 6.0 percent, respectively.

High-tech categories tend to have a higher proportion of products subjected to import tariffs, varying from 44 percent to as high as 90 percent. For the most extreme case, 90 percent of optical, measuring and medical instruments will be affected. Eighty-one percent of vehicles and 70 percent railways exports will also be subjected to additional tariffs, which are the sectors that China is trying to grow both in global market share and technological advancement.

The list also includes sectors in which China is still struggling on the technological ladder, in particular arms and aircrafts. We have discussed in our previous report that China’s “Manufacturing 2025” program is a key focus. The goal is not trade balance but technological advancement.

For China, It Is About Scale

China’s retaliation so far appears to be aimed at hurting U.S. exports in terms of scale, and this includes large items such as soybeans, aircraft and vehicles that amount to 29 percent of U.S. exports into China. The main targeted agricultural products (including soybeans and cereals) account for 11.6 percent of China’s imports from the U.S., followed by 9.4 percent in aircrafts and 8.9 percent in vehicles.

More than 50 percent of mineral fuels and plastics articles, which are also of some importance in imports, are also subjected to tariffs. Semiconductors, the fourth largest item in China’s imports from the U.S., have been exempted probably due to the irreplaceable nature and the urgent need of such technologies. In contrast to the U.S., China’s list covers more primary products than high-tech products, and therefore the impact will be more direct but short-lived.

Chinese Tariffs Will Impact China Too

The fact that China has high reliance on the above products also means tariffs could hurt Chinese producers and consumers. Beyond semiconductors, automobile makers, which export about 30 percent of their products into China, will be subjected to another 25 percent tariff on top of the existing 25 percent. However, at the same time, 28 percent of China’s imported vehicles originate in the U.S. Interestingly, Premier Li Keqiang promised to cut the tariff on automobiles during the People’s Congress, suggesting that a tariff on vehicles is clearly not desirable for China.

The same can be said for soybeans and aircrafts, as China buys 41 percent of imported soybeans and 63 percent of imported aircraft from the U.S. The recent fall in pork prices could offer room for China to retaliate through soybeans, a key source of piglet feed, and China could also switch to non-U.S. companies to meet the demand in aircraft, but whether this is sustainable is another question.

Due to the large scale of purchases by China, it may not be that easy to substitute with new sources based on constraints in infrastructure and productivity in the short run. Higher inflation and the lack of competition on mechanizing could also mean higher costs for China.

Stopping China from Gaining a Technology Advantage

Our interpretation of these findings is that the U.S. is not really targeting the bilateral trade deficit with China, but trying to constrain China from climbing higher up the technological ladder.

The U.S. is hitting China where it hurts the most, especially as technological modernization is officially enshrined in China’s Manufacturing 2025 plan, hence the strong retaliation by China. However, it seems clear that China is trying to minimize the self-inflicted cost of retaliation by focusing, to the extent possible, on lower-end products.

In other words, both the U.S. and China are targeting each other’s weakest points—the U.S. is targeting China’s future technological capacity, and China is responding by targeting U.S. exporters’ present revenues. The instantaneous impact on U.S. exporters could well explain President Donald Trump’s immediate response with an even larger package of import tariffs. In such circumstances, it is hard to think of a way to negotiate.

 


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 about event More on this topic
 

Upcoming Event

Oct
26
17:00

The future of EU-US trade relations after the US election

What shape will the trade relationship between the EU and the US take in the coming years?

Speakers: Cecilia Malmström, Adam Posen and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Global Economics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read about event More on this topic
 

Upcoming Event

Oct
29
14:00

Disrupted medical supply chains: symptoms, side-effects, and treatment?

How can the EU increase the resilience of value chains in the health industry?

Speakers: Anabel González, Niclas Poitiers and Giuseppe Ruocco Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

ECFA重要性遞減 台灣出口未來關鍵 在保持科技優勢和出口多元化

從地緣政治角度來看,ECFA自動延續無疑是個好消息,但協議對台灣經濟的直接影響較過去變得有限。雖然台灣對中國大陸的出口仍然重要,但ECFA占整體出口的重要性因資通訊科技產業快速發展而縮小。由於台灣在全球製造業供應鏈遷移和價值鏈重組中占有重要位置,未來對美國和東南亞出口預計將會加速。

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: October 20, 2020
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

What should Europe expect from American trade policy after the election?

A Joe Biden Administration would have to decide to what extent to unpick the major United States trade policy shifts of the last four years. A quick return to comprehensive trade talks with the European Union is unlikely and the US will remain focused on its rivalry with China. Nevertheless, there would be areas for EU/US cooperation, not least World Trade Organisation reform.

By: Uri Dadush and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: October 8, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

Trump’s International Economic Legacy

If Donald Trump loses the United States presidential election in November, he will ultimately be seen to have left little mark in many areas. But in the US's relationship with China, the decoupling of economic links could continue, and that could force Europe into hard choices.

By: Jean Pisani-Ferry Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: September 29, 2020
Read article Download PDF More on this topic
 

External Publication

Diversification and the world trading system

Diversification is important because it is associated with economic growth and reduced volatility.

By: Uri Dadush, Niclas Poitiers, Abdelaaziz Ait Ali, Mohammed Al Doghan, Muhammad Bhatti, Carlos Braga and Anabel González Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: September 16, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

Non-summit shows EU-China ties at new low

There was nothing concrete to justify calling this video conference an EU-China Summit.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: September 16, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

China's 'dual circulation' plan is bad news for others' exports

This opinion piece was originally published in Nikkei’s Asian Review. Minds in Beijing are focusing increasingly on the upcoming meeting of the Chinese Communist Party Central Committee next month. High on the body’s agenda will be sketching out a new official five-year plan for Asia’s largest economy. A freshly coined buzzword looks set to play […]

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: September 15, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Blog Post

全球為數不多 台灣今年經濟有望正成長

台灣的貨幣政策和大多數國家相比仍屬相對緊縮,台幣升幅也是相對有限。總的來說,台灣第二季的GDP與其他國家相較算是非常優異,主因是行動管制少,所以衝擊也小得多。

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: August 28, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

Relocating production from China to Central Europe? Not so fast!

Western European imports from central Europe have fallen dramatically, while imports from China fell much less, and had already recovered to pre-COVID level by April 2020. Central European governments should instigate new measures to foster the transition towards knowledge-intensive economic activities.

By: Zsolt Darvas Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: August 20, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

Coronavirus recovery: invest rainy day savings to boost Hong Kong’s economy

The Hong Kong government might want to consider diversifying its economy by using part of the savings earmarked for rainy days. Beyond cushioning the negative impact of Covid-19 on SMEs and households, it is one more reason to spend.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: August 6, 2020
Read article More on this topic
 

Opinion

China Has an Unfair Advantage in the EU Market. What Can Be Done to Level the Playing Field?

This article has originally been published in Brink News. The dominance of Chinese state-owned enterprises in China’s domestic market is giving them unfair advantages in the European Union single market as well. The EU Commission recently released a series of recommendations for leveling the playing field regarding foreign subsidies. Unfortunately, while useful, these ideas are unlikely to […]

By: Alicia García-Herrero and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: July 28, 2020
Load more posts