repubblica.it
Expert disputes Trump's tariff approach, citing global economic differences
Andrea Colli, an expert in international trade, refutes the idea that modern protectionist policies can replicate the success of the high-tariff era in the US (late 19th and early 20th centuries), highlighting the significant differences in global competition and economic integration.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of a protectionist trade policy in today's globally interconnected economy, considering its impact on innovation, competitiveness, and global economic cooperation?
- A return to 19th-century protectionism, as suggested by Colli, risks hindering innovation in favor of short-term job creation. While tariffs might attract some foreign investment and reshore some production, the long-term consequences for a globally integrated industrial sector remain negative. The Spanish Prime Minister's comparison to the 19th century highlights the significant departure from post-WWII global trade liberalization.
- What are the key differences between the US economic context during its high-tariff era and the current globalized environment, and how do these differences affect the efficacy of modern protectionist policies?
- Between the end of the American Civil War and the end of World War I, the US became the world's leading industrial power, coinciding with its highest tariff rates. This was a 'tariff nation'," says Andrea Colli, an expert in international trade. However, Colli argues that today's globalized economy differs significantly from that era, making a direct comparison invalid.
- How did the US's high tariff policies in the late 19th and early 20th centuries impact its industrial development, and what factors contributed to the subsequent shift towards trade liberalization after World War II?
- Colli explains that while high tariffs (40% average) fueled the US's second industrial revolution and the rise of large companies, global competition was limited then. Today's interconnected world and competition from countries like China and India render Trump's tariff-based strategy less effective. Ronald Reagan's opposing view, prioritizing competitiveness over protectionism, highlights the shift in economic thought.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the debate by primarily using Professor Colli's perspective to critique Trump's policies. While Colli's expertise is acknowledged, the framing might subtly lead readers to favor Colli's viewpoint. The headline (if any) would significantly influence this.
Language Bias
The language used is mostly neutral, but phrases like "miope" (short-sighted) when describing Trump's vision could be considered subtly loaded. More neutral alternatives might include "limited in scope" or "narrow in focus.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the opinions of Andrea Colli and mentions Ronald Reagan and Pedro Sanchez briefly, but omits perspectives from other economists or political figures who may hold differing views on protectionist policies. The lack of diverse viewpoints limits the reader's ability to form a fully informed opinion.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat false dichotomy by contrasting Trump's protectionist views with Reagan's stance, implying these are the only two significant viewpoints. More nuanced perspectives on trade policy are missing.
Sustainable Development Goals
Imposing tariffs may lead to job creation in the short term by encouraging domestic production and attracting foreign direct investment to avoid tariffs. However, in the long run, protectionist policies hinder innovation and competitiveness, negatively impacting sustainable economic growth and potentially leading to job losses in other sectors due to reduced international trade and overall economic slowdown. The article highlights contrasting views on this, with some arguing that protectionism fosters domestic industry while others emphasize its negative impact on innovation and global competitiveness.