This study examines the development and trends of China’s alfalfa market and imports, identifies key factors for the rapid increase in China’s alfalfa imports, and discusses potential impacts of the U.S.-China trade...This study examines the development and trends of China’s alfalfa market and imports, identifies key factors for the rapid increase in China’s alfalfa imports, and discusses potential impacts of the U.S.-China trade dispute and retaliations on the alfalfa markets and trade in both nations. China’s rapid transition toward larger-scale commercial dairy production, with enhanced feed and cost management as well as quality and safety control, and its limited resources for high-quality alfalfa production are key factors for the dramatic increase in its alfalfa imports, from 19 601 metric tons in 2008 to 1.38 million metric tons(mmt) in 2018. While the United States dominated China’s alfalfa imports with an average share of 97.01% from 2007 to 2017, the share dropped to 83.76% in 2018 and 63.28% in January 2019 due to the trade dispute and retaliations started in 2018. China will likely remain a large importer of alfalfa because of both its growing demand and the comparative advantages of imported alfalfa in quality and price, but the imports from the United States will be highly affected by the ongoing trade dispute and negotiations. China is also expected to make more efforts to reduce its dependence on U.S. alfalfa through increased investment in domestic alfalfa production and identification of alternative sources of alfalfa and other hay imports.展开更多
One of the events this Spring Festival is the signing of the phase-I trade agreement between China and the U.S.in Washington D.C..This agreement covers a wide range of issues including intellectual property rights,tec...One of the events this Spring Festival is the signing of the phase-I trade agreement between China and the U.S.in Washington D.C..This agreement covers a wide range of issues including intellectual property rights,technology transfer and financial services.It also includes China’s commitment to make an additional purchases of U.S.goods and services with the value of USD 200 billion between 2020 and 2021.According to statistics from the U.S.Ministry of Commerce,U.S.exports to China amounted to USD 130.37 billion in 2017.展开更多
The Sino-U.S. trade imbalance and the related debate on RMB appreciation have attracted much attention in recent years. Judging objectively, however, the trade imbalance does not necessarily result in an imbalance in ...The Sino-U.S. trade imbalance and the related debate on RMB appreciation have attracted much attention in recent years. Judging objectively, however, the trade imbalance does not necessarily result in an imbalance in the distribution of trade benefits. By analyzing the distribution of benefits in Sino-U.S. trade from 1978 to 2007, this paper finds that bilateral trade has brought positive benefits to both sides, differentially in terms of production and consumption. Simply put, China has gained benefits for production yet suffered in terms of consumption, whereas the opposite is true for the U.S.. Moreover, even during periods in which the U.S. experienced a trade deficit, its citizens gained larger total individual benefits than those in a period of trade surplus. We argue, therefore, that appreciation of the RMB would reduce the trade benefits for both sides by almost the same margin, bringing little benefit to the United States.展开更多
A phase-one trade deal was signed by China and the U.S.on January 15.Tariff relief,increased agricultural purchases by China,and an agreement on intellectual properties and technology issues were part of this phaseone...A phase-one trade deal was signed by China and the U.S.on January 15.Tariff relief,increased agricultural purchases by China,and an agreement on intellectual properties and technology issues were part of this phaseone deal.The U.S.agreed to roll back on tariffs currently in place over several phases.Following months of trade tensions and negotiations,the trad e deal bodes well for the world’s two largest economies into the first quarter of 2020.展开更多
At the end of 2015, the United States lifted a 40-year ban on crude oil exports, which has far-reaching implications for the global crude oil market and crude oil trade patterns. Since the release of crude oil exports...At the end of 2015, the United States lifted a 40-year ban on crude oil exports, which has far-reaching implications for the global crude oil market and crude oil trade patterns. Since the release of crude oil exports, with the recovery of crude oil production and improved export infrastructure in the United States, U.S. crude oil exports have been growing rapidly, with an average of about one million barrels/day in 2017, making the U.S one of the major global crude oil exporters. Currently, the AsiaPacific region has replaced North America as the first major destination for U.S. crude oil exports. In light of future trends in the oil refining industry of the Asia-Pacific region, it will usher in a new wave of refinery operations around 2020 and crude oil imports will continue to grow rapidly. The American region, represented by the United States, will replace West Africa as the second largest source of crude oil imports to the Asia-Pacific region, and that energy trade cooperation between the Asia-Pacific region and the United States will continue to grow. In particular, for China, the United States will become an important source of crude oil imports for our country in the future, and the two countries will shift from the past of energy competition to energy cooperation. Sino-US energy trade will play a more active role in economic and trade cooperation between the two countries.展开更多
IN March 2018, the United States slapped tariffs of 25 percent on steel imports and 10 percent on aluminum in the name of national security under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Then, the Office of the...IN March 2018, the United States slapped tariffs of 25 percent on steel imports and 10 percent on aluminum in the name of national security under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Then, the Office of the United States Trade Representative released a report on the investigation of China under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, claiming China＇s acts, policies, and practices regarding technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation are “unreasonable and discriminatory, and burden U.S. commerce.”展开更多
In a white paper issued by the State Council Information Office on June 2,China made it clear that the U.S.-initiated economic and trade friction damages the interests of both countries and of the wider world.The pape...In a white paper issued by the State Council Information Office on June 2,China made it clear that the U.S.-initiated economic and trade friction damages the interests of both countries and of the wider world.The paper,titled China's Position on the China-U.S.Economic and Trade Consultations,also revealed that the U.S.backtracked three times on its commitments during bilateral consultations.It reiterated that China is committed to credible consultations based on equality and mutual benefit.As part of our coverage of the ongoing trade friction,Beijing Review asked Chinese experts to comment on the document and the latest developments.展开更多
Emissions trading systems(ETSs)are a widely used policy tool for driving emissions reductions and serve as an avenue for international climate cooperation.Following the recent global agreement on carbon market standar...Emissions trading systems(ETSs)are a widely used policy tool for driving emissions reductions and serve as an avenue for international climate cooperation.Following the recent global agreement on carbon market standards at COP26,this study explores linked ETSs as an avenue for the U.S.and China to cooperate on climate action.The emissions,energy,and economic effects of linked ETSs are analyzed through the China-in-Global Energy Model(C-GEM),a multi-regional,computable general equilibrium model.Assuming the development of national economy-wide ETSs,two scenarios are developed linking China and the U.S.:1)a bilateral U.S.-China ETS linkage 2)a multilateral ETS linkage that includes China,the U.S.,and nations in Southeast Asia.Results indicate that emissions and energy consumption outcomes would be similar in the bilateral and multilateral scenarios.However,economic outcomes are more favorable in the multilateral linkage scenario.When China and the U.S.engage in bilateral ETS linkage,China predominantly benefits from additional support for domestic decarbonization while the U.S.benefits from increased GDP compared to without ETS linkage.Adding Southeast Asia to establish multilateral linkage improves GDP outcomes for all participants,reducing adverse effects on China's GDP while boosting GDP for the U.S.and Southeast Asia.For policymakers considering the design and implementation of international ETSs,this study presents updated modeling on the effects of ETS linkage on each country as well as the economic benefits of expanding participation to additional regions.展开更多
A striking feature of the structural change literature is that, even though the U.S. economy is often used as a benchmark for calibration, the traditional mo- dels cannot account for the steep decline in manufacturing...A striking feature of the structural change literature is that, even though the U.S. economy is often used as a benchmark for calibration, the traditional mo- dels cannot account for the steep decline in manufacturing and rise in services in the U.S. since the late 1970s （Buera and Kaboski, 2009）. In order to solve this puzzle, this paper develops a three-sector model to evaluate various factors that could have contributed to the structural transformation process from 1950 to 2005. The results show that, in addition to traditional explanations, such as non-homothetic preference and sector-biased productivity progress, international trade is another major source of structural change and is able to explain about 35.5% of the overall employment share decrease in American manufacturing. The quantitative calibration estimates that the inter-sector trade makes a moderate contribution, while trade imbalances dominate the recent contraction of manufacturing employment share. Our results suggest that calibrated models based on U.S. data have to be adjusted by trade factors.展开更多
基金the Vermont Agricultural Experiment Station at the University Vermont,USA,and the National Social Science Fund of China(17ZDA067)for financial support of this project。
文摘This study examines the development and trends of China’s alfalfa market and imports, identifies key factors for the rapid increase in China’s alfalfa imports, and discusses potential impacts of the U.S.-China trade dispute and retaliations on the alfalfa markets and trade in both nations. China’s rapid transition toward larger-scale commercial dairy production, with enhanced feed and cost management as well as quality and safety control, and its limited resources for high-quality alfalfa production are key factors for the dramatic increase in its alfalfa imports, from 19 601 metric tons in 2008 to 1.38 million metric tons(mmt) in 2018. While the United States dominated China’s alfalfa imports with an average share of 97.01% from 2007 to 2017, the share dropped to 83.76% in 2018 and 63.28% in January 2019 due to the trade dispute and retaliations started in 2018. China will likely remain a large importer of alfalfa because of both its growing demand and the comparative advantages of imported alfalfa in quality and price, but the imports from the United States will be highly affected by the ongoing trade dispute and negotiations. China is also expected to make more efforts to reduce its dependence on U.S. alfalfa through increased investment in domestic alfalfa production and identification of alternative sources of alfalfa and other hay imports.
文摘One of the events this Spring Festival is the signing of the phase-I trade agreement between China and the U.S.in Washington D.C..This agreement covers a wide range of issues including intellectual property rights,technology transfer and financial services.It also includes China’s commitment to make an additional purchases of U.S.goods and services with the value of USD 200 billion between 2020 and 2021.According to statistics from the U.S.Ministry of Commerce,U.S.exports to China amounted to USD 130.37 billion in 2017.
文摘The Sino-U.S. trade imbalance and the related debate on RMB appreciation have attracted much attention in recent years. Judging objectively, however, the trade imbalance does not necessarily result in an imbalance in the distribution of trade benefits. By analyzing the distribution of benefits in Sino-U.S. trade from 1978 to 2007, this paper finds that bilateral trade has brought positive benefits to both sides, differentially in terms of production and consumption. Simply put, China has gained benefits for production yet suffered in terms of consumption, whereas the opposite is true for the U.S.. Moreover, even during periods in which the U.S. experienced a trade deficit, its citizens gained larger total individual benefits than those in a period of trade surplus. We argue, therefore, that appreciation of the RMB would reduce the trade benefits for both sides by almost the same margin, bringing little benefit to the United States.
文摘A phase-one trade deal was signed by China and the U.S.on January 15.Tariff relief,increased agricultural purchases by China,and an agreement on intellectual properties and technology issues were part of this phaseone deal.The U.S.agreed to roll back on tariffs currently in place over several phases.Following months of trade tensions and negotiations,the trad e deal bodes well for the world’s two largest economies into the first quarter of 2020.
文摘At the end of 2015, the United States lifted a 40-year ban on crude oil exports, which has far-reaching implications for the global crude oil market and crude oil trade patterns. Since the release of crude oil exports, with the recovery of crude oil production and improved export infrastructure in the United States, U.S. crude oil exports have been growing rapidly, with an average of about one million barrels/day in 2017, making the U.S one of the major global crude oil exporters. Currently, the AsiaPacific region has replaced North America as the first major destination for U.S. crude oil exports. In light of future trends in the oil refining industry of the Asia-Pacific region, it will usher in a new wave of refinery operations around 2020 and crude oil imports will continue to grow rapidly. The American region, represented by the United States, will replace West Africa as the second largest source of crude oil imports to the Asia-Pacific region, and that energy trade cooperation between the Asia-Pacific region and the United States will continue to grow. In particular, for China, the United States will become an important source of crude oil imports for our country in the future, and the two countries will shift from the past of energy competition to energy cooperation. Sino-US energy trade will play a more active role in economic and trade cooperation between the two countries.
文摘IN March 2018, the United States slapped tariffs of 25 percent on steel imports and 10 percent on aluminum in the name of national security under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Then, the Office of the United States Trade Representative released a report on the investigation of China under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, claiming China＇s acts, policies, and practices regarding technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation are “unreasonable and discriminatory, and burden U.S. commerce.”
文摘In a white paper issued by the State Council Information Office on June 2,China made it clear that the U.S.-initiated economic and trade friction damages the interests of both countries and of the wider world.The paper,titled China's Position on the China-U.S.Economic and Trade Consultations,also revealed that the U.S.backtracked three times on its commitments during bilateral consultations.It reiterated that China is committed to credible consultations based on equality and mutual benefit.As part of our coverage of the ongoing trade friction,Beijing Review asked Chinese experts to comment on the document and the latest developments.
基金funding support from the National Key R&D Program of China(2017YFA0605302,2017YFA0605304)。
文摘Emissions trading systems(ETSs)are a widely used policy tool for driving emissions reductions and serve as an avenue for international climate cooperation.Following the recent global agreement on carbon market standards at COP26,this study explores linked ETSs as an avenue for the U.S.and China to cooperate on climate action.The emissions,energy,and economic effects of linked ETSs are analyzed through the China-in-Global Energy Model(C-GEM),a multi-regional,computable general equilibrium model.Assuming the development of national economy-wide ETSs,two scenarios are developed linking China and the U.S.:1)a bilateral U.S.-China ETS linkage 2)a multilateral ETS linkage that includes China,the U.S.,and nations in Southeast Asia.Results indicate that emissions and energy consumption outcomes would be similar in the bilateral and multilateral scenarios.However,economic outcomes are more favorable in the multilateral linkage scenario.When China and the U.S.engage in bilateral ETS linkage,China predominantly benefits from additional support for domestic decarbonization while the U.S.benefits from increased GDP compared to without ETS linkage.Adding Southeast Asia to establish multilateral linkage improves GDP outcomes for all participants,reducing adverse effects on China's GDP while boosting GDP for the U.S.and Southeast Asia.For policymakers considering the design and implementation of international ETSs,this study presents updated modeling on the effects of ETS linkage on each country as well as the economic benefits of expanding participation to additional regions.
文摘A striking feature of the structural change literature is that, even though the U.S. economy is often used as a benchmark for calibration, the traditional mo- dels cannot account for the steep decline in manufacturing and rise in services in the U.S. since the late 1970s （Buera and Kaboski, 2009）. In order to solve this puzzle, this paper develops a three-sector model to evaluate various factors that could have contributed to the structural transformation process from 1950 to 2005. The results show that, in addition to traditional explanations, such as non-homothetic preference and sector-biased productivity progress, international trade is another major source of structural change and is able to explain about 35.5% of the overall employment share decrease in American manufacturing. The quantitative calibration estimates that the inter-sector trade makes a moderate contribution, while trade imbalances dominate the recent contraction of manufacturing employment share. Our results suggest that calibrated models based on U.S. data have to be adjusted by trade factors.
