Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Revised Case for Free Trade (or, counter-arguments to the case for government
intervention)
Retaliation and Trade War
Domestic Politics
Development of the World Trading System
From Smith to the Great Depression 1947–1979: GATT, Trade Liberalization, and
Economic Growth 1980–1993: Protectionist Trend The Uruguay Round and the
World Trade Organization WTO: Experience to Date The Future of the WTO:
Unresolved Issues and the Doha Round
Chapter 6 Learning Goals
Describe the policy instruments used by governments
to influence international trade flows.
Understand why governments sometimes intervene
in international trade.
Articulate the arguments against strategic trade
policy.
Describe the developments of the world trading
system and the current trade issues.
Explain the implications for managers of
developments in the world trading system.
Chapter 6: Critical Thinking
Do you think that governments should consider
human rights when granting preferential trading
rights to countries? What are the arguments for and
against taking such a position?
Chapter 6: Critical Thinking
Whose interests should be the paramount concern of
government trade policy - the interests of producers
(businesses and their employees) or those of
consumers?
Chapter 6: Critical Thinking
Given the arguments relating to the new trade theory
and strategic trade policy, what kind of trade policy
should business be pressuring government to adopt?
Chapter 6: Critical Thinking
You are an employee of an U.S. firm that produces personal
computers in Thailand and then exports them to the U.S.
and other countries for sale. The personal computers were
originally produced in Thailand to take advantage of
relatively low labor costs and a skilled workforce. Other
possible locations considered at that time were Malaysia and
Hong Kong. The US government decides to impose punitive
100% ad valorem tariffs on imports of computers from
Thailand to punish the country for administrative trade
barriers that restrict U.S. exports to Thailand. How do you
think your firm should respond? What does this tell you
about the use of targeted trade barriers?
Boeing versus Airbus
Boeing 787 Dreamliner
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBuC9_jRVQ0
Airbus A380
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK10MxtCAHc
Subsidy Dogfight: Boeing v. Airbus
What are the facts?
Boeing’s development of Boeing 7E7 (now 787), which
promises as much as 20% reduction in operating costs
Alliance with three Japanese companies
1992 Agreement limits state aid that both companies
can receive from respective governments
Does 1992 Agreement extend to other parties in the
project? Japanese MET? State of Washington and Kansas
Airbus applies for launch aid for A350, direct competitor
to 787
Dispute now before WTO as to the legality of the
various subsidies
Boeing v. Airbus
Boeing’s Claim
Airbus receives subsidies from UK, France, German and Spain
Why is this bad?
$13.5 billion government subsidies between 1970 and 1990 ($25.9 billion
if commercial interest rates applied)
Loans at below market interest rates and tax breaks
Airbus is believed to have financed 80% of the cost of aircraft for a term
of 8 to 10 years at an annual interest rate of approximately 7%
In contrast, US Export Import Bank required 20% down payments from
Boeing customers, financed only 40% of the cost of an aircraft directly,
and guaranteed financing of the remaining 40% by private banks at an
average interest rate to 8.5 for 10 years
Airbus received government $3.7 billion launch aid and $2.8 billion in
indirect subsidies for the development of the A380 superjumbo and
need not repay the aid if the aircraft is not a commercial success
Catalyst for latest dispute: launch aid for A350, direct competitor to B-
787 ($700 million by UK, 30% launch aid from EU)
Boeing v. Airbus
Airbus’ claims
Airbus success due not to subsidies but to good products and strategy
Boeing benefited from US government aid for a long time
Planes were built under government WWI, WWII. Boeing 707, for
example, was subsidized by the US government
1991 EC study contended that Boeing/McDonnell Douglas received $18 to
$22 billion in indirect aid between 1976 and 1990. US Dept of Defense gave
as much as $6.34 billion from 1976 to 1990, and NASA gave $8 billion to
commercial aircraft production. Moreover, tax exemptions gave an
addition $1.7 billion to Boeing and $1.4 billion to MD
Boeing rejected these claims, saying no additional 5% for commercial work
for every defense contract; only 3% of Boeing’s R&D from Department of
Defense, and only 4% from NASA funding
Airbus contends: Boeing received some $12 billion from NASA to develop
technology, much of it found its way to commercial jet aircraft
Airbus further contends: Boeing would receive as much as $3.2 billion in tax
breaks from Washington, $1 billion in loans from the Japanese government
Boeing v. Airbus
How might the repayable launch aid for Airbus
change its decision making on launching a new
aircraft? What are the potential consequences for (a)
Boeing, (b) airlines, and (c) the profitability of both
Boeing and Airbus?
Boeing v. Airbus
When Airbus originally received government aid back
in the 1960s, it was a new enterprise. Today it is the
global market share leader in the commercial
aerospace business. How do gains in market share
effect the legitimacy of claims for subsidies?
Boeing v. Airbus
Do you think that R&D contracts from NASA and the
Pentagon benefit Boeing’s commercial aerospace
business? How?
Boeing v. Airbus
At this point, what do you think is the most equitable
solution to the long running battle between the US
and EU on subsidies for commercial aircraft
development?