One way to compromise between high protective tariffs and market access
⬇️
Low or zero duty for limited quantities (quotas). Beyond that high tariffs kick in—not “phased in” @nicholaswatt@BBCr4today
1/6
That way the two tariff levels allow some market access but keep it limited so some protection remains for local producers
It’s not the only way to compromise. Another: set a medium-level tariff for all imports of that product. But quantities would depend on supply & demand
2/6
Advantage of a tariff quota: the limit of low/zero duty imports is known. With a medium tariff it is not known.
Disadvantages: complexity in the way the govt hands out the quota among importers, and “quota rent”—benefits, sometimes huge, to those with a share of the quota
3/6
Those screenshots come from this primer on tariff quotas
“In other words the tariff quota is a limit on the quantity eligible for lower duty”
This week, the discussion is about using them in a UK-Australia trade deal
They cropped up before, when other countries objected in the WTO to proposed UK and EU27 market access commitments after Brexit—extracting UK portions from EU28 quotas
(On tweet 9, I'd add that in CPTPP, five countries have tariff quotas: Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico and Vietnam. So there is a precedent for being in the CPTPP and having tariff quotas)
Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna mRNA vaccinations ongoing. J&J approved, not ordered. Supply picking up. Not yet approved: AstraZeneca, Curevac and Novavax. Switzerland has ordered over 30m doses for 8m people
1. Tai supports the waiver for COVID-19 *vaccines*. The waiver proposal is for all products related to the pandemic: medicines, testing kits, PPE, ventilators, etc
2. She anticipates a long negotiation, suggesting the US *might* be seeking constraints or conditions
3. The proposed waiver is not only for patents, which already have flexibilities such as compulsory licensing, but also three other areas, which don't—copyright, industrial designs and trade secrets.
It will be interesting to see if the US accepts waiving all four areas
I'm happy to read about where policies might be going wrong, to discuss whether the characterisation of the ideologies behind trade liberalisation are correct.
But is the WTO is only of that ideology? The leap to "WTO reform" is illogical
1. It's false to assume that "rules-based" (p8) means the same as "liberalisation". You can have "rules-based" trade barriers and indeed the WTO agreements allow for many. Some argue that having predictable rules is more valuable than lowering tariffs that are already low.
2/5
2. Which highlights the fact that WTO agreements—the outcome of negotiations—are a compromise between different interests and different ideologies. The WTO system does not come from just one ideology.
That makes the paper's notion of "WTO reform" quite off target.
3/5