当前位置: X-MOL 学术Econ. Polit. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Trade policy and firm performance: introduction to the special section
Economia Politica ( IF 2.8 ) Pub Date : 2021-01-21 , DOI: 10.1007/s40888-021-00216-w
Mauro Caselli 1 , Andrea Fracasso 1 , Stefano Schiavo 1, 2
Affiliation  

Recent years have witnessed a resurgence of trade protectionism, either vocally used as an electoral tool or more discretely implemented within WTO rules. On the one hand, the US-China trade war that has erupted in 2018 over steel and aluminium has often made the news, helped by the size of the two contenders. The reciprocal, unilateral imposition of tariffs has spilled over to other products, from agricultural commodities to 5G technology, and other countries as well, with the US threatening to sanction automotive imports from the EU and Japan on national security grounds. On the other hand, a less vocal yet more pervasive trend has started in the aftermath of the 2007–2008 financial crisis, with several countries imposing discriminatory measures to favour domestic firms (Evenett 2019), and has gained prominence in the context of the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, when many countries have resorted to trade restrictions ranging from export licenses to outright export bans (Pauwelyn 2020) in the attempt to secure domestic availability of necessary goods such as protective garments, medical equipment, or simply food. The context where these events take place is one where the rule-based system that has governed international trade flows since the Bretton Wood era, built around the GATT and the WTO, is in jeopardy. Since the mid-2000, the lack of progress in the Doha round of multilateral negotiations signalled the difficulties associated with each country holding a de facto veto power. Moreover, the WTO dispute settlement crisis that erupted in 2019, with the Appellate Body unable to function for a lack of

中文翻译:

贸易政策与公司业绩:专题介绍

近年来,贸易保护主义卷土重来,要么口头上用作选举工具,要么在世贸组织规则中更加谨慎地实施。一方面,由于两个竞争者的规模,2018 年爆发的钢铝贸易战经常成为新闻。对等、单方面征收关税已经蔓延到其他产品,从农产品到 5G 技术,以及其他国家,美国威胁要以国家安全为由制裁从欧盟和日本进口的汽车。另一方面,在 2007 年至 2008 年金融危机之后,出现了一种声音较小但更为普遍的趋势,一些国家采取了有利于国内公司的歧视性措施(Evenett 2019),并在抗击 COVID-19 大流行的背景下获得了突出地位,当时许多国家采取了从出口许可证到彻底出口禁令(Pauwelyn 2020)等贸易限制措施,以确保国内必要商品的供应,例如保护性衣服、医疗设备或简单的食物。这些事件发生的背景是,自布雷顿森林时代以来围绕关贸总协定和世贸组织建立的基于规则的国际贸易流动体系正处于危险之中。自 2000 年中期以来,多哈回合多边谈判缺乏进展表明每个国家都拥有事实上的否决权。此外,2019 年爆发的 WTO 争端解决危机,上诉机构因缺乏 当许多国家采取从出口许可证到彻底出口禁令的贸易限制措施(Pauwelyn 2020),以试图确保防护服、医疗设备或食品等必要商品的国内供应。这些事件发生的背景是,自布雷顿森林时代以来围绕关贸总协定和世贸组织建立的基于规则的国际贸易流动体系正处于危险之中。自 2000 年中期以来,多哈回合多边谈判缺乏进展表明每个国家都拥有事实上的否决权。此外,2019 年爆发的 WTO 争端解决危机,上诉机构因缺乏 当许多国家采取从出口许可证到彻底出口禁令的贸易限制措施(Pauwelyn 2020),以试图确保防护服、医疗设备或食品等必要商品的国内供应。这些事件发生的背景是,自布雷顿森林时代以来围绕关贸总协定和世贸组织建立的基于规则的国际贸易流动体系正处于危险之中。自 2000 年中期以来,多哈回合多边谈判缺乏进展表明每个国家都拥有事实上的否决权。此外,2019 年爆发的 WTO 争端解决危机,上诉机构因缺乏 这些事件发生的背景是,自布雷顿森林时代以来围绕关贸总协定和世贸组织建立的基于规则的国际贸易流动体系正处于危险之中。自 2000 年中期以来,多哈回合多边谈判缺乏进展表明每个国家都拥有事实上的否决权。此外,2019 年爆发的 WTO 争端解决危机,上诉机构因缺乏 这些事件发生的背景是,自布雷顿森林时代以来围绕关贸总协定和世贸组织建立的基于规则的国际贸易流动体系正处于危险之中。自 2000 年中期以来,多哈回合多边谈判缺乏进展表明每个国家都拥有事实上的否决权。此外,2019 年爆发的 WTO 争端解决危机,上诉机构因缺乏
更新日期:2021-01-21
down
wechat
bug