Торговая война США и Китая. Возможные последствия для России и мировой экономики

Целью данной магистерской диссертации является исследование эффекта торговой войны США и Китая на мировую экономику и на экономику России. Главный тезис работы состоит в том, что торговая война экономически невыгодна всем вовлеченным игрокам.
Хотя в литературе выделяются фундаментальные теории, которые объясняют предпосылки тарифных войн, торговая война между США и Китаем является качественно иным явлением. Данная работа стремится восполнить пробел в исследовании теоретических аспектов торговой войны, а также дать актуальную количественную оценку. Для понимания феномена торговых войн проведен теоретический анализ, основанный на экономической теории и теории международных отношений. Ретроспективный анализ торговой политики позволяет выявить мотивы США в отношениях с Китаем и проблемы экономической и геополитической конкуренции двух держав за лидерство. Количественная оценка последствий торговой войны основана на традиционной теории торговли. В работе анализируется динамика торговли тарифицируемыми продуктами до и после начала торговой войны с учетом последних тарифных траншей США и Китая. Влияние дополнительных тарифов США на ввоз китайских товаров, по сравнению с поставками по обычным ставкам, оценивается на основе метода линейной регрессии.
Хотя анализ показывает, что абсолютные экспортные потери Китая в тарифицируемых продуктах выше, чем в США, торговая война негативно сказалась на обеих экономиках. Торговая война привела к переориентации торговых потоков в пользу основных поставщиков США, в то время как рост импорта Китая замедлился, и эффект замещения американских товаров не был очевиден. Общий экономический эффект торговой войны на мировую экономику, сопряженный с возросшей неопределённостью, является отрицательным в силу снижения деловой активности, разрушения глобальных цепочек создания стоимости, ослабления роли международных институтов.
Непосредственное влияние торговой войны на российскую экономику обусловлено обязательствами США и Китая по «управляемой торговле» и возможным сокращением энергопотребления Китаем в результате замедления экономического роста. Косвенные издержки торговой войны ложатся на российских экспортеров стали и алюминия, которые могут столкнуться с более жесткой конкуренцией на азиатских рынках с китайскими поставщиками из-за введённых США дополнительных импортных пошлин. Китай заинтересован в импорте агропродовольственной продукции из России, но положительная тенденция экспорта сельскохозяйственных товаров может быть нарушена из-за обязательств Китая закупать больше этих продуктов из США. Среди «безопасных» категорий наращивания российского экспорта в Китай – химические вещества и металлы. России необходимо диверсифицировать свою структуру экспорта, учитывая незадействованный резерв спроса на рынках Азии. Кроме того, ввиду инвестиционных ограничений США в отношении Китая, расширяются перспективы российско-китайского сотрудничества в создании высокотехнологичной продукции.

Content …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2
Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3
I Theoretical aspects of a trade war ………………………………………………………………. 12
1.1 Definition and reasons of trade wars…………………………………………………………….12
1.2 Methods of a trade war. Stages of a trade war escalation………………………………..24
1.3 Analysis of trade wars ……………………………………………………………………………….. 35 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 44 I
I The trade war between USA and China …………………………………………………….. 47
2.1 Why did the United States begin the trade war against China? ……………………….. 47
2.2. Scenarios of the trade war between Washington and Beijing and its impact on the global economy ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 66
2.3 The USA-China trade war: possible consequences for Russia……………………….100
III Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 109
Annex 1 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 112
Bibliography ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 121

There are different sorts of reasons from legal to personal factors that provoke the U.S. to start a trade war, but the main driver is the rise of China in the global arena. The U.S. has powerful arguments concerning China’s unfair trade practices but the tools chosen by Trump’s Administration to resolve trade tensions are not appropriate. The U.S. challenges the growing economic and technological potential of China via trade constrains. American Administration signals its readiness for long- term strategic competition with China. At the same time, the multilateral trading system is reaching its limits with the ongoing institutional crisis and the uncertainty of trade policies remains high. The trade war is a part of the broader imbalances resulted from hyperglobalization.
Though China’s absolute export losses in tariffed products are higher than the U.S., trade war negatively affected both economies, confirming the hypothesis of the lose-lose outcome of a trade war. As a result of the U.S. tariffs its imports from China of affected products decreased by 16% in 2019 in comparison with 2017. It is accounted for nearly 50 bln. U.S. dollars of China’s export losses or 10% of its total export to the U.S. or 2% of its global exports. As a result of China’s tariffs its import from the U.S. of affected products went down by 26% in 2019, it comprised nearly 34 bln. U.S. dollars export losses or about 22% of its total export to China or 2% of its global exports. The trade war disrupts supply chains making it less profitable to manufacture in China for selling to the U.S. because of higher tariffs. Investors who follow this business model including the U.S.’ MNCs should diversify their production facilities out of China.
In 2019 China managed to maintain 84% of its total export to the U.S. Most affected with the tariffs sectors of the Chinese economy are machinery and chemicals – reduction by 29%, manufactured miscellaneous (furniture, toys, garment) –
109
reduction by 21%. In 2019 the USA maintained 80% of its total exports to China. Among the most affected with the trade war sectors of the American economy are mineral products – 60% reduction, vehicles – 16% reduction, machinery and electrical equipment– 15% reduction, base metals – 24,6% of reduction, agri-food exports – 6% of reduction. The U.S. imports of products from China subject to tariffs during the trade war declined by 32% in comparison with those not affected with additional tariffs. While China is the biggest consumer of LNG and crude oil, China is less dependent on imports of those products from the U.S.
Harm to the U.S. economy is passed through higher consumer prices and increased costs of intermediate inputs. China suffers from the trade war due to higher export orientation of economy and threat of relocation of foreign enterprisers to alternative locations. The trade war has a negative impact on world trade and investments. Despite the overall negative impacts of the trade war, third countries such as Mexico, Vietnam, Taiwan gained through increased exports of manufactured products to the U.S. as a result of the substitution of Chinese products. The effect of substitution of high-assembled American products in Chinese imports is less obvious. Argentina and Uruguay gained through increased exports of agricultural products to China (mainly soybeans). The Chinese import reduction from all major suppliers signals economic contraction that may lead to a downward spiral for the world economy.
The Economic and Trade Agreement between the U.S. and China signed at the beginning of 2020 indicates the de-escalation of the trade war, but structural reforms demanded by the U.S. are not coming in China. Under the Peace Deal China is committed to increasing imports from the U.S. by 200 bln. in two years. It indicates a shift towards managed trade. The agreement may redistribute trade in the favor of Washington in the energy, agricultural and manufacturing sectors and services. Non- American suppliers to China should manage the risks as the U.S. may crowd out their
110

shares for products subjected to the Agreement. The legitimacy of trade expansion has to be litigated by third countries, but given the WTO crisis, there is a lack of enforceable legal mechanisms to preclude trade distortions. Moreover, the spillover effect of protectionism and high exposure of countries to external risks are leading to retreat from multilateralism.
Slowing down of the Chinese economy under pressure of the trade war will affect the energy sector of Russia through a decreasing demand and lower prices. The second channel is a reduction of Russian exports of energy once China pursues its commitment to purchase more form the U.S. Indirect costs of trade war pass to Russian steel and aluminum exporters that are likely to face tougher competition with Chinese suppliers in the Asian markets. China is interested in imports of agrifood from Russia, but a positive trend in agricultural trade may be disrupted with China’s commitments to buy more of those products from the U.S. Russia needs to diversify its export structure and integrate into regional value chains. Because of the U.S. investment restriction policy on business with China, there is a perspective niche in the high-tech sector.

1. John Conybeare. Trade wars: A Comparative Study of Anglo-Hanse, Franco-Italian, and Hawley-Smoot Conflicts, 1985. -P.148.
2. Glinter S. Heiduk, Kar-yiu Wong. WTO and World Trade Challenges in a New Era, 2005.-P.281.
3. Gregory C. Shaffer. Defending Interests: Public-Private Partnerships in WTO Litigation, 2003. – P.20,
4. Gokmen G. Clash of civilizations and the impact of cultural differences on trade // J. Dev. Econ. 2017. Т. 127. No December 2015. – P. 449–458.
5. James M. Dorsey. China and the Middle East. Venturing into the Maelstrom 2019. -P.278
6. Ivo H. Daalder, James M. Lindsay. The Empty Throne: America’s Abdication of Global Leadership Hardcover, 2018. – P. 256.
7. John G. Glenn. China’s Challenge to US Supremacy. Economic Superpower versus Rising Star, 2016. – P.257.
8. Robert D. Blackwill. Trump’s Foreign Policies Are Better Than They Seem. Council Special Report No. 84 April 2019. – P.112.
9. Krugman P. International Trade: theory and policy / Paul R. Krugman, Maurice Obstfeld, Marc J. Melitz. – 11th ed., global ed. – Harlow: Pearson, 2018. – P. 368. – ISBN 978-1-292-21635-5.
10. Carr, E. H. The Twenty Years’ Crisis 1919-1939. // Harper Perennial: 450th ed. London, Macmillan, 1946. – P. 146
11. Zeng, Ka. Trade Threats, Trade Wars: Bargaining, Retaliation, and American Coercive Diplomacy, University of Michigan Press, 2004. –P.324.
12. Simon J. Evenett and Johannes Fritz. Going It Alone? Trade Policy After Three Years of Populism. The 25th Global Trade Alert Report, 2019. – P.173.
13. William Cline, Trade Policy and Global Poverty. //Washington, D.C.: Institute for International Economics, 2004. – P. 180.
14. N. Kaldor. A Note on Tariffs and the Terms of Trade. Economica, n.s.7. November, 1940. –P. 377
15. Johnson, H. G. Optimum tariffs and retaliation. Review of Economic Studies. 1953.- P. 153.
16. Syropoulos, C. Optimum tariffs and retaliation revisited: How country size matters. Review of Economic Studies, 2002. P.-707-727.
17. Kreinin, M., Dinopoulos, E., & Syropoulos, C. (1996). Bilateral trade wars. International Trade Journal, 10. – P.3–20.