NEW YORK: A recent report from the U.S. Trade Representative, titled “Leveling the Playing Field,” describes how the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership could reduce other countries’ trade barriers.
There’s nothing wrong with that goal. But reducing self-destructive U.S. trade barriers also should be at the top of the priority list for U.S. negotiators.
According to the report, the average world tariff is more than twice as high as ours. But 40 countries, including New Zealand, Norway, France, Switzerland, Singapore and Hong Kong, have lower tariffs on average than in the United States. Among Trans-Pacific Partnership countries, the average tariff rate is about 2.1 percent, which is higher than the U.S. tariff rate of 1.4 percent—but not by much.
Even in countries with low average tariffs, tariffs in some sectors remain quite high, and the report cites several examples. But the U.S. maintains plenty of restrictive barriers of its own.
For example, the Trade Representative’s report highlights foreign tariffs of up to 70 percent on U.S.-made vehicles. But what about the 25 percent tariff imposed by the United States on imported pickup trucks or the 2.5 percent tariff on imported auto parts used by U.S. workers to produce new vehicles?
The report highlights foreign tariffs on U.S. building products, but what about U.S. anti-dumping duties that have been imposed on building products such as lumber, concrete and steel, boosting the price of construction in the United States?
The list goes on: The report cites high foreign tariffs on footwear and textile products, but U.S. tariffs can exceed 20 percent on sneakers and stand at 16.5 percent on cotton T-shirts. Foreign tariffs on vegetables run as high as 90 percent, but in 2013, the United States doubled the price of some tomato imports from Mexico, a partner of ours in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Similarly, U.S. policies force Americans to pay twice the world price for sugar.
The Trade Representative’s report mentions foreign tariffs on infrastructure products that range up to 30 percent. Back in the United States, costly “buy American” infrastructure requirements often ban the use of foreign inputs entirely. Finally, if the U.S. government’s goal is to eliminate foreign tariffs on minerals and fuel of up to 30 percent, wouldn’t it make sense to end our ban on crude oil exports, which applies to all Trans-Pacific Partnership countries except Canada?
The goal of U.S. trade negotiators should be to conclude agreements that reduce barriers in all countries, including our own.
