風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
研究稱特朗普的關稅損害了美國就業但影響了美國選民
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/02/us/politics/trump-tariffs-jobs-voters.html
新的研究發現，前總統唐納德·J·特朗普的關稅並沒有帶回美國的就業機會，但選民似乎還是獎勵了他的關稅。
一輛車輛正在從大片大豆田裏收割莊稼。
北京決定征收報複性關稅，向中國出口大豆、棉花和高粱的美國農民受到的打擊尤其嚴重。 圖片版權：Rory Doyle for The New York Times
安娜·斯旺森（Ana Swanson） 安娜·斯旺森（Ana Swanson）報道了特朗普和拜登政府的貿易政策。 2024 年 2 月 2 日
一項新的研究表明，前總統唐納德·J·特朗普對中國和其他美國貿易夥伴征收的全麵關稅既是政治上的成功，也是經濟上的失敗。 這是因為這些征稅措施為共和黨贏得了選民的支持，盡管它們沒有帶來就業機會。
這份無黨派工作文件審查了美國各行業就業月度數據發現，特朗普從 2018 年開始對外國金屬、洗衣機和一係列來自中國的商品征收關稅，既沒有增加也沒有減少受影響地區的就業總數。 行業。
但該報發現，這些關稅確實促使其他國家對美國產品征收報複性關稅，使這些產品銷往海外的成本更高，而且這些關稅對美國的就業產生了負麵影響。 在農業領域尤其如此：北京決定將這些產品的關稅提高至高達 25%，向中國出口大豆、棉花和高粱的農民受到了打擊。
特朗普政府旨在通過向農民提供財政支持來抵消這些損失，最終在 2018 年和 2019 年發放了 230 億美元。但政府評估發現，這些資金分配不均，經濟學家表示，這些補貼僅部分減輕了農民遭受的損失。 是關稅造成的。
這些調查結果與特朗普的說法相矛盾，特朗普聲稱他的關稅有助於扭轉來自中國的競爭造成的部分損害，並將流失到海外的美國製造業就業崗位帶回美國。 經濟學家得出的結論是，這三項措施——最初的關稅、報複性關稅和向農民提供的補貼——對美國就業的總體影響“充其量隻是一次打擊，而且可能是輕微的負麵影響”。
研究報告的作者之一、蘇黎世大學的戴維·多恩 (David Dorn) 在一份報告中表示：“當然，你可以拒絕這樣的假設，即這項關稅政策非常成功地為那些經常受到關稅戰影響的行業帶來了就業機會。” 麵試。
即便如此，研究人員的研究表明，對外國產品征收激進關稅對於特朗普和共和黨來說是政治上的成功。
該研究根據總統和國會選舉的計票數據表明，生活在受關稅影響地區的人們——尤其是中西部、五大湖周邊地區和南方——更有可能投票支持特朗普連任。 2020 年特朗普當選。據該報稱，他們也變得不太可能認為自己是民主黨人，而更有可能選舉共和黨人進入國會。
這些政治信念並非完全不受經濟影響：在關稅和補貼對就業市場產生更積極影響的地區，共和黨的選舉收益更為強勁。 該報稱，其他國家針對特朗普征稅而征收的報複性關稅確實削弱了對共和黨的支持，但幅度不大。
盡管如此，經濟學家推測，過去幾十年來受到中國經濟競爭嚴重打擊的地區的選民可能將關稅視為“政治團結的標誌”，而不是它們對就業產生的實際影響。
多恩表示：“從共和黨的角度來看，人們對當地產業的進口保護反應非常積極，積極，但如果他們所在的地區麵臨報複性關稅，他們不會對共和黨人造成太大懲罰。”
除了多恩先生之外，該研究的作者還包括麻省理工學院的大衛·奧托、世界銀行的安妮·貝克和哈佛大學肯尼迪學院的戈登·H·漢森。
奧托先生、多恩先生和漢森先生對“中國衝擊”進行了有影響力的研究，量化了中國加入世界貿易組織導致美國製造業就業減少的程度。 他們後來的工作研究了這些失業如何影響美國中心地帶的政治趨勢，包括導致政治兩極分化和共和黨支持率的增加。
多恩表示，美國經濟在貿易戰期間強勁增長，這可能影響了選民對關稅影響的看法。 “這就是那句著名的話，‘這是經濟，愚蠢的’”他說。
“人們很難完全找出經濟衰退的原因
進展順利，”多恩先生補充道。 “經濟運行良好是因為某些特定的政府政策，還是盡管有政府政策，經濟仍運行良好？”
這些調查結果發布之際，特朗普先生作為候選人承諾在 2024 年采取更加激進的貿易措施。特朗普先生宣布之前的關稅措施取得了成功，並提議如果連任，將出台更廣泛的征稅計劃，其中包括 10% 的關稅 所有進口商品的“基準”關稅。
在經曆了數十年貿易迅速擴張、供應鏈全球化以及許多美國工廠轉移到海外之後，近年來，民主黨和共和黨都越來越願意接受對美國工業的保護。
雖然拜登降低了特朗普實施的部分關稅，例如對歐洲的關稅，但他保留了對中國的關稅和其他措施。 拜登政府官員還在討論進一步提高電動汽車等一些戰略產品的關稅。
支持者認為，關稅阻止中國向美國大量供應廉價商品，保護脆弱的美國製造業並為聯邦政府創造收入。
批評人士表示，關稅隻會提高美國消費者的價格，並對在商品上花更多錢的低收入人群造成特殊負擔。 關稅還增加了依賴外國投入的美國工廠的成本，這可能使美國產品變得更加昂貴，並降低國際競爭力。
研究稱，在特朗普任職期間，美國對中國商品的平均關稅在短短兩年內從3.1%升至21%，而中國對美國商品的平均關稅從8%升至21.8%。
該研究的作者表示，目前尚不清楚為什麽進口關稅沒有給美國帶來更多就業機會。 一種可能性是，企業隻是從其他成本較低的國家進口產品，而不是從中國進口，這一趨勢在貿易數據中顯而易見。
多恩表示，在某些情況下，獲得進口保護的美國工業最終銷售額會更高。 一種可能性是，美國公司發現，在征收關稅後，他們可以在不提高產量的情況下提高價格。
該報稱，在貿易戰期間未能帶來實質性就業增長的關稅是否可能在較長時期內創造更多就業機會，這仍然是一個懸而未決的問題。
安娜·斯旺森 (Ana Swanson) 駐華盛頓，為《泰晤士報》報道貿易和國際經濟問題。 她當記者已經十多年了。
Trump's Tariffs Hurt U.S. Jobs but Swayed American Voters, Study Says
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/02/us/politics/trump-tariffs-jobs-voters.html
New research finds that former President Donald J. Trump’s tariffs did not bring back U.S. jobs, but voters appeared to reward him for the levies anyway.
American farmers who exported soybeans, cotton and sorghum to China were hit particularly hard by Beijing’s decision to impose retaliatory tariffs.Credit...Rory Doyle for The New York Times
The sweeping tariffs that former President Donald J. Trump imposed on China and other American trading partners were simultaneously a political success and an economic failure, a new study suggests. That’s because the levies won over voters for the Republican Party even though they did not bring back jobs.
The nonpartisan working paper examines monthly data on U.S. employment by industry to find that the tariffs that Mr. Trump placed on foreign metals, washing machines and an array of goods from China starting in 2018 neither raised nor lowered the overall number of jobs in the affected industries.
But the tariffs did incite other countries to impose their own retaliatory tariffs on American products, making them more expensive to sell overseas, and those levies had a negative effect on American jobs, the paper finds. That was particularly true in agriculture: Farmers who exported soybeans, cotton and sorghum to China were hit by Beijing’s decision to raise tariffs on those products to as much as 25 percent.
The Trump administration aimed to offset those losses by offering financial support for farmers, ultimately giving out $23 billion in 2018 and 2019. But those funds were distributed unevenly, a government assessment found, and the economists say those subsidies only partially mitigated the harm that had been caused by the tariffs.
The findings contradict Mr. Trump’s claims that his tariffs helped to reverse some of the damage done by competition from China and bring back American manufacturing jobs that had gone overseas. The economists conclude that the aggregate effect on U.S. jobs of the three measures — the original tariffs, retaliatory tariffs and subsidies granted to farmers — were “at best a wash, and it may have been mildly negative.”
“Certainly you can reject the hypothesis that this tariff policy was very successful at bringing back jobs to those industries that got a lot of exposure to that tariff war,” one of the study authors, David Dorn of the University of Zurich, said in an interview.
Even so, the researchers’ work suggests that aggressive tariffs on foreign products were a political success for Mr. Trump and the Republican Party.
Drawing from data on vote counts for presidential and congressional elections, the study suggests that people living in areas affected by the tariffs — particularly the Midwest, the area around the Great Lakes, and the South — became more likely to vote to re-elect Mr. Trump in 2020. They also became less likely to identify as Democrats, and more likely to elect Republicans to Congress, according to the paper.
Those political beliefs were not entirely immune to economic effects: Republican electoral gains were stronger in locations where tariffs and subsidies had a more positive effect on the job market. And the retaliatory tariffs that other countries imposed in response to Mr. Trump’s levies did weaken support for Republicans, but only modestly, the paper said.
Still, the economists speculate that voters in areas that were hit hard by economic competition from China in past decades may have valued the tariffs “as a sign of political solidarity,” rather than for the actual consequences they had on jobs.
“People react very positively, positively from a Republican point of view, to import protection of their local industry,” Mr. Dorn said, “but they don’t punish Republicans that much if their location gets exposed to retaliatory tariffs.”
In addition to Mr. Dorn, the study’s authors are David Autor of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Anne Beck of the World Bank and Gordon H. Hanson of the Harvard Kennedy School.
Mr. Autor, Mr. Dorn and Mr. Hanson have conducted influential research on “the China shock,” which quantified how much China’s joining the World Trade Organization had reduced U.S. manufacturing employment. Their later work examined how those job losses have influenced political trends in the U.S. heartland, including leading to political polarization and increased Republican support.
Mr. Dorn said that the American economy was growing strongly during the trade war, which may have influenced voters’ perceptions of the effects that tariffs had. “It’s the famous, ‘It’s the economy, stupid,’” he said.
“It is very, very difficult for people to sort of fully isolate why the economy is going well,” Mr. Dorn added. “Is the economy going well because of some particular government policy, or is the economy going well despite the government policy?”
The findings come as Mr. Trump is promising even more aggressive trade measures as a candidate in 2024. Mr. Trump has proclaimed his previous tariffs a success and proposed to issue an even more expansive program of levies if re-elected, including a 10 percent “base-line” tariff on all imported goods.
Both Democrats and Republicans have shown an increased willingness to embrace protections for American industry in recent years, after decades in which trade rapidly expanded, supply chains globalized and many U.S. factories shifted overseas.
While Mr. Biden has reduced some of the tariffs Mr. Trump put into effect, for example those on Europe, he has kept the China tariffs and other measures in place. Biden administration officials are also debating raising tariffs on some strategic products, like electric vehicles, further.
Proponents argue that tariffs deter China from flooding the United States with cheap goods, protecting vulnerable American manufacturing industries and generating revenue for the federal government.
Critics say tariffs simply raise prices for American consumers and pose a particular burden for lower-income people who spend more of their money on goods. Tariffs also increase costs for American factories that depend on foreign inputs, which can make U.S. products more expensive and less competitive internationally.
During Mr. Trump’s tenure, the average U.S. tariff on Chinese goods jumped from 3.1 percent to 21 percent within just two years, while the average Chinese tariff on U.S. goods rose from 8 percent to 21.8 percent, the study says.
The study authors say it is not clear precisely why import tariffs did not result in more U.S. jobs. One possibility is that firms simply imported products from other lower-cost countries, rather than China, a trend that is visible in trade data.
In some cases, Mr. Dorn said, U.S. industries that received import protection ended up having higher sales; one possibility is that American firms found that they could raise their prices after tariffs were imposed without raising their output.
It remains an open question whether tariffs that failed to generate substantial job gains during the trade war might create more jobs over longer periods, the paper said.
Ana Swanson covers trade and international economics for The Times and is based in Washington. She has been a journalist for more than a decade. More about Ana Swanson
