<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Nachspiel at Polemarchus&#039; &#187; protectionism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://polemarchus.net/tag/protectionism/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://polemarchus.net</link>
	<description>A political science blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Oct 2011 20:32:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>An EU-US trade war in the making?</title>
		<link>http://polemarchus.net/2009/03/31/eu-us-trade-wa/</link>
		<comments>http://polemarchus.net/2009/03/31/eu-us-trade-wa/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:04:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sverre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Political economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Finance Crisis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[France]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Le Maire]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political Science Blogs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[protectionism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade war]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://polemarchus.net/?p=319</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I was listening to an LSE podcast of a lecture by French Minister of State for European Affairs Bruno Le Maire, when I heard some surprising statements made. He was talking about how it was important for European nations not to resort to protectionism in the face of the current crisis when he happened to [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was listening to an LSE podcast of a <a href="http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/LSEPublicLecturesAndEvents/events/2009/20090128t1640z001.htm#generated-subheading1">lecture by French Minister of State for European Affairs Bruno Le Maire</a>, when I heard some surprising statements made. He was talking about how it was important for European nations not to resort to protectionism in the face of the current crisis when he happened to make some interesting, possibly disturbing, statements. He talks about the difference between protecting your industries and protectionism. I can&#8217;t spot the difference, can you?  (from approiximate 1h10min into the speech):</p>
<blockquote><p>[...]so I am not in favour of protectionism, as I just said, I am just in favour of European measures &#8211; measures decided at the European level &#8211; that would prove to our citizens that we are taking into account their fears and worries and that we are trying to protect our European economy, that we are trying to protect our industries. This is a very difficult balance we have to find, but this is not protectionism. Protectionism means today that the UK would take some very concrete measures just to protect one of its plants, in New Hampshire for example, or London. Or that France would take some very national measures just to protect one of its industries or one of its plants in Normandie or the south of France without taking into account the interest of the UK and Germany and Spain and Italy. That&#8217;s the difference between the two ways of protectin industries and protecting our economies[...]<span id="more-319"></span></p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>I just give a concrete example. The concrete example that is to me the best example of what we need today, si the automotive industry. If we don&#8217;t take any kind of measure to support the automotive industry in France, the UK, and also in Italy with Fiat, the automotive industry in Europe will disappear in a few months, or let&#8217;s say in two years. Just because the US on their side, has decided to give more than twenty-five billion dollars to General Motors, in direct help to General Motors: Twenty-five billion dollars. If we just say that&#8217;s a problem with the US. They should not give twenty-five billion dollars to the GM, that&#8217;s unacceptable and I&#8217;m not happy with that measure. If we just say this, letting our automotive industry die in a few months, I can assure you we run the risk of having very big political troubles in a few months or a few weeks.</p>
<p>That is why we need to support our automotive industry, even if it is not allowed by the Commission to day, we have to find the right balance, but we have to support our automotive industry. That is really the line we need to draw between saving our industries, doing our best so that no industry disappears in the coming months and doing things that would only mean that we are attached, and that we are in favour of protectionism.</p>
<p>I know the difference is very hard to see and that the line is very hard to draw, but this is the difference between protectionism as such and defending our industry.</p></blockquote>
<p>You are quite right, Mr. Le Mair. The difference is difficult to see. In fact, what you&#8217;re describing sounds like the definition of a trade war. Or was the difference that measures to protect EU industries from US competition is not protectionism since it allows intra-EU competition? A trade war over automobiles between the EU and the US is for some reason not the same as a trade war between the US and France?</p>
<p>Domestic political pressures seems to have politicians grasping at straws and scrambling towards protectionist measures. That doesn&#8217;t seem like a good way for the world economy to pull itself out of the pinch it&#8217;s in.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://polemarchus.net/2009/03/31/eu-us-trade-wa/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trade protectionism rising</title>
		<link>http://polemarchus.net/2009/03/18/trade-protectionism-rising/</link>
		<comments>http://polemarchus.net/2009/03/18/trade-protectionism-rising/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:58:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sverre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Political economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Finance Crisis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[g20]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political Science Blogs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[protectionism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[world bank]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World Economy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://polemarchus.net/?p=304</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The World Bank reports today that protectionism in the world is rising as a result of the current crisis. 17 of the G20 nations have enacted protectionist policies despite their pledge in the Washington action plan as recently as November 15 last year. Article 13 of the action plan states: We underscore the critical importance [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The <a href="http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:22105847~pagePK:64257043~piPK:437376~theSitePK:4607,00.html">World Bank reports today</a> that protectionism in the world is rising as a result of the current crisis. 17 of the G20 nations have enacted protectionist policies despite their pledge in the <a href="http://www.g20.org/Documents/g20_summit_declaration.pdf" class="broken_link">Washington action plan</a> as recently as November 15 last year. Article 13 of the action plan states:</p>
<blockquote><p>We underscore the critical importance of rejecting protectionism and not turning inward in times of financial uncertainty. In this regard, within the next 12 months, we will refrain from raising new barriers to investment or to trade in goods and services, imposing new export restrictions, or implementing World Trade Organization (WTO) inconsistent measures to stimulate exports.</p></blockquote>
<p><span id="more-304"></span>The report states that the developed economies resort to subsidizing of export industries, while the developing use a number of different measures, among them imposing tariffs. According to the World Bank, this is testimony of the superior financial strength of the developed economies. The generated deficits might however increase pressure to &#8220;wall off&#8221; the economy, by which I assume they mean increasing trade tariffs.</p>
<p>When the rich countries of the world resort to direct subsidies for business, as is the case with the American car industry subsidies, the poorer countries should have reason to fear. Neither rich nor poor countries can afford to stop trading, but the fact that the richer countries have access to subsidies and the poor countries must wall off trade might prove very bad news for the poorer countries in the long run.</p>
<p>Find the rather short and easily read report here:</p>
<p><a href="http://siteresources.worldbank.org/NEWS/Resources/Trade_Note_37.pdf">http://siteresources.worldbank.org/NEWS/Resources/Trade_Note_37.pdf</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://polemarchus.net/2009/03/18/trade-protectionism-rising/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

