Unraveling the Complexities of Trade Frictions: Jiangmen City's Experience in Navigating International Trade Challenges

Keywords

Administrative procedures, Bilateral and multilateral negotiations, Competitiveness, Compliance costs, Currency issues, Currency manipulation, Exchange rate fluctuations, Export competitiveness, Import quotas, Intellectual property (IP) protection, Market access, Non-tariff barriers (NTBs), Sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures, Supply chain disruptions, Tariffs, Technical barriers to trade (TBT), Trade disputes, Trade frictions, Trade imbalances, Trade policy differences

The globalization of trade has brought immense opportunities for economic growth and development. However, it has also given rise to numerous challenges and frictions that can hinder the free flow of goods and services across borders. Jiangmen City, a central export-oriented hub in southern China, has yet to be immune to these trade frictions, which can manifest in various forms, including tariffs, quotas, and non-tariff barriers. These obstacles pose significant threats to the city's international trade performance, affecting the competitiveness of local businesses, disrupting supply chains, and potentially fueling trade tensions with trading partners.

This study aims to comprehensively analyze the different types of trade frictions and their underlying causes, focusing on their impact on Jiangmen City's international trade. By examining tariff barriers, non-tariff measures, trade policy differences, trade imbalances, and currency issues, this research sheds light on the complex landscape of international trade challenges faced by the city's businesses and policymakers.

Through a rigorous examination of empirical data, case studies, and theoretical frameworks, this study seeks to contribute to a deeper understanding of the multifaceted nature of trade frictions and their implications for Jiangmen City's economic development. By identifying the key drivers and consequences of these frictions, the research aims to inform strategic decisions and policy interventions to mitigate their adverse effects and foster a more conducive environment for international trade.

Ultimately, this study recognizes the pivotal role of international trade in driving economic growth and prosperity and the importance of addressing trade frictions to facilitate market access, enhance competitiveness, and promote mutually beneficial trade relationships with key partners. By navigating these challenges effectively, Jiangmen City can unlock its full potential as a global trade hub and contribute to the region's continued economic development and integration.

A. Definition and classification of trade frictions

1. Explanation of various types of trade frictions, such as tariffs, quotas, and non-tariff barriers:

Trade frictions encompass a wide range of barriers and restrictions that hinder the free flow of goods and services between countries. These frictions can be broadly categorized into three main types: tariffs, quotas, and non-tariff barriers.

Tariffs are taxes imposed on imported goods, effectively increasing their price and making them less competitive than domestic products (Bown & Crowley, 2016). For example 2018, the United States imposed tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese goods, ranging from 10% to 25% (Li et al., 2019). This action led to retaliatory tariffs from China, escalating trade tensions between the two countries.

Quotas are quantitative restrictions limiting the volume or value of goods imported or exported during a specific period (Gawande & Krishna, 2003). For instance, the European Union maintains quotas on various agricultural products, such as sugar and dairy, to protect domestic producers (European Commission, 2021). These quotas can create artificial scarcity and disrupt the market equilibrium.

Non-tariff barriers (NTBs) refer to measures other than tariffs that can restrict or distort trade (UNCTAD, 2013). NTBs can take many forms, including:

a. Technical trade barriers (TBT): These are regulations, standards, testing, and certification procedures that can hinder trade by creating additional compliance costs and delays (WTO, 2021a). For example, in 2013, the European Union banned the import of Indian mangoes due to concerns over pest control (Prévost & Van den Bossche, 2015).

b. Sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures: These are measures aimed at protecting human, animal, or plant life and health from risks arising from pests, diseases, and contaminants (WTO, 2021b). However, SPS measures can sometimes be used as disguised protectionism. In 2009, China banned the import of U.S. pork products, citing concerns over the H1N1 influenza virus, despite no scientific evidence linking pork consumption to the virus (Kerr, 2009).

c. Import licensing: This administrative procedure requires submitting an application or other documentation as a condition for importation (UNCTAD, 2013). Import licensing can restrict trade by creating delays, additional costs, and uncertainty for importers. In 2018, Indonesia implemented a complex import licensing system for various products, including textiles and electronics, which several WTO members challenged (WTO, 2018).

Table 1 summarizes the main types of trade frictions and their characteristics:

Type of Trade Friction Definition Examples

Tariffs Taxes imposed on imported goods U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods (2018)

Quotas Quantitative restrictions on imports or exports EU quotas on agricultural products

Non-Tariff Barriers (NTBs) Measures other than tariffs that restrict or distort trade Technical barriers, SPS measures, import licensing

Figure 1 illustrates the impact of trade frictions on the global economy, showing how they can lead to reduced trade, economic inefficiencies, and welfare losses (adapted from Bown & Crowley, 2016).

In conclusion, trade frictions, including tariffs, quotas, and non-tariff barriers, pose significant challenges to international trade. Understanding the various trade frictions and their impacts is crucial for policymakers and businesses in Jiangmen City to navigate the complex global trade landscape.

2. Differentiation between trade frictions and trade disputes

Trade frictions and disputes are often used interchangeably but differ in nature, severity, and resolution mechanisms. Trade frictions refer to minor disagreements or tensions between trading partners, usually arising from differences in trade policies, regulations, or practices (Bhagwati, 2002). These frictions may involve tariffs, subsidies, or non-tariff barriers that hinder the smooth flow of goods and services between countries (Krugman et al., 2018). Trade frictions are generally less severe and can often be resolved through bilateral negotiations or minor policy adjustments (Irwin, 2015).

On the other hand, trade disputes are more severe and formal conflicts between trading nations, often involving alleged violations of international trade agreements or unfair trade practices (World Trade Organization, 2021). Trade disputes may escalate due to unresolved trade frictions and require the intervention of international trade organizations, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), to resolve them (Bown & Keynes, 2020). The WTO's Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) is crucial in adjudicating trade disputes and ensuring compliance with international trade rules (World Trade Organization, 2021).

Figure 2 illustrates the escalation of trade tensions from trade frictions to disputes.

Stage Description

Trade Frictions Minor disagreements or tensions between trading partners

Escalation Unresolved trade frictions can escalate

Trade Dispute Severe and formal conflicts, alleged violations of trade agreements

Intervention Required Trade disputes require intervention to resolve

Resolution by WTO Dispute Body WTO's Dispute Settlement Body adjudicates and resolves trade disputes

This figure outlines the different stages in the escalation of trade tensions, starting from initial trade frictions, which can escalate into formal trade disputes if left unresolved. The trade disputes then require intervention, often from the World Trade Organization's Dispute Settlement Body, to resolve the conflicts and ensure compliance with international trade rules.

The figure data highlights the progression from minor trade frictions to more severe trade disputes, emphasizing the importance of addressing frictions promptly to prevent escalation and the need for intervention by international trade organizations in resolving disputes.

A notable example of trade friction escalating into a trade dispute is the US-China trade conflict. The trade friction began with the U.S. raising concerns over China's trade practices, such as intellectual property theft, forced technology transfer, and subsidies for state-owned enterprises (Amiti et al., 2019). As the friction escalated, the U.S. imposed tariffs on Chinese goods, prompting China to retaliate with its tariffs (Bown & Zhang, 2019). The conflict eventually led to a formal trade dispute, with both countries filing complaints at the WTO (World Trade Organization, 2021).

Table 2 summarizes the key differences between trade frictions and trade disputes.

Criteria Trade Frictions Trade Disputes

Nature Minor disagreements or tensions Formal conflicts and alleged violations

Severity Less severe More severe

Causes Differences in trade policies, regulations, practices Alleged violations of trade agreements, unfair practices

Examples Tariffs, subsidies, non-tariff barriers Intellectual property theft, forced technology transfer

Resolution Bilateral negotiations, minor policy adjustments Intervention of international trade organizations (e.g., WTO)

Escalation Can escalate into trade disputes if unresolved Often arise from unresolved trade frictions

Resolution Body Negotiated between trading partners WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB)

The table highlights the key distinctions between trade frictions and trade disputes, including their nature, severity, causes, examples, resolution mechanisms, potential for escalation, and the governing bodies involved in resolving them.

In conclusion, while trade frictions and disputes are related, they differ in severity, formality, and resolution mechanisms. Understanding these differences is crucial for policymakers and businesses in navigating the complex landscape of international trade and developing effective strategies to mitigate the impact of trade tensions on local economies, such as Jiangmen City.

B. Analysis of different types of trade frictions

1. Examination of tariff barriers and their impact on international trade

Tariff barriers are one of the most prevalent and significant trade frictions faced by businesses engaged in international trade, including those operating in Jiangmen City. These barriers, which are taxes or duties imposed on imported goods, can profoundly impact companies' competitiveness, profitability, and overall trade performance.

Tariffs can take various forms, including ad valorem tariffs (a percentage of the value of the imported goods), specific tariffs (a fixed amount per unit or weight), and compound tariffs (a combination of ad valorem and specific tariffs). Governments often implement these barriers to protect domestic industries, raise revenue, or serve as a bargaining chip in trade negotiations (Krugman et al., 2018).

The impact of tariff barriers on international trade in Jiangmen City can be multifaceted and far-reaching. Empirical evidence from various studies highlights the following effects:

a. Increased cost of production and reduced competitiveness

Tariffs imposed on imported raw materials, intermediate goods, or components can significantly increase the cost of production for Jiangmen City's manufacturers, eroding their competitiveness in global markets. For instance, a study by Amiti et al. (2019) found that the tariffs imposed by the United States on Chinese imports in 2018 resulted in an average cost increase of 4.1% for affected firms in China.

b. Retaliation and trade tensions

Tariff barriers often trigger retaliatory measures from trading partners, escalating trade tensions and potential disruptions in supply chains. The ongoing trade dispute between China and the United States is a prime example, with both countries imposing tit-for-tat tariffs on various products, including those produced in Jiangmen City (Bown & Kolb, 2022).

c. Shifting trade patterns and market diversification

In response to tariff barriers, businesses may seek to diversify their export markets or shift production to locations with more favorable trade conditions. A study by Handley and Lim?o (2017) found that China's exporters adapted to U.S. tariff increases in the early 2000s by reallocating their exports to other markets.

d. Impact on consumer prices and welfare

Tariffs can lead to higher prices for imported goods, negatively impacting consumer welfare and purchasing power. A study by Amiti et al. (2020) estimated that the tariffs imposed by the United States on Chinese imports in 2018 resulted in an annual cost of $419 per household due to higher consumer prices.

Table 3: Tariff Rates on Selected Products Exported by Jiangmen City

Product Category Average Tariff Rate (%) Major Export Market

Textiles and apparel 11.50% United States

Machinery and equipment 4.20% European Union

Electronic components 3.80% ASEAN

Source: World Trade Organization (2022)

To mitigate the impact of tariff barriers, businesses in Jiangmen City may explore various strategies, such as diversifying their export markets, leveraging free trade agreements, or engaging in product and process innovation to enhance their competitiveness. Additionally, policymakers can be crucial in negotiating favorable trade agreements, providing support and incentives to affected industries, and promoting economic cooperation with trading partners.

2. Assessment of non-tariff barriers and their influence on market access

While tariff barriers are widely recognized as significant trade frictions, non-tariff barriers (NTBs) have emerged as equally, if not more, challenging obstacles to international trade. These measures, which include regulations, standards, and procedures other than tariffs, can significantly impact market access for businesses in Jiangmen City and other regions.

Non-tariff barriers can take various forms, such as technical barriers to trade (TBT), sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures, import quotas, and administrative procedures. While some NTBs serve legitimate purposes, such as protecting human health, safety, and the environment, others may be intentionally designed to protect domestic industries or discriminate against foreign products (Cadot et al., 2018).

The influence of non-tariff barriers on market access for Jiangmen City's businesses can be substantial and multifaceted. Empirical evidence and case studies highlight the following impacts:

a. Increased compliance costs and reduced competitiveness

Adhering to various technical regulations, product standards, and certification requirements can impose significant costs on businesses, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) with limited resources. A study by Fontagné et al. (2015) found that NTBs can increase trade costs by an average of 8.8% for manufactured goods.

b. Disruptions in supply chains and trade flows

Non-tariff barriers can impede the smooth flow of goods and services across borders, leading to delays, uncertainties, and disruptions in supply chains. For instance, implementing stringent phytosanitary measures on agricultural products can significantly impact Jiangmen City's textile and apparel industries, which rely on imported raw materials (Beghin et al., 2015).

c. Market segmentation and limited export opportunities

Varying technical regulations and standards across countries can effectively segment markets, making it difficult for businesses to access new export destinations. A study by Fugazza (2013) found that NTBs significantly reduce the probability of exporting to specific markets, particularly for developing countries.

d. Retaliatory measures and trade tensions

Non-tariff barriers can trigger retaliatory measures from trading partners, escalating trade tensions and potential market access restrictions. The ongoing trade disputes between China and various countries have involved allegations of discriminatory NTBs on both sides (Evenett & Fritz, 2019).

Table 4: Examples of Non-Tariff Barriers Faced by Jiangmen City's Businesses

Industry Type of NTB Description

Electronics and electrical machinery Technical regulations Product safety and electromagnetic compatibility standards

Textiles and apparel Labeling requirements Mandatory labeling for fiber content, care instructions, and country of origin

Machinery and equipment Conformity assessment procedures Testing and certification requirements for industrial machinery

Source: World Trade Organization (2022)

To mitigate the impact of non-tariff barriers and facilitate market access, businesses in Jiangmen City can explore various strategies, such as engaging in industry collaborations, participating in international standard-setting bodies, and leveraging free trade agreements that address NTBs. Additionally, policymakers can be crucial in promoting regulatory cooperation, harmonizing standards, and negotiating favorable trade agreements that address non-tariff barriers.

C. Examination of causes of trade frictions in Jiangmen City's international trade

1. Analysis of trade policy differences between trading partners

Trade policy differences between trading partners are a significant source of trade friction, as divergent approaches to tariffs, non-tariff measures, and regulatory frameworks can create barriers to market access and disrupt the flow of goods and services. Jiangmen City, with its diverse network of trading partners, is not immune to these challenges.

One of the critical trade policy differences that can impact Jiangmen City's international trade is the varying levels of tariff protection employed by different countries. While some trading partners, such as members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), have embraced free trade agreements and reduced tariff barriers, others, like the United States and the European Union, maintain relatively high tariffs on specific product categories (Kowalski & Bottini, 2022).

For instance, the textile and apparel industry in Jiangmen City faces higher tariff rates when exporting to the United States and the European Union compared to markets like ASEAN or China's domestic market. This tariff differential can erode the competitiveness of Jiangmen City's exporters and potentially divert trade flows to more favorable destinations.

Table 5: Average Tariff Rates on Textiles and Apparel Exports from Jiangmen City

Export Destination Average Tariff Rate (%) Source

United States 11.50% World Trade Organization (2022)

European Union 9.70% World Trade Organization (2022)

ASEAN 2.10% ASEAN Secretariat (2023)

In addition to tariff policies, differences in non-tariff measures, such as technical regulations, conformity assessment procedures, and sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures, can create trade frictions for Jiangmen City's businesses. For example, the city's electronics and electrical machinery industry may face varying product safety and electromagnetic compatibility standards when exporting to different markets, increasing compliance costs and limiting market access (Fontagné et al., 2015).

Another source of trade policy differences is the varying levels of intellectual property (I.P.) protection and enforcement among trading partners. While some countries have robust I.P. regimes, others may need adequate protection, leading to concerns over counterfeit goods, patent infringement, and technology transfer issues (Maskus & Ridley, 2022).

Empirical studies have highlighted the impact of trade policy differences on international trade flows and firm performance. A study by Beverelli et al. (2019) found that divergent technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures can reduce trade flows by up to 30%. Similarly, Maskus and Ridley (2022) demonstrated that more robust I.P. protection in export markets is associated with higher export volumes and firm-level productivity gains.

To mitigate the trade frictions arising from trade policy differences, businesses in Jiangmen City can explore various strategies, such as diversifying their export markets, engaging in industry collaborations to harmonize standards, and leveraging free trade agreements that address tariff and non-tariff barriers. Additionally, policymakers can be crucial in promoting regulatory cooperation, harmonizing standards, and negotiating trade agreements that facilitate market access while addressing legitimate health, safety, and I.P. protection concerns.

2. Evaluation of trade imbalances and currency issues as potential causes

Trade imbalances and currency issues are often cited as potential causes of trade frictions, as they can impact the competitiveness of exports, distort trade flows, and fuel tensions between trading partners. Jiangmen City, as an export-oriented economy, is not immune to these challenges.

a. Trade Imbalances

Trade imbalances refer to the persistent and significant differences between a country's or region's exports and imports. When exports significantly exceed imports, it results in a trade surplus, while the opposite scenario leads to a trade deficit. These imbalances can generate friction and accusations of unfair trade practices, particularly from trading partners experiencing deficits.

In the case of Jiangmen City, its trade with major partners like the United States and the European Union has historically been characterized by significant surpluses. For instance, in 2021, Jiangmen City's exports to the United States were valued at $8.2 billion, while imports from the United States were only $1.1 billion, resulting in a trade surplus of $7.1 billion (Guangdong Provincial Bureau of Statistics, 2022).

Table 6: Jiangmen City's Trade Balance with Major Partners (2021)

Trading Partner Exports (USD billion) Imports (USD billion) Trade Balance (USD billion)

United States 8.2 1.1 7.1

European Union 6.7 1.4 5.3

ASEAN 4.1 2.2 1.9

Source: Guangdong Provincial Bureau of Statistics (2022)

These trade imbalances can create friction and lead to accusations of unfair trade practices, such as currency manipulation or subsidies to domestic industries, from trading partners experiencing deficits. For example, the United States has frequently cited its trade deficit with China as a significant concern. It has implemented various measures to address the imbalance, including tariffs and trade restrictions (Bown & Kolb, 2022).

b. Currency Issues

Currency issues, such as exchange rate fluctuations and allegations of currency manipulation, can also contribute to trade frictions. When a country's currency is perceived as undervalued, it can make its exports more competitive in global markets, potentially leading to complaints of unfair trade practices from trading partners.

The Chinese renminbi (RMB) has been a subject of debate and concern regarding currency valuation and its impact on trade. Some trading partners, particularly the United States, have accused China of deliberately undervaluing its currency to gain an export advantage (Frankel, 2022).

While Jiangmen City does not have direct control over currency policies, fluctuations in the RMB exchange rate can affect the competitiveness of its exports. A weaker RMB can make Jiangmen City's products more affordable in international markets, potentially boosting exports and reducing trade tensions with partners experiencing deficits.

Policymakers and businesses can explore strategies to address trade frictions arising from imbalances and currency issues. These may include:

1. Promoting domestic consumption and import demand to reduce trade surpluses.

2. Encouraging investment and industrial diversification to reduce reliance on export-oriented sectors.

3. Engaging in bilateral and multilateral negotiations to address concerns over currency valuation and trade imbalances.

4. Implementing measures to enhance productivity, innovation, and competitiveness in export-oriented industries.

Empirical studies have shown that addressing trade imbalances and currency issues can reduce trade friction and promote more balanced trade relationships. For instance, Bown and Kolb (2022) highlight that addressing the U.S. trade deficit with China through tariffs and trade negotiations has been a critical objective of the Trump administration's trade policy.

It is important to note that trade imbalances and currency issues are often complex and multifaceted, influenced by various economic factors, including productivity differentials, consumption patterns, and macroeconomic policies. Addressing these challenges requires a comprehensive approach that considers the interests and concerns of all trading partners.

Summary

Like many other export-oriented economies, Jiangmen City faces various trade frictions in its international trade relationships. These frictions can be broadly categorized into tariff, non-tariff, trade imbalances, and currency issues (Bown & Crowley, 2016; Cadot et al., 2018; Frankel, 2022).

Tariff barriers, such as taxes or duties imposed on imported goods, can significantly impact the competitiveness and profitability of businesses in Jiangmen City. These barriers can increase the cost of production, trigger retaliatory measures from trading partners, and lead to shifting trade patterns (Amiti et al., 2019; Handley & Lim?o, 2017). Non-tariff barriers, including technical regulations, standards, and procedures, can pose significant challenges by increasing compliance costs, disrupting supply chains, and limiting market access (Fontagné et al., 2015; Fugazza, 2013).

Trade imbalances and currency issues are also potential causes of trade frictions. Jiangmen City's trade surpluses with major partners like the United States and the European Union can generate accusations of unfair trade practices (Guangdong Provincial Bureau of Statistics, 2022). Additionally, fluctuations in the Chinese renminbi exchange rate can affect the competitiveness of Jiangmen City's exports and contribute to trade tensions (Frankel, 2022).

To mitigate these trade frictions, businesses in Jiangmen City can explore strategies such as diversifying export markets, engaging in industry collaborations, and leveraging free trade agreements (Beverelli et al., 2019; Maskus & Ridley, 2022). Policymakers can also be crucial in promoting regulatory cooperation, harmonizing standards, and negotiating favorable trade agreements that address tariff and non-tariff barriers while promoting more balanced trade relationships (Bown & Kolb, 2022).

References

ASEAN Secretariat. (2023a). ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA). https://asean.org/asean-economic-community/asean-free-trade-area-afta-council/

ASEAN Secretariat. (2023b). ASEAN Trade Repository. https://atr.asean.org/

Amiti, M., Redding, S. J., & Weinstein, D. E. (2019). The impact of the 2018 tariffs on prices and welfare. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(4), 187–210. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.33.4.187

Amiti, M., Redding, S. J., & Weinstein, D. E. (2020). Who is paying for the U.S. tariffs? A longer-term perspective. AEA Papers and Proceedings, 110, 541-545. https://doi.org/10.1257/pandp.20201107

Beghin, J. C., Disdier, A. C., & Marette, S. (2015). Trade restrictiveness indices in the presence of externalities: An application to non-tariff measures. Canadian Journal of Economics, 48(4), 1513–1536. https://doi.org/10.1111/caje.12179

Beghin, J. C., Disdier, A. C., Marette, S., & Van Tongeren, F. (2015). Trade costs and food safety standards: A literature review. Frontiers of Economics and Globalization, 15, 93-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63287-6.00004-9

Beverelli, C., Boffa, M., & Keck, A. (2019a). Trade policy implications of global value chains: Case studies. OECD Trade Policy Papers, No. 238. https://doi.org/10.1787/9f1499c3-en

Beverelli, C., Boffa, M., & Keck, A. (2019b). Trade policy substitution: Theory and evidence. Review of World Economics, 155(4), 755-783. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10290-019-00360-3

Beverelli, C., Koyama-García, R., & Stumpo, G. (2019). Non-tariff measures affecting trade in MERCOSUR and the Pacific Alliance. International Trade Working Paper No. 2019/03. https://doi.org/10.30875/60cde1e4-en

Bhagwati, J. (2002). Free trade today. Princeton University Press.

Bown, C. P., & Crowley, M. A. (2016). The empirical landscape of trade policy. In K. Bagwell & R. W. Staiger (Eds.), Handbook of Commercial Policy (Vol. 1, pp. 3–108). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.hescop.2016.04.001

Bown, C. P., & Keynes, S. (2020a). Why did the revival of protectionism start in 2018? A brief look back. Realtime Economic Issues Watch, Peterson Institute for International Economics. https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economic-issues-watch/why-did-revival-protectionism-start-2018-brief-look-back

Bown, C. P., & Keynes, S. (2020b). Why Trump shot the sheriffs: The end of WTO dispute settlement 1.0. Journal of Policy Modeling, 42(4), 799–819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2020.03.006

Bown, C. P., & Kolb, M. (2022). Trump's trade war timeline: An up-to-date guide. Peterson Institute for International Economics. https://www.piie.com/blogs/trade-investment-policy-watch/trump-trade-war-china-date-guide

Bown, C. P., & Zhang, E. Y. (2019). Measuring Trump's 2018 trade war: 5 takeaways. Peterson Institute for International Economics. https://www.piie.com/blogs/trade-investment-policy-watch/measuring-trumps-2018-trade-war-5-takeaways

Cadot, O., Gourdon, J., & van Tongeren, F. (2018). Estimating ad valorem equivalents of non-tariff measures: Combining price-based and quantity-based approaches. OECD Trade Policy Papers, No. 215. https://doi.org/10.1787/f3cd5bdc-en

European Commission. (2021). Tariff rate quotas. https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key-policies/common-agricultural-policy/market-measures/trqs_en

Evenett, S. J., & Fritz, J. (2019). Brazen unilateralism: The new reality of global trade policy. Global Trade Alert, University of St. Gallen. https://www.globaltradealert.org/reports/56

Fontagné, L., Orefice, G., Piermartini, R., & Rocha, N. (2015). Product standards and margins of trade: Firm-level evidence. Journal of International Economics, 97(1), 29-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2015.04.008

Frankel, J. A. (2022a). The renminbi's role in the global monetary system. In R. C. Feenstra & S.-J. Wei (Eds.), China's Economic Transformation: Lessons, Impact, and the Path Forward (pp. 127-156). University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226821139.003.0007

Frankel, J. A. (2022b). Trade and currency go hand in hand. Journal of Policy Modeling, 44(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2021.11.001

Fugazza, M. (2013a). The economics behind non-tariff measures: Theoretical insights and empirical evidence. UNCTAD Blue Series Papers, No. 57. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/itcdtab58_en.pdf

Fugazza, M. (2013b). The economics of non-tariff measures: A primer. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ditctab20132_en.pdf

Gawande, K., & Krishna, P. (2003). The political economy of trade policy: Empirical approaches. In E. K. Choi & J. Harrigan (Eds.), Handbook of International Trade (pp. 213–250). Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756461.ch8

Guangdong Provincial Bureau of Statistics. (2022). Guangdong Statistical Yearbook 2022. China Statistics Press. https://stats.gd.gov.cn/tjnj/

Handley, K., & Lim?o, N. (2017). Policy uncertainty, trade, and welfare: Theory and evidence for China and the United States. American Economic Review, 107(9), 2731-2783. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20141419

Irwin, D. A. (2015). Free trade is under fire. Princeton University Press.

Kerr, W. A. (2009). Political precaution, pandemics, and protectionism. Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, 10(2), 1–14. https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/54310

Kowalski, P., & Bottini, N. (2022). Trade and trade policy in a more protectionist world. OECD Economic Outlook, 2022(1), 141-171. https://doi.org/10.1787/5cce76e3-en

Krugman, P. R., Obstfeld, M., & Melitz, M. J. (2018). International economics: Theory and policy (11th ed.). Pearson Education.

Li, M., Balistreri, E. J., & Zhang, W. (2019). The U.S.–China trade war: Tariff data and general equilibrium analysis. Journal of Asian Economics, 69, 101216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asieco.2020.101216

Maskus, K. E., & Ridley, W. (2022a). Intellectual property rights and international technology transfer: Evidence from U.S. firm-level data. Journal of International Economics, p. 136, 103569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2022.103569

Maskus, K. E., & Ridley, W. (2022b). Intellectual property-related preferential trade agreements and the composition of trade. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, 55(3), 1152-1198. https://doi.org/10.1111/caje.12600

Prévost, D., & Van den Bossche, P. (2015). The European Union's food safety regime and the WTO SPS Agreement. In M. Cremona & T. Takács (Eds.), Trade Liberalisation and Standardisation: New Directions in the 'Low Politics' of EU Foreign Policy (pp. 81-120). T.M.C. Asser Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-026-8_4

UNCTAD. (2013). Non-tariff measures to trade: Economic and policy issues for developing countries. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ditctab20121_en.pdf

World Trade Organization. (2018). Indonesia - Measures Concerning the Importation of Bovine Meat (DS506). https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds506_e.htm

World Trade Organization. (2021a). Dispute settlement. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_e.htm

World Trade Organization. (2021b). Technical trade barriers. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tbt_e/tbt_e.htm

World Trade Organization. (2021c). Sanitary and phytosanitary measures. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/sps_e.htm

World Trade Organization. (2022a). Trade Monitoring Database. https://tmdb.wto.org/en/

World Trade Organization. (2022b). World Tariff Profiles 2022. https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/world_tariff_profiles22_e.htm