While the U.S. has tried to appear assertive in taking action against China’s trade practices, this strategy has yielded limited results. In a new commentary, fellow Simon Lester summarizes current U.S. policies addressing China’s trade conduct and advocates for the U.S.’ revitalized engagement with the World Trade Organization’s dispute settlement system.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative recently stepped back from ongoing negotiations on digital trade at the World Trade Organization, citing unsettled domestic policy, and suspended support for digital trade rules in the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework too. But if the U.S. wants to be a part of the conversation, it should reengage and help craft rules flexible enough to meet its future domestic policy needs, writes nonresident fellow Simon Lester.
Despite recent claims that “free trade is dead,” fellow Simon Lester explains that America was never close to anything resembling free trade in the first place. Instead, current U.S. trade policy, just like past policy, reflects a messy mix of free market and industrial policy views.
With the recent enactment of the CHIPS and Science Act, the conversation about industrial policy has started up again. Are state-directed economic policies back, and will such initiatives work?
Circular processes cannot solve the sustainability problem, but critically implementing circularity with system-level thinking can help to urgently adopt a more resilient, regenerative model for avoiding resource scarcity while fostering economic growth, argues a Forbes piece co-authored by Rachel Meidl.
Rachel A. Meidl, Vilma Havas, Brita StaalAugust 9, 2021
The oil glut and the unprecedented drop in demand, along with plummeting oil prices due to the coronavirus pandemic, is revealing the strengths and weaknesses of oil firms globally. The authors consider four NOCs — Ecopetrol, Petrobras, Petronas and Pemex — in the context of the current crisis.
