|
by Michael R. Czinkota *
(
October 31, 2012, London, Sri Lanka Guardian) The candidates in the U.S.
presidential election have had heated exchanges. Each one of them tries to pick
up those few undecided votes which make all the difference. Clever pollsters
are using their newest tools to identify and pursue the maybe’s.
For
me, as teacher of international business and trade, I wonder what the victory
of any one candidate mean for my field – how will international trade be
affected? International trade in goods and services comprises now almost 30% of
US GDP –making it a vital component of the domestic economy. The fact that
exports have been mentioned several times in the various debates, highlights
that politics gradually accepts the importance of trade.
How
do the candidates stack up?
First
, President Obama: He has led for almost four years now and been able to
demonstrate his commitments. He has signed three Free Trade Agreements which had
been negotiated by President Bush – but there are 193 countries left. He helped
conclude long term negotiations to let Russia enter the World Trade
Organization this year. The President has taken a number of trade actions, and
even declared Chinese car tires to be too cheap and has limited their import.
He has also frequently admonished the Chinese government to increase the value
of its currency. He has promised in
2009 that he will strive to double US. exports in five years.
Now
to Governor Romney: He talks about trade in virtually every speech he gives.
Just like the young Japanese mother whispers to little Masaaki “export my baby,
export a lot”, the governor tries to inculcate key international trade values
and desires in his audience. He recognizes the importance of currency values. Through
his work in the private sector he has seen the threats and benefits of the
global economy, and has recognized that there is no reason for the United
States to play second fiddle. At the same time, his experience gathered abroad
allows him to understand the importance of different cultures, and the need to
consider issues which, at home might be unexpected, but can be routine abroad.
He stresses the importance of helping firms to enter global markets and talks
about profits as the key motivator to such market entry. He talks in terms of
competitiveness both for firms and their employees – which in turn leads him to
stress the importance of an internationalized education.
A second term President Obama would devote
some attention to trade issues – but, just like Israel, they are not really a
core component of his global posture. The entire issue of competitiveness of
firms is seen as something at which one throws money (and loses large amounts
of it) – rather than the building process of innovation. Plans like doubling
exports don’t portray a vision which is what we need in the international
arena. There is a big difference whether one talks about straightening out a
road versus offering the vision of a national highway system. There is a lot of
earnest belief, that government can drive the export success of the nation.
Those in the trenches claim that the real trade volume comes from firms,
particularly those who have had the inclination and opportunity to research the
requirements of their markets abroad.
A
President Romney is likely to upset some long term traditions – be they in
currency markets or in trade agreements. He is more likely to link specific
performance and assistance. It would not be impossible for President Romney to
declare the Doha Round of trade negotiations as a failure, and search for a new
approach to an expansion of trade. He might be more in the face of partner
governments, but his actions would be more swift and perhaps even more harsh.
As a firm believer in markets, a President Romney might encourage students to
get ready for a globalized economy, explaining that unmotivated, disinterested,
or uneducated members of the work force need to change their attitude
dramatically if they wish to do well. Mr. Romney is brimming with excitement to
do something about the U.S. trade position in the world. It may bring some
pain, but still better than another bursting bubble.
So,
where does that leave us? Of course there are many considerations based on
which we select our favorite. An increasingly important one is trade. I think
both candidates will support trade, but it
seems that this support will come with varying intensity. Voters should
keep that in mind as they cast their ballot.
*Michael
Czinkota teaches international business and trade at Georgetown University.
He served in trade policy positions during the Reagan and Bush administration.
Contact: czinkotm@georgetown.edu
 The candidates in the U.S. presidential election have had...){kind=link}