USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
Need help in doing position essay in high school International Business class, it is about protectionism, I prefer one and half pages(instructions said one to two) and follow the instructions in referencing. Word format, Times New Roman, 12 sizes
Protectionism Position Paper
Write a short (1-2 page double spaced) position paper that outlines your views on protectionism.
Please take a side whether you believe protectionism is beneficial or hurtful to society. Provide insight by referencing (put in quotations – Ex.– In the article, The new protectionism is shutting us out, Stanford states, “”) at least 2 of the four articles, but also thinking critically about the issue yourself.
Use the textbook reading and 4 articles I have given you to support your position.
|
Criteria |
Level 1 (5 to 6) |
Level 2 (6 to 7) |
Level 3 (7 to 8) |
Level 4 (8 to 10) |
|
Knowledge Making connections with clarity between your position and at least 2 articles |
– makes connections with clarity between your position and at least 2 articles limited effectiveness |
– makes connections
with clarity between your position and at least 2 articles with some effectiveness |
– makes connections
with clarity between your position and at least 2 articles with considerable effectiveness |
– makes connections
with clarity between your position and at least 2 articles with a high degree of effectiveness |
|
Application Making connections with insight and accuracy between your position and at least 2 articles |
– makes connections
with insight and accuracy between your position and at least 2 articles with limited effectiveness |
– makes connections
with insight and accuracy between your position and at least 2 articles with some effectiveness |
– makes connections
with insight and accuracy between your position and at least 2 articles with considerable effectiveness |
– makes connections
with insight and accuracy between your position and at least 2 articles with a high degree of effectiveness |
|
Communication
Expression and organization of ideas and information (clear expression, logical organization) in written form |
– expresses and organizes ideas and information with limited effectiveness |
– expresses and organizes ideas and information with some effectiveness |
– expresses and
organizes ideas and information with considerable |
– expresses and organizes ideas and information with a high degree of effectiveness |
|
Total /30 marks |
Note: A student whose achievement is below 50% at the end of a course will not obtain a credit for the course
Protectionism
Read p.62-63 and answer the following 5 questions.
1. State and describe the companies affected by protectionism.
2. What impact does NAFTA have on tariffs?
3. Why did the recession cause the governments to implement “buy local” campaigns?
4. Why did Canada not establish a “Buy Canadian” policy?
5. What is your opinion of protectionism?
Read the following 3 articles on protectionism
Article 1: The new protectionism is shutting us out
Jim Stanford From Thursday’s Globe and Mail
When the world plunged into recession in 2008, G20 leaders ostentatiously pledged not to repeat the errors of the 1930s. To hasten economic recovery, they would avoid protectionism and keep trade flowing. Canada’s government has been among the loudest voices in this free trade chorus.
This is a gross misreading of actual history. World trade collapsed in the 1930s because of collapsing consumer demand, not protectionism; competitive tariffs were a response to that implosion, not its cause. For the same reason, world trade plunged 12 per cent last year, despite the G20 promises.
More dangerously, the lip service paid by politicians to official free-trade doctrine is contradicted by an increasingly nasty and lopsided world marketplace. Almost universally, countries around the world are becoming more aggressive in protecting and stimulating domestic output and employment. They don’t usually jack up tariffs (though that still happens, as in Russia); instead, they use less visible but equally effective tactics. This response is understandable, given the mass and protracted unemployment that now grips most countries. But it’s damaging the still-shaky global economy – all the more so for countries like Canada, which pretend to stay above the fray.
The most recent example of unofficial protectionism was the Bank of Japan’s sudden foray last week into currency markets. By aggressively buying U.S. dollars (and selling yen), the bank drove down Japan’s exchange rate by 5 per cent against the Canadian dollar. That has exactly the same effect as imposing a 5 per cent tariff on all Japanese imports from Canada – yet it’s entirely “legal.” Japan has pledged to keep doing whatever’s necessary to weaken the yen and boost exports.
Germany, with the world’s second-largest trade surplus (after China), uses different techniques to achieve the same goal. Wages have been suppressed for years, dampening spending (including on imports). At the same time, pro-active government strategies to boost productivity and technology, combined with falling unit labour costs, have stimulated exports. Thanks to the fiscal woes of its European partners, Germany gets further help from a falling euro. The end result is a massive trade surplus that propelled Germany to one of the world’s fastest recoveries – for now.
China, of course, has mastered official mercantilism, through tight exchange rate manipulation, macroeconomic planning (controlling consumption and hence imports), constraints on unions, and lots of fiddling with trade barriers (regardless of WTO strictures). The combined surpluses of China, Germany, Japan and a handful of other successful exporters more than offset the trade deficits of everyone else in the world (including Canada).
And that’s precisely the problem with this whole strategy. Until such time as planet Earth learns to export to Mars, every national surplus must be offset somewhere else with a matching deficit. One country’s gain is another’s loss. Whether engineered through “unacceptable” means (like higher tariffs), or “legal” ones (like currency manipulation, macroeconomic planning, technology strategies, or grey-zone trade barriers), the end result is identical: a beggar-thy-neighbour race to boost trade surpluses that undermines global growth.
Where does Canada fit into this game? As usual, we don our Boy Scout’s uniform and pledge to play fair. While China, Japan and others actively manage their currencies, we allow ours to soar unfettered. As Germany and Korea subsidize and direct technological advances, we eschew “picking winners” and leave it up to business. As countries everywhere leverage government spending into domestic jobs, we pursue trade agreements that would undermine our already-weak domestic-sourcing policies.
Our passivity in the face of others’ pro-activity has taken us from trade feast to famine. A $55-billion trade surplus in 2004 melted away to a $27-billion deficit last year, knocking a whopping 6 percentage points off Canadian GDP. By that standard, we’ve registered by far the worst trade performance of any OECD country. As deteriorating trade undermines domestic growth and employment, Ottawa’s only response is to chase more free trade pacts – whether with Panama (economically irrelevant) or Korea and the European Union (potentially explosive).
There’s no point finger-pointing and hectoring others to “play by the rules,” too. That will get us nowhere. So long as the world trade system imposes no requirements for balance or mutual benefit, protectionism (official or unofficial) will always make sense for individual countries … and they’ll always find ways to do it.
John Maynard Keynes was ahead of his time in recognizing the dangers of trade imbalances for worldwide demand. After the Second World War, he lobbied for a new global payments system, forcing both surplus and deficit countries to address chronic trade imbalances and share the burden of adjustment. He was overruled by free-marketeers who accepted the logic of dog-eat-dog global competition. And it’s that logic, regardless of politicians’ lip service, that’s deepening the global malaise.
Jim Stanford is an economist with the Canadian Auto Workers union.
Article 2: U.S. jobs bill provisions ‘protectionist’ and ‘regrettable,’ Harper says
Sep 16, 2011 – 3:53 PM ET
Prime Minister Stephen Harper says the Buy American provisions in U.S. President Barack Obama’s jobs bill are “regrettable,” and something the Canadian government will be taking up with its U.S. counterpart “at the highest levels.”
“We’re obviously quite concerned that provisions in the president’s initiative, which I think broadly speaking is a good initiative, but we’re obviously very concerned that once again they are looking at stimulus spending that has protectionist elements,” Harper said on Friday in Saskatoon.
The bill, which Obama presented to Congress last week, outlines nearly $450 billion US in proposals to stimulate the country’s stagnant job market, of which about $140 billion US was for infrastructure and public works projects that would be subject to “Buy American” provisions.
In an email to Postmedia News on Thursday, International Trade Minister Ed Fast said the Buy America provisions are “inconsistent with a long-standing Canadian and American commitment to free and open trade.”
In a 2010 agreement with the U.S., Canada won an exemption to similar provisions that were contained in a stimulus package introduced by the Obama administration in the midst of the global financial downturn in 2008-09.
Fast said he has advised the U.S. ambassador to Canada, David Jacobsen, that the federal government is “invoking the expedited consultation mechanism” contained in that agreement in order to work out an arrangement for the latest bill, which must still win Congressional approval.
A report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives said under the 2010 agreement Canadian firms were eligible for less than $2 billion US in American projects while U.S. companies had access to about $25 billion in projects here.
Harper deflected criticism Friday that his government had failed to effectively negotiate in the country’s interests.
“We dealt with this very productively with the Obama administration last time, we have an ongoing dialogue on these measures and we obviously will be making our views known,” Harper said.
“But I think it is a very regrettable development and we will be expressing that regret and the desire to move forward together positively at the highest levels of the U.S. government.”
Article 3: Portion of Obama’s jobs plan ‘concerns’ Canadian government
REUTERS/Jim Young
Sep 14, 2011 – 1:09 PM ET | Last Updated: Sep 14, 2011 1:10 PM ET
By Derek Abma
OTTAWA — The Canadian government has “concerns” about the recently announced jobs-creation plan by U.S. President Barack Obama because of Buy American provisions attached to its infrastructure spending.
Last week, Obama outlined nearly US$450-billion worth of proposals to stimulate his country’s stagnant job market, of which about $140-billion is for infrastructure and public works projects.
“Our government will raise with the Obama administration and Congress concerns regarding measures that impede access for Canadian workers and businesses to the U.S. market, as we did for earlier U.S. stimulus programs,” International Trade Minister Ed Fast said in statement Wednesday that acknowledged that Buy American provisions were contained in the new U.S. plan.
Fast said government officials would be taking part in a “consultation process that was established as part of the 2010 Canada-U.S. Agreement on Government Procurement.”
Last year, the two countries worked out a deal that was supposed to give Canadian firms exemptions to Buy American rules in previous U.S. stimulus spending in exchange for allowing U.S. firms to get contracts in some projects carried by provinces and municipalities in Canada.
“Our government is committed to delivering free trade leadership, and Canadians can count on our government to defend free and open trade on the world stage,” Fast said.
The Council of Canadians, a social activist group, called on the government to let its procurement deal with the U.S. expire as planned this month, and follow Obama’s lead by increasing funding for municipalities with Buy Canadian provisions attached.
“Canada’s cities and towns need over $30-billion in water-system upgrades alone and another $100-billion for other badly needed infrastructure,” Meera Karunananthan, a water campaigner for the Council of Canadians, said in a statement.
Prime Minister Mykola Azarov said last year Ukraine intended to “start our negotiations with the WTO to adjust some provisions in our favour.” (FRANCOIS LENOIR/REUTERS)
Ukraine trade demand shocks global partners
TOM MILES GENEVA — Reuters Published Friday, Sep. 21 2012
Ukraine has told its trading partners it wants to raise maximum tariffs on hundreds of imported goods, a move that could unleash protectionist forces and may even pose a threat to the $18-trillion global trade system.
In a document marked “secret” sent to members of the World Trade Organisation last week and seen by Reuters, Ukraine says it intends to raise the limit on the tariffs it can legally impose on more than 350 goods. Based on figures in the proposal, Kiev’s plan would hit overall imports worth more than $4.6-billion in 2011.
The document, which diplomats said they had received on Sept. 14, consists of 85 pages of annexes detailing the items affected. It says Ukraine is prepared “to enter into negotations and consultations” with WTO members for the concessions.
There was no response to requests for comment from Ukraine officials in Geneva or Kiev. Ukraine, a relative newcomer to the WTO whose trade deficit widened by more than 50 per cent last year to $14-billion, has already threatened to block car imports and said last year it would act to improve its terms at the WTO.
The United States said Ukraine’s possible decision would raise “serious concerns,” although WTO officials played down the move, which, though radical, is permissible under the agency’s rules.
Some trade experts fear the plan, which would force hundreds of trade deals to be renegotiated, could trigger increasingly protectionist policies worldwide. The four-year-old global financial and economic crisis has so far not led to a rush to protectionism but, under pressure to help their producers weather the storm, governments have pounced on “unfair” moves by their rivals. The United States and Brazil were the latest to trade diplomatic blows.
WTO Director General Pascal Lamy, who forecast on Friday that world trade would grow by a mere 2.5 per cent this year, has repeatedly warned of the danger of a return to protectionism.
The WTO oversees the vast majority of global trade, running a system that assumes every country accepts legal limits on the tariffs they charge on imports to protect their businesses. If a country wants to raise the tariff ceiling on one product, it normally offers to reduce the limit on another to keep its economic openness unchanged overall.
Some diplomats say Ukraine’s plan to renegotiate on so many goods – cars, trucks, agricultural machinery, meat, flowers, fruit, vegetables, washing machines and even syringes – is tantamount to reopening negotiations on its membership terms.
“We don’t know what is behind Ukraine’s move,” said one trade diplomat. “Maybe the financial crisis. Maybe political reasons. Maybe industrial.”
Longstanding WTO members typically have high ceilings and set tariffs well below the maximum, giving them wriggle-room in tough times. The tariffs of newer members, many of which were forced to accept tough terms to join the WTO, are often set right at the ceiling. Some, including Ukraine, which joined in 2008, have bristled over that constraint.
The sheer size of Ukraine’s demand makes it hard to deal with, diplomats say. Other countries cannot raise their own tariffs to punish Ukraine without violating a WTO principle that member states must offer the same tariff to everybody.
“This decision raises many serious concerns and questions for us,” said Carol Guthrie, spokeswoman for U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk in Washington, without going into details.
“We expect other WTO members may have similar concerns and questions. Only after we get additional details from Ukraine will we be able to fully evaluate the consequences of its decision and assess next steps.”
WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell declined to characterize Ukraine’s plans as protectionist. He said it was natural that some countries would want to renegotiate their trade deals.
“Protectionism is a loaded word. In the trying economic circumstances we are encountering today, governments face very strong pressure to act,” Mr. Rockwell said.
“To this point, Ukraine’s actions in this regard have not been outside the rules.”
But Anwarul Hoda, a former deputy director-general of the WTO, said the way Ukraine planned to raise its tariff ceiling posed a real threat.
“If Ukraine just goes ahead and raises the duty and the others can’t do anything then there would be a systemic failure,” said Mr. Hoda, whose 2001 book Tariff Negotiations and Renegotiations under the GATT and the WTO is regarded as an authority on this area of the WTO rules.
Trade ministries have until Dec. 12 to respond to Kiev’s proposal, but several diplomats said Ukraine’s document had not given them enough information and nobody from Ukraine has yet replied to their many questions such as what new tariff ceilings Ukraine seeks, and what it might offer in return.
Ukraine’s Prime Minister Mykola Azarov said last September “the time has come for us to start our negotiations with the WTO to adjust some provisions in our favour. And we will be doing this,” according to Interfax news agency.
Since the election of President Viktor Yanukovich in 2010, Kiev has upset many of its trading partners with a string of aggressive positions, including obstructing bids by Yemen and Laos to join the WTO and an ongoing challenge to Australia’s tough new cigarette packaging laws.
The latest proposal uses an area of WTO rules known as Article 28 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).
“It’s a loophole in the GATT rules, the legal procedure,” said one diplomat. “If other countries follow Ukraine, this might be big trouble.”
Two lawyers said it was impossible to challenge Article 28 under the WTO’s dispute settlement system. Mr. Hoda said he needed to study the case in depth before being sure.
Article 28 dates from the 1940s and was used often until the creation of the WTO in 1995 cemented efforts to liberalize global trade. Since then, it has been used about 30 times, mostly for small or technical adjustments to a country’s tariffs, and almost always for fewer than 10 tariffs at a time.
Ukraine’s request was “surprising for its size alone,” said the European Union trade spokesman John Clancy. “Our preliminary analysis shows that the tariff increase would affect a significant amount of trade – and in particular EU exports worth almost €2-billion ($2.6-billion),” he said in an emailed response to Reuters questions.
Under Article 28, Ukraine should “pay” for tariff increases by lowering tariffs on other goods.
But Mr. Clancy said Ukraine’s list was so long it could prove difficult to find enough areas where other tariffs could be cut.
At least 35 WTO members qualify to negotiate with Ukraine, including the European Union, United States, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Canada, Brazil, China and India, and the process is so complicated it would likely take years.
If negotiations don’t work, Ukraine could simply raise its tariffs unilaterally, leaving its trading partners to raise their own tariffs to balance out its move. But big trading nations would find that impossible in practice.
“If you want to exercise retaliation you have to be very careful about the tariff line that you choose, in order not to hit some other trading partners,” said a Geneva-based trade lawyer.
“If you get some other countries affected, then these other countries may initiate a political controversy against you,” he said. “It is not as easy as one might think.”
In such a situation, Mr. Hoda said, the WTO framework may not “be adequate. A small player in renegotiations is in a good position to go ahead and raise the tariffs, without any fear of reprisal or retaliation.”
The EU’s Mr. Clancy played down such worries and said he expected negotiations with Ukraine to succeed. “Protectionist tensions would not be in anyone’s interest,” he said.
