Connect with us
//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

China

Biden needs to end the tariff war with China

Published

on

Chinese and US flags flutter near The Bund, Shanghai, China, 30 July 2019 (Photo: Reuters/Aly Song).

Author: Yan Liang, Willamette University

US President Joe Biden wasted no time reversing many of the damaging policies introduced during the Trump presidency, with exception to trade. US Trade Representative Katherine Tai is expected to meet her Chinese counterpart to review the Phase One trade deal, but expectations for the talks are low.

Biden lacks the political will to reverse course on Trump’s trade policies, with bipartisan support for ‘being tough’ on China and using the tariff war as leverage to demand structural change in China. Nonetheless, keeping the Trump tariffs is a mistake.

First, the tariff war is based on a flawed economic rationale. The Trump administration imposed tariffs in response to the bilateral trade imbalance, according to which the United States ran a large and persistent trade deficit. Donald Trump believed that trade deficits are bad for the US economy. But the bilateral trade balance is meaningless when supply chains are globally structured and trade is multilaterally constructed. Consider, for instance, the iPhone X: when imported from China, each unit adds US$409.25 to the balance, even though China accounts for only 10.4 per cent of the value added.

Second, the United States runs a trade deficit with over 100 countries. This is not the product of unfair practices but of the United States’ own internal deficit, with private and public spending outpacing income. It is also caused by the US dollar’s ‘exorbitant privilege’ — trade deficits do not depreciate the US dollar to bring about trade adjustment because insatiable demand for the US dollar boosts its value.

Third, Trump’s tariffs did not achieve their intended goals — the US trade deficit with China continues to widen, while US consumers foot the bill for the tariffs, paying US$1277 more a year on average for consumer goods. Manufacturing jobs were not re-shored, with an estimated loss of 320,000 jobs now predicted by 2025. Continuing the tariff war undermines Biden’s own domestic priority of economic recovery.

The tariff war was a convenient political contrivance for Trump’s populist ‘America first’ agenda that served to amass political support for his presidency. Biden’s unwillingness to depart from Trump’s legacy undermines the prospects of the United States re-joining the multilateral system and resuming global economic leadership. The unilateral imposition of tariffs on China is a clear deviation from a multilateral approach.

Under Trump, trade restrictions were often carried out through executive orders in the name of broadly and vaguely defined national security concerns. But protecting sensitive technologies could follow the approach of ‘small yard, high fence’ through legislation instead of imposing a blanket, punitive tariff scheme. If the United States is to resume global leadership, it needs to resist the temptation of unilateralism and instead rebuild and reinforce a credible multilateral rules-based system.

It is clear that the US tariff war has failed to force China to budge on any structural reforms that are not aligned with its own long-term interests. China sees some of its economic policies — such as supporting state-owned enterprises (SOEs) — as unique to its economic system and critical to its success. From Beijing’s perspective, US demands for changes to SOE policies amounts to interference. The United States needs to understand China’s developmental objectives and approaches and work multilaterally to formulate and update international rules.

While the tariff war is demonstrably counterproductive, phasing out tariffs without any major Chinese concessions is politically challenging. Waging the tariff war may temporarily deflect attention away from structural problems in the US economy. To bypass the partisan stalemate on trade issues, Biden could extend the presidential Trade Promotion Authority.

And China has made efforts to implement the Phase One trade deal. While COVID-19 has dampened Chinese demand and disrupted US supply, post-pandemic demand combined with the continued strengthening of the renminbi will help China fulfil the purchase agreement. China has also made progress in curbing forced technology transfers and easing market restrictions.

To solidify economic recovery and sustain long-term growth, China must continue economic reform and foster positive international relations. It is in China’s long-term interest to ease market access, protect intellectual property rights, reform SOEs and promote tech innovation in a constructive and…

Read the rest of this article on East Asia Forum

Continue Reading

China

Q1 2024 Brief on Transfer Pricing in Asia

Published

on

Indonesia’s Ministry of Finance released Regulation No. 172 of 2023 on transfer pricing, consolidating various guidelines. The Directorate General of Taxes focuses on compliance, expanded arm’s length principle, and substance checks. Singapore’s Budget 2024 addresses economic challenges, operational costs, and sustainability, implementing global tax reforms like the Income Inclusion Rule and Domestic Top-up Tax.


Indonesia’s Ministry of Finance (MoF) has released Regulation No. 172 of 2023 (“PMK-172”), which prevails as a unified transfer pricing guideline. PMK-172 consolidates various transfer pricing matters that were previously covered under separate regulations, including the application of the arm’s length principle, transfer pricing documentation requirements, transfer pricing adjustments, Mutual Agreement Procedure (“MAP”), and Advance Pricing Agreements (“APA”).

The Indonesian Directorate General of Taxes (DGT) has continued to focus on compliance with the ex-ante principle, the expanded scope of transactions subject to the arm’s length principle, and the reinforcement of substance checks as part of the preliminary stage, indicating the DGT’s expectation of meticulous and well-supported transfer pricing analyses conducted by taxpayers.

In conclusion, PMK-172 reflects the Indonesian government’s commitment to addressing some of the most controversial transfer pricing issues and promoting clarity and certainty. While it brings new opportunities, it also presents challenges. Taxpayers are strongly advised to evaluate the implications of these new guidelines on their businesses in Indonesia to navigate this transformative regulatory landscape successfully.

In a significant move to bolster economic resilience and sustainability, Singapore’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, Mr. Lawrence Wong, unveiled the ambitious Singapore Budget 2024 on February 16, 2024. Amidst global economic fluctuations and a pressing climate crisis, the Budget strategically addresses the dual challenges of rising operational costs and the imperative for sustainable development, marking a pivotal step towards fortifying Singapore’s position as a competitive and green economy.

In anticipation of global tax reforms, Singapore’s proactive steps to implement the Income Inclusion Rule (IIR) and Domestic Top-up Tax (DTT) under the BEPS 2.0 framework demonstrate a forward-looking approach to ensure tax compliance and fairness. These measures reaffirm Singapore’s commitment to international tax standards while safeguarding its economic interests.

Transfer pricing highlights from the Singapore Budget 2024 include:

This article is republished from China Briefing. Read the rest of the original article.

China Briefing is written and produced by Dezan Shira & Associates. The practice assists foreign investors into China and has done since 1992 through offices in Beijing, Tianjin, Dalian, Qingdao, Shanghai, Hangzhou, Ningbo, Suzhou, Guangzhou, Dongguan, Zhongshan, Shenzhen, and Hong Kong. Please contact the firm for assistance in China at china@dezshira.com.

Continue Reading

China

New Report from Dezan Shira & Associates: China Takes the Lead in Emerging Asia Manufacturing Index 2024

Published

on

China has been the world’s largest manufacturer for 14 years, producing one-third of global manufacturing output. In the Emerging Asia Manufacturing Index 2024, China ranks highest among eight emerging countries in the region. Challenges for these countries include global demand disparities affecting industrial output and export orders.


Known as the “World’s Factory”, China has held the title of the world’s largest manufacturer for 14 consecutive years, starting from 2010. Its factories churn out approximately one-third of the global manufacturing output, a testament to its industrial might and capacity.

China’s dominant role as the world’s sole manufacturing power is reaffirmed in Dezan Shira & Associates’ Emerging Asia Manufacturing Index 2024 report (“EAMI 2024”), in which China secures the top spot among eight emerging countries in the Asia-Pacific region. The other seven economies are India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, and Bangladesh.

The EAMI 2024 aims to assess the potential of these eight economies, navigate the risks, and pinpoint specific factors affecting the manufacturing landscape.

In this article, we delve into the key findings of the EAMI 2024 report and navigate China’s advantages and disadvantages in the manufacturing sector, placing them within the Asia-Pacific comparative context.

Emerging Asia countries face various challenges, especially in the current phase of increased volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA). One notable challenge is the impact of global demand disparities on the manufacturing sector, affecting industrial output and export orders.

This article is republished from China Briefing. Read the rest of the original article.

China Briefing is written and produced by Dezan Shira & Associates. The practice assists foreign investors into China and has done since 1992 through offices in Beijing, Tianjin, Dalian, Qingdao, Shanghai, Hangzhou, Ningbo, Suzhou, Guangzhou, Dongguan, Zhongshan, Shenzhen, and Hong Kong. Please contact the firm for assistance in China at china@dezshira.com.

Continue Reading

China

Is journalist Vicky Xu preparing to return to China?

Published

on

Chinese social media influencers have recently claimed that prominent Chinese-born Australian journalist Vicky Xu had posted a message saying she planned to return to China.

There is no evidence for this. The source did not provide evidence to support the claim, and Xu herself later confirmed to AFCL that she has no such plans.

Currently working as an analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, or ASPI, Xu has previously written for both the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, or ABC, and The New York Times.

A Chinese language netizen on X initially claimed on March 31 that the changing geopolitical relations between Sydney and Beijing had caused Xu to become an expendable asset and that she had posted a message expressing a strong desire to return to China. An illegible, blurred photo of the supposed message accompanied the post. 

This claim was retweeted by a widely followed influencer on the popular Chinese social media site Weibo one day later, who additionally commented that Xu was a “traitor” who had been abandoned by Australian media. 

Rumors surfaced on X and Weibo at the end of March that Vicky Xu – a Chinese-born Australian journalist who exposed forced labor in Xinjiang – was returning to China after becoming an “outcast” in Australia. (Screenshots / X & Weibo)

Following the publication of an ASPI article in 2021 which exposed forced labor conditions in Xinjiang co-authored by Xu, the journalist was labeled “morally bankrupt” and “anti-China” by the Chinese state owned media outlet Global Times and subjected to an influx of threatening messages and digital abuse, eventually forcing her to temporarily close several of her social media accounts.

AFCL found that neither Xu’s active X nor LinkedIn account has any mention of her supposed return to China, and received the following response from Xu herself about the rumor:

“I can confirm that I don’t have plans to go back to China. I think if I do go back I’ll most definitely be detained or imprisoned – so the only career I’ll be having is probably going to be prison labor or something like that, which wouldn’t be ideal.”

Neither a keyword search nor reverse image search on the photo attached to the original X post turned up any text from Xu supporting the netizens’ claims.

Translated by Shen Ke. Edited by Shen Ke and Malcolm Foster.

Asia Fact Check Lab (AFCL) was established to counter disinformation in today’s complex media environment. We publish fact-checks, media-watches and in-depth reports that aim to sharpen and deepen our readers’ understanding of current affairs and public issues. If you like our content, you can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram and X.

Read the rest of this article here >>> Is journalist Vicky Xu preparing to return to China?

Continue Reading