How USA Do Business With Other Countries Paper Example

The USA is one of the leading participants in international trade in the world. The international trade in goods and services together with the flow of financial capital greatly affects all people living and the USA as well as some from other countries. Whether one buys imported cars, gasoline, clothes or computers; works in a competing firm within the industry across the world. The same case applies to the export of USA made goods and service to other parts of the world. In fact, regarding exports, the USA, alongside Germany and China is one of the top three exporters in the world. At the same time, USA, is one of the top importers in the world, to the extent that the country often records internal trade deficits. This paper discusses how the USA take parts in internal trade mainly in imports and exports, through its foreign trade policies.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

To start with, U.S. trade with other nations is mainly based on trade liberalization. Trade liberalization policy has been in existence in USA international trade policy for the last 60 years. This has been achieved through some bilateral agreements and multilateral negotiations, which has led to a decline in tariffs. In recent years, there has been increasing use of nontariff strategies to promote trade liberalization as well as reduction of protection policies. Even though the reduction of tax has been the main push of U.S.A trade policy from late 1920's, there have been significant changes in the extent and nature of the United States participation in liberalization of trade. These changes are a result of three main economic and political factors. These factors are; the rise and following decline of the country as a dominant power. The second factor is the persistence during the entire time of political dominance of USA industries, where they opposed any effort to reduce import duty of imported products which gave them competition (Adams). The third factor is the attempts by the Congress to limit the more authority given to the president in 1930's at the time of economic depression and later during the period of political emergency in world war II.

As a result of the factors above, some things can be seen in the way the USA has always participated in international trade. First, it is clear that U.S.A trade policy has depicted a outstanding stability since the Second World War. During this time, the country has not been purely free-trade-focused while at the same time, it has not moved towards isolationism. Instead, the country has promoted was is termed as "open but fair" policy with the negative effects exposed to USA industries through imports considered fair (Parris). U.S imports relief policy is possible of the greatest importance to Asian nations compared to other U.S policies because of it its imports from these regions that have promoted significant economic prosperity in the region (Taylor). This import relief policy has also shown significant consistency. However, the year's different strategies for delivering it have been used at different seasons from among, unfair trade remedies, escape clause, orderly marketing agreements, and adjustment assistance. For unfair trade and escape clause strategies, different combinations of tariff and nontariff measures have been used at different occassions. The choice of tariff and nontariff measures is significant since It has an impact on the predictability and complexity of U.S trade policy, and for the reason that it regulates the division of revenue between the country and its exports suppliers.

The overall evenness of U.S foreign trade regulations over time is even notable despite the recurrent change of power by different political parties, in the Congress and mostly in the executive branch. It is, therefore, clear that party affiliation does not affect U.S foreign trade policies. However, the U.S.A, how the U.S participate in international trade is determined by the measures put forward by Congress versus executive. These two organs of government have a varying perspective on international trade since because of the eminent difference in their constituencies. On issues concerning international trade, the relationship between the two branches of government has often been characterized by conflicts, however, mostly by political affiliation (Takagi and Reichmann).

Despite the decline in U.S hegemony, its leadership in trade policy remain potentially strong. The country is strong in moving towards protectionism. Any attempt by the country to introduce aggressive insularity call for the parallel aggression of trade policy among its trading partners. The country is equally strong in promoting liberalization trade policy as well. The country seems preferably calm in aggressive trade policy peacemaking, both bilaterally and multilaterally; with its traditional industrial partners and even with Asian countries and Japan.

The U.S trade policy since the Second World War have experienced unprecedented freedom and is also subject to unique limitations. These policies have greatly served the external and internal security goals without having any severe repercussion to the home market. Those objectives persist, with the widespread hopes that the U.S should design effective trade policy has partly been achieved. These expectations have, in recent years experienced new challenges caused by known domestic political pressure.

Regarding U.S.A participation in international trade, the government uses policies that aim at serving two masters, a foreign and a domestic constituency. In recent years, though, U.S leadership in the trade have become quite challenging because of the increased strength of the domestic constituency. These new demands are considered as the "domestication" of U.S foreign trading policies. This domestication policy has caused conflict, mostly to the president, whose strategies should in a way proceed to benefit both masters. Congress, on the other hand, continue to fight for the U.S commercial interest against any non-financial foreign-policy objectives (Anjaria).

Even though there is great demand for protection trade policy from the domestic constituencies, the government is not in a position to openly champion for import protection policy, probably due to the many multilateral and bilateral agreements made between the U.S and other nations. In the eyes of other major industrial countries, U.S is still seen as the controller of the international liberal trading order. These nations are still in favor of the U.S government and feel that any effort by the U.S to approve global protectionism, will lead to the spread to other trading partners. If protectionism is adopted across the world, there would be a massive loss of jobs in export business and extensive financial losses among industries with foreign and export interest (Adams). Due to the great economic and political power of these sectors, in combination with external constituencies pressures, the government would not make a political risk in publicly pursuing protectionism policies. At the same time, though, the government leadership must protect certain industries whose overall impact on the political fate of those in power.

A relatively new US trade policy of aggressive peacemaking still need acceptance abroad and at home. Foreign and domestic constituents of the United States trade regulations are similar in their division over the most effective way of conducting global exchange (Kiesling). The U.S government has, therefore, embarked on an effort to make multilateral and bilateral agreements to protect itself against harmful business practice from its trading partners.

To achieve conducive international business environment, the government have introduced several industrial policies, that put itself in a strategic position for competing for international markets. With the lack of such well-developed international treaties pertaining what involve acceptable conduct and coming up with a mechanism for effectively settling conflicts that may arise as a result doing business, there is a risk with a strategic policy approach (Taylor). When each nation effortlessly champions for his approach, and strike back against others who have similar policies, it is therefore, possible that all countries will eventually have lower income levels and employment than expected, since the order of events might lead to a negative-sum game.

The government leadership is trying to inform the public of these potential costs of adopting an aggressive peace trade approach to both the international partners and the American public. The government trade policy is, therefore, guided by the current fact and history. The U.S has remained true to these facts and due to its comparative advantage in economic research and education and has remained strong in its tradition of objectivity and independence among its commentators and analyst (Lloyd).

For many years, the United States has embarked on international approach, which has proved to work quite well. However, the most important shift in economic power among nations, including the rise of recently third world countries experiencing industrialization, characterized by dissimilarities among countries to the point considered either active and reactive trade regulations, which have assisted in reducing the impacts of the regulations under which the postwar trading administrations used. What the government is currently targeting is aggressive peacemaking aimed at developing a new cooperative approach (Rickford).

The new cooperative approach has called for multilateral and bilateral agreements by the government on many important aspects of trade regulations. One of the most essential of these relates the interventions by the goverbnebt, mostly subsidization, which is not countered through offsetting moves by other governments. The current GATT practice and rules are not adequately on point this area (Kelly, et al. ). The government has been coming up with new national laws to address modern conditions affecting the international trade. In a partner, the government has come up with sufficient acknowledgments of the character of activist trade regulations. However, these regulations are not by any means aiming at gaining by the U.S in international trade to the disadvantage of others. Some may lead to benefits to all trading partners.

The U.S has been at the forefront in making agreements among the industrialized and newly industrializing nations pertaining momentary assistance to areas experiencing serious adjustment problem. Sometimes, though, nations using their aids strictly for adjustment reasons discover that their adjustment challenges are made even worse by counter duties that others have imposed.The government has also embarked on developing new safeguards code which has been in practice for many years (John). The government is also integrating these fresh safeguard codes with special treatment, for developing nations. This strategy has played an important role, in maintaining the good import-export relationships with developing countries.

Conclusion

The government has also made several multilateral and bilateral agreements to address possible issues concerning competition policies. This is because the international market is imperfect, and therefore, characterized by abnormal profits. These high profits are often the target of government trade policies. With the international understanding developed through business agreements, there are great discouragements of abuse of dominant market position, cartel-like behavior, and efforts to monopolize (Anjaria). Through, such bilateral agreements more financial inducements for such profit-changing regulations may b...