The Washington trade and economics establishment has largely dismissed the threat Chinese innovation mercantilist practices pose to the U.S. economy, jobs and national security. The threat is serious, and China needs to be confronted, Rob Atkinson writes for the Washington Post.
As Eline Chivot and Daniel Castro write for Euronews, Europe will not win the global AI race by philosophizing on the sidelines. Instead, it needs to focus on putting in place the investment, skills, data, and regulations needed to outcompete China.
From a skewed standardization law in China to mercantilist digital services tax proposals in Europe, when countries impose protectionist policies in high-value, high-tech sectors, they don’t just damage competitors; they damage the entire global innovation system.
If Europe wants to set its own course in the new global order, then the most important first step is to join with America to fight for free trade and an open Chinese market.
In commentary for the Epoch Times, ITIF President Rob Atkinson writs that it’s time for China to start acting like a globally responsible trading partner. If it does, then the Chinese economy and the world economy will be better off.
In an op-ed for the Washington Post, Rob Atkinson outlines the bottom-line conditions President Trump should demand from China for ending U.S.-imposed tariffs.
In testimony before the House Oversight Subcommittee on Information Technology, Rob Atkinson stated that there are steps Congress should take to help roll back Chinese innovation mercantilism and ensure the United States remains the world leader in technology and innovation.
The practical effect of tariffs on key components used in cloud computing would be to advantage foreign technology competitors, thereby threatening U.S. leadership in both the adoption and provision of cloud computing services, and stunting U.S. growth.
Policymakers are free to question U.S. foreign policy towards China, but they do U.S. interests no favors by attacking U.S. companies that merely follow the course charted out by their own trade policies writes Daniel Castro in Innovation Files.
China is marching toward global technological, economic, and military leadership. Who was responsible for letting this happen? In an opinion piece for National Review, Rob Atkinson explains how pretty much everyone—from successive U.S. administrations and the Washington trade and economics establishment to China itself—is at fault.
The bottom line analysis of China’s recent statement is that part of this trade war, which China launched two decades ago, will be won or lost in the court of global opinion. The media, policymakers and citizens around the world should not fall for the Chinese spin that it is the victim writes Rob Atkinson in Innovation Files.
U.S.-China economic tensions are escalating, raising serious questions. What are the prospects of these tit-for-tat tariff measures escalating into a full-blown trade war? How likely is it that China will make serious concessions, including rolling back some of its most egregious “Made in China 2025” practices? What will be the potential impact on supply chains and U.S. producers? What alternatives to tariffs should the Trump administration use to gain leverage over China? Can we expect our allies to help, or are those bridges already burned?
In testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Rob Atkinson stated that taking firm and strategic action against Chinese predatory, mercantilist practices is long overdue.
Trump’s approach to tariffs has drawn widespread criticism, sparking a debate in which partisans have made all sorts of claims and counter-claims. This briefing sets the record straight on 10 important points of fact.
It’s time for all parties—left, right, and center—to focus on the most important thing vis-à-vis Chinese trade policy: rolling back the unfair, mercantilist policies underlying the “Made in China, 2025” strategy. Everything else is just a sideshow writes Rob Atkinson in Innovation Files.
Foreign predatory economic practices harm the U.S. economy. In testimony before a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee, Rob Atkinson outlines how the U.S. government should respond.
In an op-ed for RealClearPolicy, ITIF’s Stephen Ezell outlines ten alternatives to tariffs that would roll back China’s unfair trade practices.
In commentary for Fortune Magazine, ITIF President Rob Atkinson and Michael Lind write that America’s own antitrust policies perversely encourage the loss of technological leadership to rival nations.
In an article for National Review, ITIF President Rob Atkinson decodes the true meaning behind the official statements from the Chinese government in response to President Trump’s long-anticipated announcement of tough new actions against China’s mercantilist trade and economic policies.
Raising the cost of ICT products by levying tariffs on ICT imports from China would reduce growth in U.S. ICT investments, which would lower productivity growth, and thus economic growth.
In testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, ITIF Director of Telecom Policy Doug Brake encouraged the continued reliance on the competitive private sector to deploy 5G networks and address supply chain security concerns through ongoing review as a component of a broader strategy to guide China to a rule-of-law, market driven framework on trade and intellectual property.
The problem is not that Trump imposed tariffs; it is that he appears to have be motivated purely by a protectionist instinct, not because he recognized a legitimate need to aggressively confront foreign mercantilism, particularly on the part of the world’s worst offender, China.
The innovation mercantilist policies which lie at the heart of China’s model of state-led capitalism have been the central force driving this overcapacity across an ever-growing number of industries.
Perhaps it’s the natural human aversion to bad news—sometimes known as the “ostrich effect”—but few opinion leaders on U.S. economic policy appear willing to take a cold, hard look at the state of U.S. manufacturing. If they did, they wouldn’t be happy.
Brazil, China, Indonesia, Russia, and Vietnam fielded some of the year’s worst innovation mercantilist policies. Their targets included Internet-based services, electric vehicles, biopharmaceuticals, computers and electronics.