Trade Wars: The Cases of USA, Mexico, China
Öz
This paper analyzes trade wars and their potential macroeconomic effects with a hypothetical approach through the cases of the US, China and Mexico. The three main scenarios and retaliatory behaviors used in this analysis are the unilateral launch of a trade war by the US, a bilateral trade war between the parties, and an optimal equilibrium in line with the Nash equilibrium. The main conclusions of the study are that it would not lead to any welfare gains, but rather to large welfare losses. Also, the optimum equilibrium provided by Nash equilibrium is the scenario that minimizes the total welfare loss.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Kaynakça
- Akçadağ-Alagöz, E. (2016). Ekonomik Karşılıklı Bağımlılık Kapsamında AB-Çin İlişkileri, U.Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Vol: 9, No: 2, 33-56.
- Aran, B. (2018). ABD, Çin, Ticaret Savaşları ve Türkiye, Türkiye Ekonomi Politikaları Araştırma Vakfı (TEPAV), Assestment Paper, No: N201813, 1-6.
- Bagwell, K., Staiger, R. W. (1999). An Economic Theory of GATT, American Economic Review, Vol. 89 (1), 215–248.
- Bagwell, K., Staiger, R.W. (2016). Handbook of Commercial Policy, North Holland, Amsterdam.
- Balistreri, E.J., Hillberry, R.H. (2017). 21st Century Trade Wars, Working Paper, https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/resources/download/8809.pdf
- Baumol, W.J., Blinder, A.S. (1985). Economic Principles and Policy, 3rd Edition, Harcourt, San Diego.
- Baybatlı, Ş. And Doğan, B. Ö. (2021). An Empirical Analysis on the Economic Reflections of Trade Wars: USA-China Case, Yalova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi,11(1), 17-36.
- Bchir, M. H., Decreux, Y. Guerin, J.L., Jean, S. (2002). MIRAGE, a Computable General Equilibrium Model for Trade Policy Analysis, CEPII, Working Paper No 2002-17.
- Bouet, A, Laborde, D. (2010). Assessing the Potential Cost of a Failed Doha, World Trade Review, Vol. 9, 319-351.
- Bouet, A. and Laborde, D. (2017). US Trade Wars with Emerging Countries in the 21st Century: Make America and Its Partners Lose Again, IFPRI Discussion Paper, No: 01669, Washington, DC.