Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Tariff


A tariff is a levied by governments on the value, including freight and , of imported products, with less common application to exports. Tariffs function primarily to generate public revenue, protect nascent or strategic domestic industries from lower-cost foreign competitors, retaliate against perceived unfair practices, or negotiate concessions in bilateral agreements. Historically, they served as a major revenue source for nations like the early , funding operations without broad income taxation, before evolving into tools of mercantilist that prioritized surpluses over mutual gains from specialization. The economic effects of tariffs, substantiated by decades of cross-country empirical analysis, include elevated prices for imported goods passed through to consumers and intermediate users, diminished volumes, and overall reductions in , output, and real GDP growth. While tariffs can temporarily shield targeted sectors—potentially preserving jobs in import-competing industries—they induce inefficiencies by distorting away from advantages, provoke retaliatory measures that harm exporters, and fail to deliver net gains due to higher input costs rippling across the economy. This tension underlies the enduring debate between , which emphasizes national self-sufficiency and bargaining leverage, and principles that links to broader through expanded markets and . Post-World War II institutions like the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade reduced global barriers, fostering unprecedented until recent reversals amid geopolitical frictions.

Etymology and Definition

Origins of the Term

The English word tariff derives from the Arabic taʿrīf (تعريف), meaning "notification," "announcement," or "to inform/define," rooted in the verb form of ʿarafa ("to know"). In medieval Arabic usage, taʿrīf referred to a schedule or list enumerating fees, charges, or rates, often for services or goods, reflecting its connotation of making information known or setting defined costs. The term entered European languages through Mediterranean trade routes, likely via or intermediaries, where it denoted similar lists of duties or notifications, before being adapted in as tariffa and / as tarifa by the . This linguistic borrowing is associated with port cities like in , an Arabic-named stronghold where customs fees were systematically imposed on passing ships during the era, though the word's core sense predates specific geographic ties. From and related , it passed into as tarif ("set price") and tariffa, denoting an official reckoning or arithmetic table. In English, first appeared in the 1590s, initially meaning "a of fees or charges," often in or commercial contexts, before specializing by the late to refer to government-imposed duties on imports or exports. This evolution aligned with expanding global trade, where the term's Arabic heritage underscores tariffs' historical role in notifying and enforcing fiscal obligations at borders, a empirically tied to collection rather than modern protectionist rationales until later reinterpretations.

Core Concepts and Types

A tariff is a tax levied by a government on goods imported from other countries, typically paid by the importer and passed on to consumers through higher prices. This mechanism increases the cost of foreign products relative to domestic alternatives, thereby reducing import volumes and altering trade flows. While export tariffs exist—taxes on goods leaving a country—they are uncommon in modern trade policy, as they discourage domestic production for export and are often prohibited under international agreements like those of the World Trade Organization. Core concepts revolve around tariffs' dual roles in revenue generation and . Revenue tariffs primarily aim to fund government operations by capturing fiscal inflows from trade; for instance, in the early , tariffs constituted up to 90% of federal revenue before the era. Protective tariffs, by contrast, shield nascent or strategic domestic industries from foreign competition by elevating import prices, fostering local production but often at the expense of consumer through higher costs and reduced variety. Economically, tariffs create a wedge between world and domestic prices, benefiting import-competing producers via higher output and profits while imposing deadweight losses from distorted and retaliatory measures by trading partners. Prohibitive tariffs, set at levels high enough to effectively halt imports, serve as non-tariff barriers in disguise, prioritizing or anti-dumping objectives over open markets. Tariffs are classified by calculation method and intent. Ad valorem tariffs apply a to the of imports, scaling with product price and thus adapting to but vulnerable to valuation disputes. Specific tariffs impose a fixed monetary charge per physical unit—such as dollars per —providing predictability for low-value goods but eroding protection over time if import prices fall. Compound tariffs combine both approaches, applying an ad valorem plus a specific to enhance robustness against evasion tactics like under-invoicing. Additional variants include tariff-rate quotas, which allow limited imports at lower rates before escalating to higher ones, blending tariff and quota effects for managed . These structures reflect policymakers' trade-offs between simplicity, enforceability, and targeted economic influence.

Historical Development

Ancient and Pre-Modern Tariffs

Tariffs emerged as early as 3000 BCE in ancient , where city-states imposed duties on goods exchanged along trade routes, treating such levies as a standard cost integrated into merchant pricing and profitability. In ancient around 2000 BCE, pharaohs levied taxes on imported and exported commodities to fund state projects and administration, with records indicating systematic collection at ports and borders to support the centralized economy. In , tariffs functioned primarily as revenue tools for city-states; , for instance, applied a 2% on imports such as at the from the BCE onward, channeling funds toward defense and while facilitating in wine, olives, and . This levy supported ' naval power and urban growth without broadly disrupting commerce, as evidenced by the expansion of networks across the Mediterranean. The systematized tariffs more extensively, imposing a 25% known as the tetarte on luxury imports from the East—such as spices, , and jewels—starting in the late and continuing into the period to generate substantial state revenue. Interprovincial faced lighter customs duties of 2% to 5%, while external imports incurred higher rates, administered through portoria stations that collected on both imports and exports to sustain and administrative costs. However, these measures often inflated prices for consumers, spurred black markets, and encouraged , as high tariffs on high-value goods reduced official revenues over time and distorted domestic markets. During the medieval period in , from the 12th to 15th centuries, tariffs proliferated with the revival of long-distance , as feudal lords, monarchs, and city-states imposed duties on transiting rivers, roads, and ports to extract and shield local producers from . guilds frequently negotiated reductions or exemptions, forming economic blocs to secure safe passage and tariff controls amid fragmented polities, which facilitated commerce in , cloth, and spices across regions like the fairs and routes. In , custom duties supplemented land taxes from the Anglo-Saxon era, evolving into structured levies on exports by the 13th century to fund royal expenditures, though enforcement varied due to local privileges and . These pre-modern tariffs, while revenue-focused, often fragmented efficiency through overlapping jurisdictions, contrasting with the more unified systems of .

Mercantilism and Early Modern Europe

Mercantilist economic policy, which prevailed across Europe from the late 16th to the 18th century, relied heavily on tariffs to engineer favorable balances of trade by curtailing imports of finished goods and promoting exports of raw materials or domestic manufactures. Proponents believed that national prosperity depended on accumulating precious metals, achieved through import restrictions that shielded infant industries from foreign competition while channeling colonial resources toward the mother country. Tariffs were calibrated to penalize luxury imports and non-essential manufactures, often reaching prohibitive levels on textiles and metals, thereby compelling consumption of locally produced alternatives. In , , serving as controller-general of finances under from 1665, overhauled the tariff regime in 1664 to erect barriers against and English goods, imposing high duties on imported s and banning certain foreign luxuries such as to nurture French workshops and silk production. These measures extended to selective prohibitions, like the 1539 ban on woolen imports to safeguard domestic sectors, reflecting a broader strategy of state-directed industrialization amid competition from the . Colbert's tariffs, sometimes exceeding 100% ad valorem on rival manufactures, aimed to capture foreign markets for French exports while internalizing customs revenues, though they spurred and strained relations with trading partners. England pursued analogous protectionism through the Navigation Acts, commencing with the 1651 statute that levied duties on goods arriving in non-English vessels, effectively tariffing foreign shipping to bolster the Royal Navy and merchant fleet against Dutch intermediaries. Subsequent acts in the 1660s integrated explicit import taxes on colonial staples like when rerouted through foreign ports, enforcing a on intra-empire and directing inflows to . These policies, intertwined with bounties on exports such as woolens, generated revenue—tariff collections rising amid the Anglo-Dutch Wars—but invited evasion and colonial resentment, as evidenced by widespread illicit . Spain and Portugal, leveraging vast colonial empires, deployed tariffs to monopolize New World silver and Asian spices, with duties as high as 20-30% on intra-European re-exports funneled through or , prioritizing metropolitan enrichment over peripheral development. Such measures fortified imperial finances in the , funding Habsburg ambitions, yet contributed to inflationary pressures and stagnation by discouraging diversified . Across these states, tariffs demonstrably augmented short-term fiscal power and naval capabilities under conditions of weak central and overseas , though empirical outcomes varied, with often yielding higher costs and inefficiencies compared to open exchange.

19th-Century Protectionism and Industrialization

In the United States, tariffs played a prominent role in economic policy throughout the 19th century, rising from an average of about 20% in the early 1800s to peaks exceeding 50% on dutiable imports by mid-century before stabilizing around 40-50% after the Civil War until World War I. The Tariff Act of 1816 imposed duties averaging 25% to shield emerging textile and iron industries from British competition, while subsequent measures like the Tariff of 1828 and the Morrill Tariff of 1861 further elevated rates to protect manufacturing sectors. These policies generated up to 95% of federal revenue prior to the income tax and were justified as necessary for nurturing "infant industries" incapable of competing with established European producers. However, empirical analyses indicate that while tariffs may have modestly boosted output in protected sectors like cotton textiles, they did not significantly enhance overall manufacturing productivity or drive the era's rapid industrialization, which owed more to abundant natural resources, immigration, railroads, and technological adoption. European nations exhibited varied approaches, with repealing the in 1846 and adopting unilateral by mid-century, achieving industrial primacy but facing agricultural vulnerabilities. In contrast, maintained protectionist barriers averaging 20-30% on manufactures, shielding its nascent heavy industries from dominance post-Napoleonic Wars. , after unifying its customs union () in 1834 with initially low duties, shifted to overt via the 1879 tariffs under , imposing rates up to 25% on industrial goods and higher on to counter deflationary pressures and foster and chemical sectors. These measures correlated with accelerated industrial output in protected areas, though causal attribution remains debated amid concurrent investments in and . The intellectual foundation for such policies drew from Friedrich List's 1841 National System of Political Economy, which argued for temporary tariffs to allow less-developed economies to build productive capacities against advanced rivals, influencing German and American strategies beyond Alexander Hamilton's earlier advocacy. Proponents claimed protection enabled scale economies and learning effects essential for catching up, as seen in Germany's rapid steel production rise from negligible levels in to rivaling Britain's by 1900. Yet rigorous econometric studies find limited evidence of net positive growth effects from these tariffs, with benefits confined to specific industries often offset by higher consumer costs, resource misallocation, and retaliatory risks, suggesting industrialization's momentum stemmed primarily from internal factors like and rather than barriers.

Interwar Period and Smoot-Hawley

The interwar period, spanning 1918 to 1939, marked a shift toward heightened protectionism amid postwar economic dislocations, war debt burdens, and the Great Depression's onset in 1929. Nations increasingly adopted tariffs to shield domestic industries from import competition and address falling prices, reversing prewar trends toward liberalization. In the United States, the Fordney-McCumber Tariff Act of September 21, 1922, raised average ad valorem duties on dutiable imports to about 38%, granting the president authority to adjust rates by up to 50% to equalize production costs with foreign competitors. This built on wartime precedents, prioritizing revenue and infant industry protection over free trade ideals. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, signed into law by President on June 17, 1930, represented the interwar peak of U.S. , elevating tariffs on more than 20,000 imported goods and increasing the average rate on dutiable imports by approximately 6 percentage points to nearly 60%. Initially framed to aid struggling farmers via higher agricultural duties, in expanded protections to industrial sectors, despite a from over 1,000 economists warning of retaliatory risks and domestic price hikes. Proponents argued it would bolster employment and revenue, but empirical reviews highlight its role in prompting foreign countermeasures, with retaliating nations curtailing U.S. exports by 28–33% on average. Retaliation manifested swiftly: , the U.S.'s largest trading partner, imposed reciprocal tariffs by May 1930, redirecting trade toward the ; countries followed with duties on American automobiles, , and , contributing to a 40% drop in U.S. exports from 1929 to 1932. While Smoot-Hawley accounted for only a modest share of the Depression-era trade collapse—estimated at 5–10% of U.S. import reductions per some analyses—its beggar-thy-neighbor dynamics exacerbated global deflationary spirals, as foreign tariffs rose gradually but cumulatively, amplifying export losses for tariff-favored import-competing sectors like at the expense of . Regional studies confirm localized gains in protected areas, such as Midwest manufacturing output, but net national effects leaned negative due to higher input costs and retaliatory barriers, underscoring tariffs' distortionary incentives under economic distress.

Post-World War II Liberalization

The post-World War II era marked a deliberate shift from interwar protectionism toward multilateral tariff liberalization, driven by the recognition that high barriers had exacerbated the and global conflict. In 1947, 23 nations signed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), establishing rules to reduce tariffs through reciprocal negotiations and prevent beggar-thy-neighbor policies. Initial average ad valorem tariffs among major participants stood at approximately 22 percent on dutiable imports, reflecting levels inherited from pre-war schedules. GATT's framework emphasized most-favored-nation treatment and binding commitments, fostering predictability while allowing exceptions for developing economies via protocols like the 1965 waiver. Successive negotiating rounds progressively dismantled tariff walls. The Geneva Round (1947) cut duties by about one-third on $10 billion in trade, followed by modest expansions in (1949) and (1951). The Dillon Round (1960–1961) and Kennedy Round (1964–1967) achieved deeper cuts, with the latter reducing industrial tariffs by an average of 35 percent across participants, covering $40 billion in trade. The Tokyo Round (1973–1979), involving 102 countries, further lowered tariffs by 34 percent on average while addressing non-tariff barriers, though these efforts were complicated by oil shocks and domestic pressures for protection in sectors like and textiles. By the (1986–1994), average industrial tariffs had fallen to around 5 percent, culminating in the World Trade Organization's (WTO) establishment in 1995, which institutionalized GATT's principles with stronger . In the United States, tariff aligned with the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 and subsequent authority grants, dropping average rates from 18.4 percent in 1934 to 1.3 percent by the late , with post-1947 reductions eliminating duties on nearly all products through bilateral and multilateral pacts. European nations followed suit, as evidenced by declining averages in , the , and others, from highs near 20–30 percent post-war to single digits by the 1980s. These reductions boosted global trade volumes by facilitating export growth and integration, though empirical analyses attribute only partial causality to GATT amid concurrent factors like technological advances and capital mobility; for instance, one study estimates GATT membership increased trade flows by 48–97 percent in various subsamples, net of confounders. Despite successes, faced critiques for uneven benefits, with advanced economies gaining disproportionately while import-competing industries in participant nations experienced adjustment costs, often mitigated imperfectly by domestic policies.

Contemporary Resurgence and Trade Wars

Following decades of tariff reductions under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the framework established in 1995, protectionist measures resurged in the 2010s amid growing concerns over persistent trade imbalances, theft, state subsidies distorting competition, and vulnerabilities in global supply chains exposed by events like the and the . This shift marked a departure from post-World War II liberalization, with major economies invoking and fairness rationales to justify higher barriers, leading to elevated average applied tariff rates globally. In the United States, the average tariff on imports rose from approximately 1.5% in 2017 to over 3% by 2019, reflecting targeted actions against perceived unfair practices rather than broad . The most prominent example emerged in 2018 under U.S. President , who initiated tariffs citing under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and unfair trade under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. On March 23, 2018, the U.S. imposed 25% tariffs on steel and 10% on aluminum imports from most countries, affecting $48 billion in goods annually; these were later adjusted via quotas for allies like and but retained against . Escalation with began July 6, 2018, with 25% duties on $34 billion of Chinese imports, expanding in tranches to cover $350 billion by 2019—about two-thirds of U.S. imports from —at rates up to 25%, aimed at addressing forced transfers and subsidies. retaliated with tariffs on $100 billion of U.S. exports, including soybeans and automobiles, sparking a war that disrupted $450 billion in annual flows and prompted supply chain relocations to countries like and . A partial truce via the Phase One agreement on January 15, 2020, suspended further escalation in exchange for Chinese purchases of U.S. goods, though compliance fell short of targets. The incoming Biden administration in retained most Trump-era tariffs, viewing them as leverage against 's industrial policies, and expanded them in May 2024 with hikes to 100% on electric vehicles, 50% on semiconductors, and 25% on steel and aluminum from , covering an additional $18 billion in imports to counter overcapacity in subsidized sectors. This continuity underscored a bipartisan U.S. consensus on using tariffs for strategic , with average U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods stabilizing around 19% by 2023. Similar tensions arose in U.S.- relations, where steel and aluminum tariffs prompted countermeasures on $3.2 billion of U.S. products like and motorcycles in June 2018, resolved partially via a 2021 quota deal but highlighting retaliatory dynamics. Trump's return to office in January 2025 accelerated the resurgence, with a executive order imposing a 10% on all imports effective February 4, escalating to 60% proposed rates amid accusations of and precursors. By April 2025, U.S. tariffs on goods reached averages of 84% in some categories, prompting to retaliate with 34% duties on U.S. exports, covering nearly all and stalling WTO dispute mechanisms. These actions extended to a universal 10-20% on all U.S. imports announced April 2, 2025, with higher rates up to 50% on partners like the and , justified as reciprocal measures against surpluses exceeding $500 billion annually. The WTO projected these barriers would reduce global merchandise growth to 1.7% in 2026 from 3.3% in 2024, with empirical models estimating a 0.4% drag on U.S. output per standard deviation hike based on historical data from 150 countries. Retaliation chains amplified costs, as seen in diverted U.S. agricultural exports costing farmers $27 billion in lost markets from 2018-2019 countermeasures. Beyond the U.S.- axis, resurgence manifested in India's 2018-2020 tariff hikes on electronics and to 20-30% for domestic incentives, and the EU's 2023 , functioning as a equivalent on carbon-intensive imports starting , targeting $4 billion in annual to enforce standards. These measures reflected a broader "managed " paradigm, where s served geopolitical aims like , though critics from institutions like the WTO argued they eroded multilateral rules without resolving underlying distortions. Empirical assessments of the 2018-2025 period indicate s raised U.S. by $80 billion annually but at the cost of higher prices and reduced competitiveness, with no net closure of the $900 billion U.S. goods deficit by 2024.

Economic Foundations

Theoretical Models of Tariffs

In partial models, tariffs are analyzed within a single import-competing , assuming other markets remain unaffected. A tariff raises the domestic of the imported good by the amount of the , prompting domestic producers to expand output while consumers reduce quantity demanded, resulting in lower import volumes. This generates producer surplus for local firms, tariff revenue for the , and a transfer from consumers, but incurs deadweight losses from (using resources better suited elsewhere) and (forgoing beneficial imports). For small open economies unable to influence world prices, the terms-of-trade effect is zero, rendering the tariff welfare-reducing overall, as the deadweight losses exceed gains. General equilibrium frameworks extend this analysis economy-wide, incorporating interactions across sectors, factor markets, and relative prices. In models like the Heckscher-Ohlin framework, tariffs distort by protecting import-competing industries, reallocating labor and from export sectors, potentially raising wages in protected areas but lowering overall through factor misallocation. (CGE) simulations, which solve for simultaneous , reveal secondary effects such as adjustments and terms-of-trade shifts, often amplifying partial equilibrium losses in multi-sector settings. These models assume and constant returns, highlighting how tariffs reduce global welfare under reciprocal distortions, though dynamic extensions may capture responses. Optimal theory posits that a large importing can impose a unilateral to exploit , reducing foreign supply and lowering world prices, thereby capturing a terms-of-trade gain. The optimal rate equals the inverse of the foreign supply elasticity (t = 1/ε*), balancing domestic deadweight losses against this ; for instance, estimates suggest U.S. optimal tariffs around 20-30% on certain if retaliation is absent. This dates to classical roots, with formalization by 1907, but requires the tariff-imposing to be a dominant buyer without facing retaliation, conditions rarely met in practice due to reciprocal responses that erode gains. Empirical calibrations in CGE models confirm small net benefits for unilateral optimal tariffs in large economies, but zero or negative outcomes under mutual .

Optimal Tariff and Terms-of-Trade Effects

In international trade theory, the terms-of-trade effect arises when a large importing country imposes tariffs, reducing its demand for imports and thereby lowering the world price of those goods, which improves the imposing country's terms of trade—the ratio of its export prices to import prices. This benefit accrues because the foreign export supply elasticity is finite for large traders, allowing the tariff to shift part of the burden onto foreign producers through price declines that exceed the tariff wedge. For small open economies, however, this effect is negligible, as they face perfectly elastic world prices and thus experience only domestic deadweight losses from tariffs. The optimal is the ad valorem rate that maximizes a large country's national by equating the marginal terms-of-trade gain to the marginal efficiency loss from distorted domestic and . In a partial model, this yields the formula t^* = \frac{1}{\epsilon^*}, where \epsilon^* is the elasticity of foreign export supply; higher elasticity implies a lower optimal , and as \epsilon^* approaches infinity (small country case), t^* approaches zero. General extensions incorporate reciprocal demand effects and confirm that unilateral optimal tariffs remain positive only for countries with significant , though dynamic models adjusting for lags or intertemporal further refine the rate downward. Empirical studies provide partial support for terms-of-trade motivations in tariff setting. Analysis of pre-WTO tariffs across 78 countries shows they were about 9 percentage points higher on imports with inelastic foreign supply elasticities, consistent with exploiting terms-of-trade gains, particularly for non-WTO members. U.S. non-tariff barriers similarly target inelastic-supply , though factors like explain most variation, with terms-of-trade effects accounting for only about 5% of observed tariffs. Median computed optimal tariffs range from 14% in some models, but evidence remains mixed due to retaliation risks and measurement challenges, often yielding small net gains outweighed by global inefficiencies if multiple countries pursue optimal policies.

Critiques of Comparative Advantage Assumptions

Critics of the theory of , originally formulated by in , argue that its foundational assumptions—such as constant opportunity costs, , of factors, and static technological differences—fail to capture real-world dynamics, thereby undermining its prescriptive power against tariffs. These assumptions imply that countries should specialize according to pre-existing efficiencies without intervention, yet deviations like increasing and imperfect markets suggest that temporary tariffs could foster domestic capabilities that alter comparative advantages over time. For instance, the model's neglect of transportation costs and factor immobility ignores how geographic and labor rigidities can make outcomes inefficient, potentially justifying protective measures to internalize such frictions. A primary critique centers on the static nature of the model, which treats comparative advantages as fixed endowments rather than endogenous outcomes shaped by policy. contends that historically successful industrializers, including until the mid- and the through the late 19th century, employed high tariffs averaging 40-50% on manufactured goods to nurture infant industries, contradicting the notion that universally maximizes . supports this: Japan's post-Meiji tariffs exceeded 30% in key sectors from to , enabling technological catch-up that alone could not achieve, as allowed scale accumulation and absent in Ricardo's framework. reveals that developed nations advocated only after securing dominance, "kicking away the ladder" for followers, with data showing average tariff rates in the at 44% in 1825 dropping only after industrialization. New trade theory further challenges Ricardian assumptions by incorporating and , where much observed trade—especially intra-industry flows between similar economies—arises not from comparative differences but from monopolistic rents and demand variety. , in developing this framework, demonstrated that under increasing returns, strategic tariffs or subsidies can shift profits from foreign to domestic firms, as seen in models where a tariff on a scale-dependent boosts by capturing rents previously earned abroad. Krugman's 1979 model shows that without constant returns, may lock countries into suboptimal equilibria, justifying intervention; for example, Boeing's dominance in aircraft was aided by export supports, yielding returns exceeding free-market predictions. This critique extends to empirical patterns: over 60% of trade in the 1980s was intra-industry, unexplained by but aligned with scale-driven . Empirical anomalies like the of 1953 reinforce these limitations, revealing that the US—a capital-abundant nation—exported relatively labor-intensive goods while importing capital-intensive ones, contradicting extensions of like the Heckscher-Ohlin model that tie trade to factor endowments. Wassily Leontief's input-output analysis found US exports required 30% less capital per worker than imports, suggesting or technology specifics override simplistic endowments, and implying tariffs might protect sectors where apparent disadvantages mask potential shifts. Such findings indicate that is not immutable but influenced by unmodeled factors like skills or innovation spillovers, where has empirically redirected resources toward higher-productivity paths in cases like South Korea's auto industry under 1970s tariffs. Overall, these critiques posit that dismissing tariffs overlooks how violating Ricardian assumptions can make targeted protection a tool for realizing latent advantages.

Empirical Effects

Impacts on Domestic Production and Productivity

Tariffs on imported goods can enable short-term increases in domestic within protected sectors by allowing producers to charge higher prices and capture previously held by foreign competitors. For instance, following the imposition of 25% tariffs on imports and 10% on aluminum in 2018, U.S. rose modestly from 86.6 million tons in to a peak of 88.0 million in , supported by reduced import competition. However, this expansion was limited and did not reverse long-term structural declines, with stabilizing around 80 million tons annually by 2024 despite ongoing protections. Empirical analyses indicate that such gains in protected output are often outweighed by adverse effects on downstream industries reliant on those inputs, leading to higher production costs and reduced overall domestic output. The 2018 tariffs, for example, increased prices by approximately 20-30%, raising input costs for U.S. in sectors like automotive and machinery, which employ far more workers than steel production itself; this contributed to net manufacturing job losses estimated at 75,000 by 2019. Firm-level studies further show that tariffs exacerbate resource misallocation, propping up less efficient import-competing firms while constraining access for more productive ones, thereby distorting and hindering scale economies. Regarding productivity, measured as total factor productivity (TFP), macroeconomic evidence consistently links tariff hikes to medium-term declines, as protections insulate firms from competitive pressures that drive improvements. A comprehensive of U.S. tariff changes since the 1960s found that increases reduce aggregate TFP by fostering inefficiencies in and reducing incentives for . Cross-country firm-level data from developing economies, such as , similarly reveal a strong negative correlation between nominal tariff rates and firm TFP, even after controlling for firm and industry characteristics. In the U.S. context, the steel tariffs correlated with stagnant or declining productivity in affected supply chains, as higher input costs offset any efficiency gains in .
Study FocusKey FindingSource
U.S. Macro Effects (1960s-2010s)Tariff increases lead to TFP declines via output contraction and misallocation
Firm-Level ( Manufacturing)1% tariff rise reduces firm TFP by ~0.5-1%
Misallocation (Cross-Country) protection increases dispersion in firm-level marginal products of , lowering aggregate

Employment, Wages, and Consumer Prices

Empirical studies indicate that tariffs typically lead to net losses in the broader , as gains in protected import-competing sectors are outweighed by reductions in downstream industries facing higher input costs and by retaliatory measures harming exporters. For instance, the U.S. Section 232 tariffs on and aluminum, which imposed 25% and 10% duties respectively starting in March and June , resulted in declines in steel-using sectors due to elevated material prices, with downstream jobs falling by an estimated 75,000 by mid-2019 while steel production added only about 1,000 positions. Similarly, the broader U.S.- tariffs from -2019, covering over $350 billion in Chinese imports, generated modest net job losses as higher costs propagated through supply chains and foreign retaliation reduced U.S. agricultural and exports, contributing to approximately 245,000 fewer jobs overall. Wage effects mirror this pattern, with tariffs failing to deliver sustained increases for most workers and often exerting downward pressure through reduced and economic activity. of the 2018 tariffs shows no broad wage gains in , where protected sectors experienced stagnant real amid higher operational costs, while exposed exporters saw wage suppression from lost markets; unions, by contrast, have historically raised wages more effectively without the offsetting harms. Cross-country from 1963-2014 across 151 nations further links higher average tariff rates to elevated and greater , as distorts labor allocation away from efficient uses. Tariffs consistently elevate prices by shifting the burden onto domestic buyers, with pass-through rates near 100% in recent U.S. cases. The 2018 duties raised U.S. prices fully, reducing aggregate by $1.4 billion monthly and imposing an effective increase of $3 billion monthly on households and firms, as evidenced by micro-level matched to expenditures. Early 2025 tariff hikes similarly boosted core goods PCE prices by 0.3%, detectable in real-time inflation metrics, underscoring the direct inflationary channel absent in theoretical models assuming elastic substitution. Historical precedents, such as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of June which raised average duties to nearly 60%, exacerbated price pressures during deflationary times, compounding job losses in trade-dependent sectors amid global retaliation. ![Effect of Import Tariff - v1.png][center]

Trade Balances and Retaliatory Dynamics

Tariffs imposed on imports can reduce the volume of those imports by increasing their domestic prices, thereby narrowing deficits in the short term. However, this effect is often counteracted by retaliatory tariffs from trading partners, which raise barriers to the imposing country's exports and diminish its surplus or exacerbate deficits elsewhere. Empirical analyses indicate that overall balances are primarily driven by macroeconomic factors such as national savings-investment imbalances rather than levels, with higher average tariffs correlating with larger trade deficits across countries. In the case of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which raised U.S. duties on over 20,000 imported goods to an average of nearly 60%, more than 25 countries responded with retaliatory measures, leading to a 66% decline in global trade volume between 1929 and 1934. U.S. exports fell sharply as a result, with retaliating countries reducing their imports from the U.S. by an average of 28-32%, contributing to a contraction in the U.S. trade balance amid the . This episode demonstrated how retaliation can amplify trade disruptions, freezing international commerce and prompting a policy reversal through subsequent reciprocal trade agreements. The 2018-2019 U.S.- trade war provides a modern illustration, where the U.S. imposed tariffs on approximately $350 billion of Chinese imports, reducing the bilateral U.S. with by about 18% by 2019 through curtailed imports. retaliated with duties on $100 billion of U.S. goods, particularly targeting , which caused U.S. agricultural exports to to drop by over 50% in affected categories like soybeans, leading to $27 billion in direct losses for U.S. farmers by 2020. Despite the bilateral improvement, the overall U.S. goods widened to $920 billion in 2024, as imports shifted to third countries like and without addressing underlying macroeconomic drivers; retaliatory effects further offset any aggregate gains, with U.S. exporters lowering prices by up to 10% in response to foreign tariffs. Broader empirical studies confirm that retaliatory dynamics often neutralize tariff-induced improvements in trade balances, as export declines from countermeasures match or exceed import reductions, while benefits competitors without resolving imbalances. For instance, in the U.S.- conflict, third-country gains totaled $13.5 billion in redirected trade, underscoring how retaliation fragments supply chains rather than bolstering the initiator's position. These patterns hold across datasets spanning decades, where tariff hikes lead to medium-term output declines and no sustained balance corrections, emphasizing the limits of unilateral in influencing net flows.

Case Studies from Recent Trade Conflicts

In 2018, the initiated tariffs on imports under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, citing unfair practices such as theft and forced technology transfers; these escalated to cover approximately $360 billion in goods by , with rates ranging from 7.5% to 25%. retaliated with tariffs on $110 billion of U.S. exports, including agricultural products like soybeans, targeting politically sensitive sectors. Empirical analysis indicates near-complete pass-through of U.S. tariffs to import prices, raising U.S. consumer costs by an estimated $1.4 billion monthly in real income terms, while generating $3 billion in additional monthly; however, net effects were negative due to reduced volumes and disruptions. U.S. imports from fell by 20-30% for targeted products, with to countries like and increasing imports there by 10-15%, but overall U.S. output showed limited gains, and effects were mixed—slight increases in protected sectors offset by losses elsewhere from higher input costs. Retaliatory tariffs reduced U.S. agricultural exports to by over 50% initially, though government subsidies mitigated some farmer income losses; long-term, 's economy experienced localized output declines in exposed regions, measurable via night-lights data, but adapted through export redirection. The U.S. Section 232 tariffs on (25%) and aluminum (10%), imposed in March 2018 for reasons, provide another case; these applied globally but with temporary exemptions for allies like , , and the after negotiations. Imports of affected steel products dropped by 27%, and aluminum by 31%, while domestic steel production rose 8% and prices increased 20-30% in the U.S. . Employment in steel and aluminum sectors gained about 1,000-8,000 , but downstream —such as and machinery—lost an estimated 75,000 jobs due to higher input costs, yielding a net employment loss. Retaliation from the , , and others imposed tariffs on U.S. exports like whiskey, motorcycles, and , reducing those shipments by 10-20%; quota agreements with some partners later moderated effects, but overall, the tariffs raised U.S. metal-using industry costs without proportionally boosting -related output. Studies attribute minimal aggregate GDP impact (under 0.1% decline) but highlight inefficiencies from distorted .
Tariff EventTargeted Imports/ExportsKey Empirical Effects
U.S.-China Section 301 (2018-2019)$360B U.S. from ; $110B from U.S.Import reduction: 20-30%; Price pass-through: ~100%; Net U.S. loss: $1.4B/month; to third countries: +10-15%
U.S. Section 232 Steel/Aluminum (2018-)Global /aluminum (~$48B pre-tariff)Production increase: +8% ; Employment net loss: ~75k downstream jobs; Import drop: 27% , 31% aluminum
These cases illustrate retaliatory dynamics amplifying costs, with protected sectors gaining temporarily at the expense of broader , though empirical variance exists due to confounding factors like and supply shocks.

Proponents' Rationales

Protecting Infant Industries and Strategic Sectors

The maintains that temporary tariffs enable nascent domestic industries to achieve , accumulate technological know-how, and build competitive capabilities against entrenched foreign rivals, which possess cost advantages from prior investments and market dominance. This rationale, articulated by in his 1791 Report on the Subject of Manufactures, advocated protective duties to foster U.S. independence from British imports, arguing that without such measures, domestic producers could not overcome initial high costs and risks. Hamilton's framework influenced early U.S. tariff policy, including the Tariff Act of 1789, which imposed duties averaging 8-10% while providing selective protection for emerging sectors like textiles and iron. In the 19th-century , sustained high tariffs—reaching an average of 50% after the —correlated with rapid industrialization, as protected sectors such as steel and machinery expanded output and innovation, transitioning from import substitution to competitiveness by the late 1800s. Proponents, including economist in his 1841 National System of Political Economy, extended this logic to advocate state-led protection for strategic in developing economies, influencing policies in and , where tariffs shielded heavy industries until they achieved global leadership in chemicals and by the early . Empirical claims of success in , particularly South Korea's 1960s-1980s protection of automobiles and via tariffs up to 40% combined with subsidies, point to subsequent surges— and evolving from protected startups to multinational giants dominating global markets. For strategic sectors, tariffs address vulnerabilities where market forces alone fail to ensure sufficient domestic capacity critical for national and autonomy, such as , semiconductors, and rare earths, which underpin hardware and resilience. The U.S. invocation of Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 led to 25% tariffs on and 10% on aluminum imports in March 2018, justified by the Trump administration on grounds that excessive reliance on foreign supplies—over 70% of aluminum consumption imported—eroded the industrial base essential for producing tanks, ships, and , with domestic dropping below 50% pre-tariff. These measures aimed to revive production, as evidenced by a 2019 increase in U.S. output by 6% and investments exceeding $15 billion in new mills, proponents argue, bolstering readiness against geopolitical threats like supply disruptions from adversarial exporters. Similarly, tariffs on Chinese technology imports since 2018 targeted strategic sectors like , preventing dependency on potentially insecure foreign hardware vital for networks and communications.

National Security and Supply Chain Resilience

Proponents of tariffs argue that unrestricted imports can erode domestic capabilities in industries essential for military readiness, such as steel and aluminum production, thereby compromising . Under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which authorizes the president to restrict imports threatening , the United States imposed 25% tariffs on and 10% on aluminum imports in March 2018, citing diminished domestic capacity that impaired the ability to meet defense needs during emergencies. These measures were justified on the grounds that excessive reliance on foreign suppliers weakens the industrial base required for producing , ships, and , with investigations determining that imports had reduced U.S. production to levels insufficient for mobilization. In 2025, similar Section 232 actions expanded to automobiles, parts, and critical minerals, aiming to counter threats from imports that undermine sovereignty and defense infrastructure. Proponents contend that such tariffs preserve by preventing adversaries from leveraging export controls as geopolitical weapons, as seen in China's dominance over rare earth elements vital for and . Regarding , advocates maintain that tariffs incentivize reshoring and diversification, mitigating risks exposed by events like the , which disrupted global flows of semiconductors and pharmaceuticals. U.S. tariffs on , escalating to cover $250 billion in imports by , were defended as necessary to reduce dependence on a strategic rival for components in and machinery, fostering domestic alternatives and allied sourcing. Public comments during Section 232 reviews on pharmaceuticals highlighted tariffs' role in avoiding disruptions to supplies, prioritizing over cost minimization. Empirical data from these policies show increased U.S. in critical sectors, with production rising post-2018 tariffs, supporting claims that targeted protection builds robust, less vulnerable networks.

Revenue Generation and Fiscal Policy

Tariffs generate for governments by imposing duties on imported goods, with collections typically handled by authorities and directed to general fiscal coffers. In the early , from the nation's founding through the mid-, tariffs formed the dominant stream, comprising 80-95% of federal before the due to limited alternative taxation mechanisms and a emphasis on avoiding direct internal taxes. By the late , as expenditures grew, tariffs still accounted for approximately 40-50% of total federal , funding , repayment, and administrative costs without reliance on levies. In modern developed economies, tariff revenue has diminished significantly following the adoption of income and payroll taxes, multilateral trade liberalization, and World Trade Organization commitments limiting rates. For fiscal year 2023, U.S. customs duties totaled $80 billion, representing about 2% of the $4.44 trillion in overall federal tax receipts, a share consistent with post-World War II trends where tariffs rarely exceed 2% amid diversified revenue bases. Recent escalations, such as those imposed during the 2018-2020 U.S.-China trade disputes, boosted collections to $80-90 billion annually by 2022, yet retaliatory measures and supply chain shifts reduced net gains, with gross revenues offset by exemptions and enforcement costs netting 80-85% retention. Fiscal policy applications of tariffs often involve adjusting rates to bridge shortfalls or fund specific initiatives, particularly in contexts where administrative for direct taxation is weak. Developing nations, lacking robust systems, depend more heavily on tariffs, which can constitute 10-30% of government in low-income countries due to ease of collection at borders compared to tracking domestic . Proponents, including some policymakers advocating broad tariff hikes, contend this mechanism shifts the burden abroad—evidenced by partial pass-through in markets—potentially yielding $150-200 billion annually under proposed 10-20% universal rates, equivalent to 0.5-0.6% of GDP and usable to offset domestic cuts. However, empirical analyses of recent U.S. tariffs reveal that 70-90% of costs are borne by domestic importers and consumers through higher prices, diminishing fiscal efficiency as reduced volumes and macroeconomic drags (e.g., 0.2-0.5% GDP ) erode base revenue over time. In high-income settings, such policies risk amplifying deficits if retaliation curtails exports, as seen in 2018-2019 when U.S. agricultural losses exceeded $20 billion, necessitating compensatory subsidies.

Addressing Unfair Practices and Reciprocity Failures

Proponents of tariffs argue that they serve as a mechanism to counteract non-market distortions imposed by foreign governments, such as excessive state subsidies that enable below-cost exports, often termed dumping. Under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, function as targeted tariffs to offset the effects of actionable subsidies, restoring competitive balance in affected sectors. For instance, empirical analyses indicate that subsidies can distort more severely than equivalent tariffs, with ad valorem equivalents averaging 15% for agricultural exports in some cases. In the steel and aluminum industries, the invoked Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 in March 2018 to impose 25% tariffs on steel and 10% on aluminum imports, citing threats from global overcapacity largely attributable to state subsidies exceeding $100 billion annually in the sector. These measures aimed to curb import surges that had eroded domestic capacity by 20% in the prior decade, with evidence showing exports flooding markets at prices 30-50% below global averages due to non-market support. Beyond WTO-compliant remedies, broader tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 address practices like (IP) theft and forced technology transfers, which evade standard dispute settlement. The U.S. Trade Representative's 2018 investigation found responsible for cyber-enabled IP theft costing the U.S. hundreds of billions annually, prompting tariffs on $300 billion of Chinese goods phased in from July 2018 to September 2019. These actions pressured concessions in the 2020 Phase One agreement, where committed to enhanced IP protections and $200 billion in additional U.S. purchases, demonstrating tariffs' role in enforcing compliance absent effective multilateral enforcement. Reciprocity failures arise when trading partners maintain asymmetrically high barriers while benefiting from open markets, undermining mutual concessions central to post-WWII trade liberalization. For example, India's applied tariffs average 17% overall and exceed 100% on specific U.S. motorcycles, contrasting with near-zero U.S. rates, prompting reciprocal U.S. tariff considerations to compel negotiations. WTO data reveal persistent disparities, with developing economies like and binding tariffs at levels 2-3 times higher than advanced economies, contributing to stalled Doha Round progress since 2001. Such tariff reciprocity, as advocated in U.S. since 2017, mirrors foreign rates to incentivize , evidenced by the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) revisions in 2018-2020, which incorporated reciprocal digital rules and raised thresholds after initial tariff threats. Critics from free- perspectives, including some WTO analyses, contend such measures risk escalation, but proponents cite causal links to outcomes like reduced U.S. deficits with by 5% post-USMCA implementation in 2020.

Opponents' Rationales

Claims of Economic Inefficiency and Deadweight Loss

Opponents of tariffs contend that they generate economic inefficiency by distorting signals and misallocating resources away from , resulting in es that reduce overall welfare. In standard , a tariff elevates the domestic of imported goods above the world , prompting two primary distortions: producers expand output using resources that cost more domestically than importing, creating a production triangle, while consumers curtail purchases below efficient levels, yielding a consumption triangle. These losses represent foregone , as the tariff prevents mutually beneficial exchanges that would occur under . Empirical analyses quantify these inefficiencies. Historical U.S. tariff data from to indicate deadweight losses equivalent to approximately 1% of GDP in the late 1860s, tapering to under 0.1% post-World War II, with an average cost of 40 cents per dollar of raised, reflecting the excess burden beyond mere transfer. More recent evidence from the 2018 U.S. tariffs on , aluminum, and shows a cumulative deadweight loss of $6.9 billion over the first 11 months, reaching $1.4 billion monthly by November 2018, driven by complete pass-through of costs to U.S. consumers and importers without offsetting terms-of-trade gains from lower foreign exporter prices. Macroeconomic simulations further reveal broader impacts, estimating that sustained tariff hikes reduce U.S. output by 0.4% and by 0.9% after five years, while elevating marginally and increasing via a 0.04-point rise in the . These effects compound inefficiency by shielding uncompetitive sectors, raising input costs for downstream industries, and diminishing aggregate consumption, thereby eroding the net benefits of and exchange.

Risks of Retaliation and Global Trade Disruption

Tariffs imposed by one country frequently elicit retaliatory measures from trading partners, escalating into broader trade conflicts that fragment global supply chains and reduce overall trade volumes. For instance, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 raised U.S. import duties on over 20,000 goods to an average of 59%, prompting immediate retaliation from nations including , , and others, which enacted their own tariff hikes on U.S. exports. This tit-for-tat response contributed to a 65% collapse in global trade between 1929 and 1934, as retaliatory barriers froze international commerce and exacerbated the by limiting export markets for affected countries. U.S. exports to retaliating partners specifically declined by 28% to 32%, illustrating how unilateral can boomerang to harm the initiator's through lost foreign demand. In contemporary cases, the U.S.- trade war initiated in 2018 exemplifies these dynamics, with the U.S. imposing tariffs on approximately $350 billion of Chinese imports by 2019, met by Chinese countermeasures targeting $100 billion of U.S. goods, particularly in and . Retaliation disrupted flows, leading to a net reduction in U.S. GDP of about 1.0% when for both imposed and tariffs, alongside higher consumer prices and reallocations that failed to fully offset losses. Empirical analyses confirm that such escalations amplify disruptions: a study of 2018-2019 tariffs, including retaliation, found negative effects on U.S. employment and output, with exporters redirecting only partially to non-retaliating markets at higher costs. Broader global repercussions include heightened and , where WTO data indicate that reciprocal tariffs in recent disputes have correlated with merchandise volume contractions. Projections for 2025 suggest that escalating U.S.-initiated tariffs and retaliatory responses could yield a 1.5% decline in world merchandise volume, driven by uncertainty and fragmented preferential pacts covering 74% of global flows (down from 80% pre-tariff surges). These effects compound through vulnerabilities, as firms face rerouting costs and reduced efficiency, with models estimating welfare losses equivalent to 0.12% of GDP in affected sectors from disrupted intermediate goods . While some argue retaliation incentivizes , historical and recent underscores its tendency to entrench , diminishing multilateral cooperation and amplifying economic costs beyond initial intent.

Arguments from Consumer Welfare and Efficiency

Opponents of tariffs contend that they diminish consumer welfare by elevating the prices of both imported goods and domestic alternatives that face reduced foreign , thereby eroding real incomes and limiting access to lower-cost options. In partial equilibrium analysis, tariffs impose a between world and domestic prices, transferring surplus from consumers to producers and while generating es from curtailed and overstimulated inefficient domestic . These losses arise because tariffs prevent mutually beneficial trades, reducing overall and allocative optimality under principles. Empirical estimates indicate that such interventions yield efficiency costs of approximately 46 cents in per dollar of tariff revenue collected in historical U.S. contexts. Real-world evidence from the 2018-2019 U.S. tariffs on imports demonstrates near-complete pass-through to domestic prices, with s bearing the full incidence rather than foreign exporters absorbing costs through reduced margins. This resulted in an estimated monthly reduction in U.S. aggregate of $1.4 billion, primarily through higher retail prices for affected goods like and apparel. econometric analysis confirmed statistically significant from these tariffs, with pass-through rates exceeding 90% in targeted sectors, amplifying expenditure burdens without commensurate gains in domestic output. Similarly, tariffs on washing machines imposed in early 2018 raised U.S. unit prices by about $86 on average, costing s roughly $1.5 billion annually in added expenses. Beyond direct price hikes, tariffs undermine by distorting supply chains and incentivizing resource misallocation toward protected industries, often at the expense of more productive sectors. This protection fosters complacency among domestic firms, stifling and that otherwise promotes through competitive pressures. Cross-country data spanning five decades across 150 nations further links higher tariff rates to slower GDP , attributing part of the drag to persistent consumer welfare erosion from elevated costs and reduced variety. While proponents may highlight short-term or employment shifts, the net losses—manifesting as forgone —consistently outweigh these in rigorous general models, underscoring tariffs' role in contracting the economic pie available for consumers.

Political and Geopolitical Dimensions

Domestic Political Economy of Tariff Adoption

The domestic of tariff adoption centers on the interplay between concentrated interest groups seeking protection and diffuse opposing forces, shaped by , electoral incentives, and institutional delegation. Import-competing industries, such as and , mobilize to advocate for tariffs, arguing they preserve domestic employment and counter foreign subsidies or dumping, as evidenced by persistent from sector-specific associations despite broader economic critiques. These groups benefit from tariffs' ability to raise import prices, enabling higher domestic output and profits, which incentivizes organized campaigns targeting legislators in affected districts. In contrast, exporters, retailers, and consumer advocates typically oppose tariffs due to retaliatory risks and higher input costs, but their incentives for are weaker owing to dispersed impacts. Public choice theory elucidates this asymmetry: tariffs generate rents for specific producers through higher prices and market share, prompting intense via contributions and advocacy, while general welfare losses—estimated in models as deadweight costs from distorted —fail to galvanize equivalent counter- from the . Empirical studies confirm that political factors, including campaign donations, elevate the probability of impositions or exemptions; for instance, U.S. data from 2018-2020 actions reveal firms with higher outlays secured exclusions 20-30% more often than non-lobbyists, underscoring how access to policymakers translates economic interests into . Large firms, leveraging resources for sustained influence, outperform smaller entities in shaping outcomes, as seen in the where connected entities navigated exemptions effectively. Electoral dynamics further propel adoption, with politicians in import-dependent regions favoring to secure votes from workers perceiving job threats from ; research on U.S. counties indicates tariffs correlate with electoral margins in manufacturing-heavy areas, where on "unfair " resonates despite aggregate inefficiencies. Institutional structures modulate these pressures: delegation of tariff authority to , as under U.S. Trade Act provisions, diminishes congressional by insulating decisions from parochial district influences, though it amplifies executive responsiveness to national coalitions or crises like supply disruptions. Overall, adoption persists amid economic consensus favoring freer because domestic rewards visible benefits to organized constituencies over invisible costs, with 2025 lobbying expenditures on U.S. tariffs reaching $908 million in the first half-year alone, reflecting entrenched group competition.

International Negotiations and Alliances

In multilateral forums such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and its successor, the (WTO), tariffs have been central to successive rounds of negotiations aimed at reciprocal reductions and bindings to prevent arbitrary increases. From 1947 to 1994, GATT conducted eight rounds of talks, including the Geneva Round (1947), which initially cut tariffs by 35% on average among 23 participating countries, and the Kennedy Round (1964–1967), which achieved a 35% average reduction across industrial goods for signatories representing over 80% of world trade. The (1986–1994), involving 123 countries, resulted in bound tariff commitments that reduced average applied rates by approximately 40% and established the WTO framework for ongoing and further . These efforts demonstrated tariffs' role as leverage for mutual concessions, though subsequent rounds like the Doha Development Agenda (launched 2001) have stalled due to disagreements over agricultural subsidies and developing-country access, highlighting limits to multilateral consensus amid diverging national interests. Bilateral and plurilateral agreements often bypass multilateral gridlock by targeting specific tariff reductions to forge alliances and secure . For instance, the United States-Japan Trade Agreement (2019) saw commit to eliminating or reducing tariffs on over 600 agricultural lines, including beef (from 38.5% to 9% phased over 15 years) and , in exchange for U.S. concessions on trade and avoidance of broader automotive tariffs. Similarly, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for (CPTPP), effective since 2018 among 11 nations (including , , and but excluding the U.S.), eliminates tariffs on 95–99% of goods traded among members over transition periods, fostering supply-chain integration while maintaining external tariffs against non-signatories. Such pacts exemplify how tariff negotiations build strategic alliances, as seen in the U.S.-Mexico- Agreement (USMCA, 2020), which preserved NAFTA's tariff-free trade among the three nations—covering $1.2 trillion in annual flows—while strengthening to counter third-country circumvention, amid U.S. threats of 25% tariffs on and Mexico to compel labor and dairy market reforms. Governments frequently deploy tariff threats or impositions as bargaining instruments to extract concessions, a tactic evident in the Trump administration's approach (2017–2021), which imposed Section 232 steel and aluminum s (25% and 10%, respectively) on allies like and the to negotiate quota-based exemptions and reciprocal reductions. These measures prompted alliances such as the U.S.-EU Joint Statement () averting escalation through tariff suspensions and joint WTO challenges against , while bilateral deals with (revised KORUS FTA, ) cut U.S. tariffs from 25% and expanded Korean auto access under quotas. Empirical outcomes suggest this leverage can yield short-term gains in market openings, though retaliatory tariffs from partners—totaling $120 billion in U.S. exports affected by – measures—underscore risks of fragmented alliances if reciprocity falters. Overall, tariff-centric negotiations reinforce realist dynamics where alliances form around shared tariff disciplines, prioritizing verifiable reciprocity over unconditional liberalization.

Tariffs in Developing vs. Developed Economies

Developing economies typically apply higher average tariff rates than developed ones, with weighted mean applied tariffs averaging approximately 4-10% in low- and middle-income countries compared to 1-3% in high-income economies as of 2022, according to and WTO data. This disparity reflects differing economic structures: developing nations often rely on tariffs for both revenue generation—where trade taxes can constitute 20-30% of government income in least-developed countries due to limited capacity for direct taxation—and protection of "infant industries" to foster domestic against established foreign competitors. In contrast, developed economies, with broader tax bases and mature industries, deploy tariffs more selectively for strategic purposes, such as safeguarding sectors or countering subsidies, resulting in lower overall rates that minimize broad economic distortions. The infant industry rationale, first articulated by economists like and , posits that temporary tariffs enable developing economies to nurture sectors unable to compete immediately with advanced imports, allowing time for scale economies and to emerge. Empirical successes include and in the 1960s-1980s, where targeted protection combined with export incentives propelled rapid industrialization; Korea's effective rates on manufactured imports reached 30-40% initially, but were phased down as firms gained competitiveness, contributing to GDP growth averaging 8-10% annually. However, failures abound, as in Latin America's import-substitution industrialization () policies from the 1950s-1980s, where sustained high tariffs (often 50-100% on consumer goods) shielded inefficient firms, leading to , technological stagnation, and the "lost decade" of debt crises and low growth in the 1980s. Brazil's computer industry exemplifies this: post-1970s protection exceeding 100% failed to build global competitiveness, resulting in obsolescence and market collapse after . In developed economies, tariffs' effects are generally less pronounced due to diversified production and global integration, but empirical studies across 150 countries over five decades show consistent negative impacts on , with a 1% tariff increase linked to 0.2-0.5% lower GDP , amplified in smaller, open economies. Developing countries face heightened risks, as higher baseline tariffs exacerbate resource misallocation and productivity declines; analysis of tariff hikes indicates persistent output reductions of 0.5-1% and productivity drops of 0.3%, with developing nations experiencing amplified and due to limited adjustment mechanisms. Conversely, unilateral tariff reductions in developing post-1990s correlated with accelerated export-led , underscoring that prolonged protection often entrenches inefficiencies absent complementary policies like investment in or export orientation. While developed economies like the post-WWII U.S. (with tariffs averaging 20-40% in the during industrialization) transitioned successfully to lower barriers, modern developing attempts risk capture by vested interests, as heterodox protections rarely self-correct without external pressures like WTO disciplines.

Modern Implementation

United States Policies Post-2016

In the aftermath of the 2016 presidential election, the shifted toward protectionist trade policies under President , emphasizing tariffs to counter foreign subsidies, intellectual property theft, and national security vulnerabilities in key industries. This marked a departure from prior multilateral approaches, with actions justified under authorities like Sections 232 and 301 of U.S. trade laws. Early measures included safeguards on , 2018, imposing tariffs of 30% (declining to 15% over four years) on panels and up to 50% (declining to 20% over three years) on machines, targeting surges primarily from and that threatened domestic manufacturing. On March 8, 2018, Section 232 tariffs were enacted at 25% on imports and 10% on aluminum, affecting approximately $48 billion in annual imports and later expanded to derivatives in 2020. These raised an estimated $11.2 billion in revenue from steel and aluminum alone by 2019. The most extensive actions targeted under Section 301 investigations into unfair practices, beginning with 25% tariffs on $34 billion of goods in July 2018, followed by 25% on an additional $16 billion in August 2018. Escalation continued with 10% (raised to 25% by May 2019) on $200 billion in September 2018, and 15% (suspended then reduced to 7.5% under the January 2020 Phase One agreement) on $112-300 billion in September 2019, covering roughly two-thirds of imports by value and averaging 19.3% effective rates. These measures generated $79 billion in from 2018-2019 across $380 billion in affected . The subsequent Biden administration (2021-2025) largely retained these tariffs, viewing them as leverage against China's state-driven economic model, while introducing targeted increases in May 2024 on strategic sectors such as electric vehicles (100%), semiconductors (50%), and solar cells (50%), elevating the average Section 301 rate on China to 20.7%. Adjustments included tariff-rate quotas replacing duties for allies like the (via a 2021 Boeing-Airbus truce and 2022 global arrangement), the , and to manage excess capacity without full exemptions. By 2024, cumulative Section 301 and related duties had collected $175 billion under Biden. Upon Trump's second inauguration in January 2025, policies intensified with proclamations expanding Section 232 coverage, followed by a proclamation doubling and aluminum tariffs to 50% effective June 4 (except 25% for the under bilateral terms), aiming to further bolster domestic production amid global overcapacity. On China, additional 10% universal tariffs were layered in and March 2025, peaking with 125% ad valorem rates in April that drove the average to 127.2% before a May agreement reduced them to 51.8% (later 57.6% with sector adjustments), covering all imports. These steps reflected ongoing reciprocity demands, with U.S. effective tariff rates rising from 2.5% in 2024 to 14.5% overall by mid-2025.

China's Tariff Strategies

Upon acceding to the (WTO) on December 11, 2001, committed to substantial tariff reductions as part of its integration into the global trading system, slashing its simple average most-favored-nation (MFN) rate from approximately 15% in 2001 to 9.7% by 2005, with further declines to around 10% by 2006. These cuts, phased in over several years, applied broadly to industrial goods (averaging 8.8% by 2005) and agricultural products (15.3%), facilitating access to low-cost imported inputs that fueled 's export-led boom and contributed to explosive trade growth from $516 billion in goods in 2001 to over $4 trillion by 2020. This strategy prioritized unilateral liberalization over , enabling domestic firms to compete globally by embedding in supply chains rather than shielding nascent industries behind high barriers. In recent years, China's applied tariff rates have remained low overall, with a simple MFN rate of 7.5% in (6.5% for non-agricultural goods and 14.0% for agricultural), and a trade-weighted around 2.3% as of 2021, reflecting continued emphasis on import to support productivity gains in export-oriented sectors. However, deploys s selectively for objectives, maintaining higher rates on sensitive items like automobiles (up to 25% pre-trade war) and certain electronics to nurture domestic capabilities under initiatives like , though this plan relies more heavily on subsidies, standards, and investment incentives than broad walls. Empirical analyses indicate these targeted protections have had mixed effects, sometimes distorting without fully offsetting foreign . A core element of China's tariff strategy involves retaliatory measures in trade disputes, exemplified by the 2018-2019 U.S.- trade war, where imposed tariffs covering roughly $100 billion in U.S. exports by late , including 25% duties on soybeans, , and autos, and 5-10% on other goods like chemicals and , calibrated to inflict economic pain on politically sensitive U.S. sectors. These actions, which raised effective rates on targeted U.S. imports by 10-15 percentage points, aimed to deter and leverage negotiations, though they also increased domestic input costs and prompted shifts away from U.S. suppliers. By early 2022, China's average tariffs on non-U.S. imports had even declined to 6.5%, underscoring a baseline openness disrupted only by geopolitical friction. In 2025, amid renewed U.S. tariff hikes, China escalated retaliatory duties to 15% on U.S. products like and , and 10% on manufactured goods, prioritizing asymmetry to minimize while signaling resolve. This approach treats tariffs as a tactical tool for balancing concessions in bilateral deals, rather than a permanent fixture of , with evidence showing limited long-term reliance on them for industrial upgrading compared to non-tariff instruments.

European Union Approaches

The maintains a unified tariff regime through its (CET), which applies uniformly to imports from non-member countries entering any EU state, reflecting the bloc's status as a since 1968. This supranational policy, governed by the Common Commercial Policy under Article 207 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the , centralizes tariff-setting authority with the , ensuring no internal tariffs among the 27 member states while imposing external duties to protect domestic producers from unfair competition. Goods are classified using the Combined Nomenclature (CN) and TARIC systems, which determine applied rates based on product codes. The EU's simple average most-favored-nation (MFN) applied tariff stands at 5.1%, with higher protection in agriculture (11.4% average) compared to non-agricultural goods (4.2%), as reported by the for recent data. Bound tariffs under WTO commitments average 5.1%, providing predictability but allowing flexibility for higher applied rates in sensitive sectors. Preferential tariffs, often zero or reduced, apply to partners via over 70 agreements, covering goods like those from under CETA or the UK post-Brexit under the TCA, though these exclude services and investment fully. Anti-dumping and supplement the CET, targeting subsidized or dumped imports; for instance, provisional duties on biodiesel from and reached 25-30% in 2024 to counter state aid distortions. In response to external threats, the employs retaliatory tariffs calibrated to match impacts, as seen in measures against and aluminum duties. Following U.S. imposition of 25% steel and 10% aluminum tariffs in 2018, renewed and escalated to 50% on by May 2025, the activated countermeasures worth €6.4 billion initially, targeting U.S. products like , motorcycles, and , with expansions to €18 billion in goods by April 2025 to offset losses estimated at €2.8 billion annually for EU exporters. These actions prioritize proportionality under WTO rules, suspending rather than permanently suspending trade flows when negotiations resume, as in the 2021 U.S.-EU steel deal avoiding full escalation. Against perceived subsidies, the imposed additional on electric vehicles () in October 2024, ranging from 17% for to 35.3% for SAIC on top of the standard 10% tariff, following an revealing €3.3 billion in annual subsidies distorting prices by up to 30%. These duties, effective from November 2024, aim to shield Europe's nascent EV sector, which captured only 14% of the in 2023 amid import surges, while allowing price undertakings as alternatives; talks in April 2025 explored minimum prices to replace tariffs, though implementation remains provisional amid legal challenges from firms like and . The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), adopted in 2023 and entering transitional reporting in 2023 with full pricing from January 2026, functions as a sector-specific tariff equivalent, imposing fees on embedded carbon emissions in imports of , iron/, aluminum, fertilizers, , and to prevent "" and enforce the Emissions Trading System parity. Importers must report emissions and purchase CBAM certificates at € per ton of CO2, with costs projected to add 1-2% to affected import prices initially, exempting low-volume shipments under 50 tonnes annually from 2025 simplifications. This mechanism, covering 50% of industrial emissions, responds to global asymmetries where non- producers face lower or zero carbon costs, though critics from , , and the U.S. decry it as protectionist, prompting WTO consultations. Empirical models suggest CBAM could reduce import demand by 5-10% in covered sectors without spurring significant domestic production shifts, prioritizing emissions reduction over revenue.

Emerging Markets and Protectionist Turns

In recent years, emerging markets have increasingly adopted protectionist policies to shield nascent industries from foreign , address trade imbalances, and promote domestic manufacturing amid global disruptions and geopolitical shifts. This trend contrasts with earlier efforts in the and , reflecting a revival of infant industry arguments where tariffs are justified as temporary measures to build local capabilities before exposing firms to international markets. Empirical data from the indicates that average applied tariffs in many developing economies rose modestly between 2015 and 2023, with non-tariff barriers also proliferating, though effects vary by sector and country. India exemplifies this shift, with its trade-weighted average import tariff climbing from 7% in 2014 to 12% in 2023-24, while the simple average reached 17% according to WTO data. These hikes, implemented under policies like "Make in India" and Atmanirbhar Bharat (self-reliant India) since 2020, targeted electronics, automobiles, and steel to reduce reliance on Chinese imports and foster local production; for instance, duties on mobile phone components increased to 15-20% in 2021, contributing to a surge in domestic assembly capacity from 60 million units in 2014 to over 300 million by 2023. However, critics argue such measures have elevated input costs for downstream industries and consumers without proportionally boosting competitiveness, as evidenced by persistent import growth despite higher barriers. Brazil has sustained high protectionism through Mercosur frameworks, maintaining an average applied tariff of around 13% as of 2023, with peaks exceeding 20% on automobiles and textiles to safeguard jobs in import-competing sectors. Recent policies under both Bolsonaro and Lula administrations included temporary tariff increases on (up to 25% in 2022) and informatics goods to counter dumping, though these have been linked to industrial stagnation and higher consumer prices, with GDP per capita growth lagging peers due to reduced efficiency. Similar patterns appear in , where President Erdoğan's government raised tariffs on over 1,000 product lines by 20-50% between 2018 and 2022 to support textiles and , aiming to narrow the deficit; imposed duties up to 10% on and imports in 2023 to bolster local processing; and elevated agricultural tariffs to 40% in select cases post-2020 for . These moves have yielded short-term employment gains in protected areas but often at the cost of retaliatory risks and forgone efficiency, as cross-country studies show tariff hikes correlate with 0.5-1% lower annual GDP growth in affected economies.

Administrative and Technical Framework

Tariff Classification Systems

Tariff classification systems standardize the categorization of goods for purposes, enabling uniform application of duties, collection of statistics, and of non-tariff measures such as quotas and rules. These systems rely on hierarchical that assign unique codes to products based on their characteristics, composition, and intended use, minimizing disputes and facilitating comparability. The (HS), developed and maintained by the (WCO), serves as the global standard, adopted by over 200 countries and economies since its implementation in 1988. It covers approximately 98% of world trade through more than 5,000 groups, each denoted by a six-digit code organized into 21 sections, 99 chapters, 1,244 headings, and 5,224 subheadings as of the 2022 revision. The structure begins with two-digit chapter codes (e.g., Chapter 87 for ), extends to four-digit headings for broader categories, and concludes with six-digit subheadings for specific items, supported by general rules of interpretation (GRI) that prioritize the product's essential character, specific descriptions over general ones, and other legal principles for binding classification decisions. National tariff schedules build upon the by adding digits for domestic specificity while preserving the first six digits for international consistency. , the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS), administered by the (USITC), incorporates 10-digit codes effective from January 1, 1989, replacing the prior Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS) under the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988; the additional four digits allow for U.S.-specific statistical suffixes and duty rates. The European Union's Combined Nomenclature (CN) extends HS to eight digits for intra-EU trade and statistical needs, further refined by the TARIC system with up to 10 digits for additional measures like anti-dumping duties. Similar extensions exist in other jurisdictions, such as Japan's nine-digit system, ensuring HS compatibility while accommodating local regulatory requirements. Prior to the HS, disparate national systems like the U.S. TSUS (from 1930) and the Brussels Nomenclature (1955, predecessor to HS) led to classification inconsistencies, prompting the WCO's Customs Cooperation Council to harmonize s through international conventions. The HS undergoes revisions every five years to incorporate emerging goods and technologies, with the 2022 update adding codes for items like (LED) lights and certain medical devices, requiring member states to implement changes by January 1, 2026, for seamless global alignment. Classification errors can result in penalties, as customs authorities apply GRI and binding tariff information (BTI) rulings to resolve ambiguities, underscoring the system's role in revenue collection—estimated at trillions annually worldwide—and enforcement.
HS Code LevelDigitsExample (Vehicles)
SectionNoneSection XVII: , aircraft, vessels, etc.
Chapter287: other than railway or tramway
Heading48703: Motor cars and other motor vehicles principally designed for of persons
Subheading6870323: Other vehicles designed for of persons with engine capacity not exceeding 1,500 cc

Calculation and Customs Valuation

Customs valuation establishes the monetary worth of imported goods for determining applicable duties, primarily under the WTO on of Article VII of the GATT 1994, which mandates a fair, uniform, and neutral system based on the actual transaction value rather than arbitrary or fictitious prices. This , effective since July 1, 1980, for developed countries and later for others, prioritizes the transaction value method, defined as the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to the importing country, adjusted for elements like commissions, transport costs to the border, and royalties. If transaction value cannot be used—due to related-party sales lacking arm's-length conditions or insufficient data— authorities apply subsequent hierarchical methods in sequence to ensure consistency and minimize subjectivity. The six methods form a mandatory : first, transaction of identical sold for to the same at the same commercial level and time; second, transaction of similar under comparable conditions; third, deductive derived from the unit at which the imported or identical/similar are resold in the importing , with deductions for commissions, , and ; fourth, computed based on the importer's costs, general expenses, , and any assists like materials provided free; and fifth, a fallback method using flexible but principled means consistent with prior methods, explicitly prohibiting minimum, arbitrary, or unitary values. These approaches, administered by national bodies in alignment with WTO rules, require importers to provide such as invoices and contracts, with appeals available for disputes; non-compliance can lead to penalties or alternative valuations by authorities. Tariff calculation applies the determined customs value to the bound or applied rate, categorized as ad valorem (a percentage of value, e.g., 10% on $100 value yields $10 duty), specific (a fixed amount per unit, e.g., $2 per kilogram, independent of value), or compound (combining both). Ad valorem rates, predominant in WTO schedules, directly multiply the customs value by the percentage, while specific rates focus on quantity or weight, often used for commodities to protect against value underreporting; equivalents can be computed for comparison, such as converting a specific tariff to its ad valorem counterpart by dividing duty per unit by average unit price. For instance, under WTO bindings, applied ad valorem equivalents ensure transparency in trade data, though specific tariffs may escalate protection during price fluctuations. Valuation disputes, resolved via WTO committees or bilateral mechanisms, underscore the system's emphasis on verifiable commercial reality over protectionist distortions.

Enforcement, Evasion, and Compliance

Enforcement of tariffs primarily occurs through national customs agencies, which conduct inspections, assessments, and audits at borders to ensure duties are collected accurately. In the United States, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) administers tariff enforcement under the Tariff Act of 1930, utilizing risk-based targeting systems, non-intrusive inspection technologies such as X-ray scanners, and data analytics to identify high-risk shipments. CBP collected over $136 billion in duties and fees as of June 30, 2025, reflecting intensified efforts amid elevated tariff rates. Criminal enforcement involves the (DOJ), which, through its Market Integrity and Major Frauds Unit, prosecutes violations under statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 545 for and the for civil penalties, with recent cases yielding treble damages. The DOJ's Trade Fraud Task Force, launched on August 29, 2025, coordinates with CBP and Homeland Security Investigations to target evasion schemes, prioritizing high-impact areas like tariff fraud. Tariff evasion techniques include misclassification of goods to lower rates, undervaluation of imports, transshipment through third countries to obscure origin, and outright . These methods exploit discrepancies in (HS) codes or documentation, with higher tariff differentials—such as those exceeding 25%—correlating to increased evasion incentives. In 2023, CBP processed over 2,000 e-Allegations reports of potential tariff evasion, a marked rise from prior years, leading to seizures valued at hundreds of millions, including $129 million in textiles alone. Globally, empirical studies estimate tariff evasion causes annual revenue losses of $400–670 million across countries, with a 1% tariff increase linked to a 0.3% in reported import values due to underreporting. Enforcement data from 2024 cases, such as a Florida-based transshipment scheme, illustrate how evasion often involves coordinated misrepresentation to bypass Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods. Compliance with tariff regimes demands rigorous internal controls by importers, including accurate HS classification, valuation per WTO Customs Valuation Agreement principles, and maintenance of records for audits. Governments promote compliance via programs like CBP's Automated Commercial Environment () for electronic filings and voluntary disclosure incentives, which mitigate penalties for self-reported errors. Businesses face elevated costs, estimated at additional regulatory burdens beyond direct duties—such as $85 billion annually for U.S. small firms in tariff-related expenses—driven by mapping and legal consultations amid volatile rates. Trade facilitation measures, as analyzed by the , reduce evasion by streamlining procedures; countries with higher facilitation scores experience 10–20% lower misreporting rates. Non-compliance risks include fines up to the domestic value of goods, criminal forfeiture, and , underscoring the economic rationale for investing in automated compliance tools over evasion.

Tariffs on Digital Goods and Services

The application of tariffs to digital goods, such as downloadable software, e-books, and music files, and services, including , , and streaming platforms, differs fundamentally from physical trade due to the absence of tangible goods crossing borders. Electronic transmissions occur instantaneously via the , rendering traditional customs duties impractical without specific mechanisms to monitor and tax data flows. The (WTO) has upheld a moratorium on customs duties for electronic transmissions since 1998, initially as part of the Geneva Declaration on Trade in Information Technology Products and periodically extended by member consensus. This policy, renewed at the WTO's 13th Ministerial Conference in February 2024 for two years until March 2026, aims to facilitate global growth but faces opposition from developing nations concerned about revenue losses estimated at up to $10 billion annually if duties were imposed. Discussions in May and September 2025 highlighted ongoing debates, with some members proposing a permanent extension tied to broader negotiations, while others advocate ending it to enable domestic taxation. In lieu of direct tariffs, numerous countries have enacted digital services taxes (DSTs), which levy fees on revenues generated from digital activities within their jurisdictions, often targeting firms with significant global user bases like U.S.-based technology companies. France pioneered a 3% DST in 2019 on revenues from advertising, data sales, and intermediation services exceeding €750 million globally and €25 million domestically, generating approximately €400 million in its first year. Similar measures include the United Kingdom's 2% DST on services revenue since 2020, Austria's 5% tax on introduced in 2020, and implementations in , , and , with rates typically ranging from 2-7% on targeted streams. As of May 2025, at least ten European nations maintained DSTs, often as interim solutions pending multilateral reforms, though proponents argue they address profit-shifting in the where physical presence is unnecessary. Critics, including U.S. policymakers, contend DSTs discriminate against non-domestic firms, with thresholds effectively exempting local companies while capturing American giants like and , which account for over 80% of affected revenues in some cases. The has responded aggressively to DSTs through Section 301 investigations under the Trade Act of 1974, labeling them unfair trade practices that burden U.S. exporters. In 2020, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) initiated probes into DSTs in , , , , , , and the , proposing retaliatory tariffs on imports like and cheese, though suspensions followed bilateral negotiations. repealed its 2% DST in 2025 amid U.S. tariff threats, including a proposed 25% duty on $500 million of Indian goods paused earlier. In August 2025, President Trump escalated by vowing "substantial" tariffs and export restrictions on semiconductors against nations retaining DSTs, framing them as discriminatory levies on U.S. . These actions reflect a causal link between unilateral digital taxes and reciprocal trade barriers, potentially escalating into broader disputes, as evidenced by suspended tariffs on €1.3 billion of goods tied to France's DST. Multilateral efforts, particularly the /G20 Inclusive Framework's Pillar 1, seek to resolve these tensions by reallocating taxing rights on multinational enterprises' residual profits—estimated at 10% of global profits exceeding €20 billion—to markets with large consumer bases, irrespective of . Adopted in 2021, Pillar 1 envisions replacing DSTs with a formula-based benefiting over 100 countries, but implementation stalled by 2025 due to the need for U.S. congressional , which faces opposition over concerns and perceived disadvantages to U.S. firms. Without progress, DSTs persist, risking fragmented ; for instance, the EU's 2025 proposals in member states underscore reliance on national measures amid stalled global talks. agreements like the USMCA explicitly prohibit tariffs on products, reinforcing the moratorium's principles bilaterally. Enforcement challenges remain acute, as digital flows evade physical inspection, prompting reliance on self-reporting and audits, which raise costs estimated at 1-2% of revenues for affected firms.

References

  1. [1]
    Import Tariffs & Fees Overview and Resources
    A tariff or duty (the words are used interchangeably) is a tax levied by governments on the value including freight and insurance of imported products.
  2. [2]
    U.S. Tariff Policy: Overview - Congress.gov
    Jan 31, 2025 · A tariff is a tax levied on imported goods and services. Historically, tariffs were a major source of revenue for many countries.
  3. [3]
    What Are Tariffs? | GCU Blog
    Oct 1, 2025 · Tariffs are taxes on imported goods. They can target specific countries and be used to raise revenue, protect domestic industries or ...
  4. [4]
    Milestones: 1921–1936: Protectionism in the Interwar Period
    The United States broke with its tradition of protectionism, enacting legislation that lowered tariffs (and also instituted an income tax).
  5. [5]
    Are tariffs bad for growth? Yes, say five decades of data from 150 ...
    The empirical evidence on the growth effects of import tariffs is sparse in the literature, notwithstanding strong views held by the public and politicians.
  6. [6]
    [PDF] Macroeconomic Consequences of Tariffs
    We find empirically that tariff increases lead to declines of output and productivity in the medium term, as well as increases in unemployment and inequality.
  7. [7]
    How do tariffs impact the US economy? - ScienceDirect.com
    A persistent increase in import tariffs reduces real GDP growth. · The contraction is associated with a temporary reduction in the stock market value. · The ...
  8. [8]
    [PDF] The Economic Impacts of the US-China Trade War
    In contrast, empirical work has found complete pass- through of tariffs to tariff-inclusive import prices (i.e., tariff-inclusive import prices rise one-for-one.
  9. [9]
    Separating Tariff Facts from Tariff Fictions - Cato Institute
    Apr 16, 2024 · Overall, empirical research demonstrates that countries maintaining higher tariffs actually tend to have larger trade deficits and that tariffs ...
  10. [10]
    An anatomy of tariffs: History, theory, and prognosis | T. Rowe Price
    The contest between free trade and protectionism has persisted for the past two centuries. The post‑World War II era of low tariffs now appears to be ending.
  11. [11]
    A brief history of US protectionism and global trade - SUERF
    Sep 18, 2025 · Tariff 1953-1962: Calibrated tariffs to protect select industries without undermining the principle of free-trade. US Political & Historical ...
  12. [12]
    Tariff - Etymology, Origin & Meaning
    Originating from Italian and Medieval Latin, tariff means an official list or law of customs duties, derived from Arabic ta'rif meaning information or ...
  13. [13]
    Why Is a Tariff Called a “Tariff”? - Mental Floss
    Apr 14, 2025 · There's a common link behind all of them: At the root is the Arabic words ta'rif, variously used to mean “a notification,” “an announcement,” “ ...
  14. [14]
    The Fascinating Journey of the Word 'Tariff'
    Apr 16, 2025 · The word tariff has its origins in the Arabic word ta'rīfa, “to inform”. In medieval Arabic, ta'rif (تعريف) referred to a table or list of fees ...
  15. [15]
    Tariff: The well-travelled Arabic term that became a byword for ...
    Apr 8, 2025 · The Persian term derives from the Arabic word ta'rif, meaning to notify, announce, define or assert, or to set out fees to be paid.
  16. [16]
    The Origins of “Tariff,” the Most International of Words | Tikvah Ideas
    Jan 9, 2025 · Brought from Arabic via Algerian pirates and Italian merchants, it only acquired its current meaning at the end of the 18th century.
  17. [17]
    Muslims Said It First: 'Tariff' - The Review of Religions
    Apr 7, 2025 · In Arabic grammar, this verb is form II of the basic root 'arafa ('عَرَفَ') meaning 'to know'. The Arabic word ta'rīf came via Classical Persian ...
  18. [18]
    Trump's tariffs have an Arabic root. Here's how - The New Arab
    Feb 5, 2025 · The word 'tariff' originally came from the Arabic word 'taarifa' which then went through Persian, Ottoman Turkish, Italian and other languages before it became ...
  19. [19]
    The Ottoman echo behind Trump's favourite word - TRT World
    Apr 17, 2025 · Scholars trace the term to the Arabic word ta' rīf (تعريف) meaning “to define” or “to inform.” From Arabic, it flowed into Persian, then ...
  20. [20]
    WTO | Video - Let's talk trade - Let's Talk Tariffs
    Tariffs or customs duties are a tax on products purchased from abroad, and they are used by practically all countries. Tariffs are usually designed to collect ...
  21. [21]
    Tariffs 101: What are they and how do they work? - Oxford Economics
    Mar 19, 2025 · Tariffs are taxes imposed by a government on goods and services imported from other countries. Think of tariff like an extra cost added to foreign products.
  22. [22]
    Forms of Import Tariffs
    Common import tariffs include ad valorem, specific, mixed, compound, and tariff rate quotas. Ad valorem is a percentage of value, while specific is based on ...
  23. [23]
    Tariffs, Explained — and Explored - UC San Diego Today
    Jul 15, 2025 · Tariffs—taxes placed on imported goods—are one of the oldest tools in the United States' economic policy arsenal, dating back to the 18th ...
  24. [24]
    https://www.taxfoundation.org/taxedu/glossary/tariffs/
  25. [25]
    [PDF] The Economics of Tariffs: - NC State University
    A tariff is a tax on imported goods, raising prices for consumers and increasing costs for businesses, and is inefficient for the economy.
  26. [26]
    https://www.pmlive.com/healthcare_glossary/terms/t/tariffs/
  27. [27]
    The Basics of Tariffs and Trade Barriers - Investopedia
    The phrase "ad valorem" is Latin for "according to value," and this type of tariff is levied on a good based on a percentage of that good's value. An example ...
  28. [28]
    2.3 Understanding Tariffs – Core Principles of International Marketing
    A tariff is a tax on imports, used to protect economies. Specific tariffs are a fixed charge per unit, while ad valorem tariffs are a percentage of value.Missing: concepts | Show results with:concepts
  29. [29]
    4.1 The Meaning, Importance, and Types of Tariff
    We distinguish three types of tariffs – specific, ad valorem, and compound. ... ad valorem part of the tariff provides protection to the finished product itself.
  30. [30]
    How Do Tariffs Work? A Comprehensive Guide - Cosmo Sourcing
    Feb 4, 2025 · Types of Tariffs · Ad Valorem Tariffs · Specific Tariffs · Compound Tariffs · Protective Tariffs · Revenue Tariffs.
  31. [31]
    A brief history of TARIFF - Pfortner
    Apr 7, 2025 · The concept of trade tariffs has existed for thousands of years, with the earliest recorded instance dating back to ancient Mesopotamia around 3000 BCE.
  32. [32]
    History of tariffs: From ancient times to the modern day
    In ancient and medieval times, tariffs were a straightforward tool to raise revenue and protect local industry. With the rise of nation-states, they became ...
  33. [33]
    The History of Tariffs and Their Potential Impact
    Aug 11, 2025 · The imposition of taxes on traded goods can be traced back to Ancient Egypt, under the Pharaoh's rule around 2000 BC. During this period, ...
  34. [34]
    The History of Tariffs and Their Potential Impact
    Jun 30, 2025 · The imposition of taxes on traded goods can be traced back to Ancient Egypt, under the Pharaoh's rule around 2000 BC. During this period ...Missing: Mesopotamia | Show results with:Mesopotamia
  35. [35]
    An Introduction to Tariffs - Straight Forwarding, Inc.
    The origin of tariffs can first be traced way back in recorded history to the Ancient Greeks when they would place a levy of two percent on goods. It's also ...<|separator|>
  36. [36]
    Trade in Ancient Greece - World History Encyclopedia
    May 22, 2018 · The most important trade exports were wine and olives, while cereals, spices, & precious metals Were Imported. Fine Greek pottery was also in ...
  37. [37]
    Ancient Rome used high tariffs to raise money too - The Conversation
    Apr 3, 2025 · The Roman government charged a tariff of 25% (known as the tetarte) on imported goods. The purpose of the tetarte was to raise revenue rather ...
  38. [38]
    Taxes and Tariffs in Ancient Rome - The Roman Empire
    Apr 11, 2025 · Cities had extra taxes, usually customs duties, representing 2% to 5% on interprovincial trade, while goods imported from outside faced as much ...
  39. [39]
    [PDF] What Ancient Rome can tell us about the fate of Trump's tariffs
    Unfortunately for the Romans, however, these tariffs often led to higher prices, black markets and other economic problems. Roman tariffs on luxury goods. As ...
  40. [40]
    Changes in Medieval Commerce and Production
    Merchants formed guilds as economic negotiating blocks to force concessions from local leaders for tariff controls or safe-passage agreements. Craft guilds, on ...
  41. [41]
    Trade tariffs - (European History – 1000 to 1500) | Fiveable - Fiveable
    In medieval Europe, tariffs were often used by local lords and city-states as a means to protect local economies from foreign competition. High tariffs can ...
  42. [42]
    Trade in Medieval Europe - World History Encyclopedia
    Jan 8, 2019 · The 13th century CE witnessed more long-distance trade in less valuable, everyday goods as traders benefitted from better roads, canals, and ...
  43. [43]
    Understanding Mercantilism: Key Concepts and Historical Impact
    Aug 1, 2025 · Mercantilist policies favored colonies as sources of raw materials and as markets for exports, exemplified by the British Sugar and Navigation ...
  44. [44]
    Mercantilism theory and examples - Economics Help
    Dec 4, 2019 · Examples of mercantilism · England Navigation Act of 1651 prohibited foreign vessels engaging in coastal trade. · All colonial exports to Europe ...Missing: spain | Show results with:spain
  45. [45]
    Chapter 2.3 The Mercantilist Economy – Western Civilization II
    Under his direction, the government increased tariffs on foreign-made goods and completely banned the importation of some such as lace. Colbert established ...
  46. [46]
    The return of mercantilist thinking? How an old worldview shaped ...
    Jul 16, 2025 · Across Europe in the early 19th century, tariffs were lowered through bilateral agreements, and the notion of an open world economy began to ...
  47. [47]
    Mercantilism and the Colonies of Great Britain - Investopedia
    In the 1660s, England passed the Acts of Trade and Navigation. Also known as the Navigation Acts, they were a series of laws designed to make American colonies ...What Is Mercantilism? · British Mercantilism · Inflation and Taxation
  48. [48]
    The Tariff Tug-of-War: A Look at Protectionism and Free Trade Over ...
    Apr 29, 2025 · Tariffs have continually evolved, shaped by the administrative innovations of ancient civilizations, the protectionist policies of colonial ...
  49. [49]
    [PDF] Terribly Timely Tariffs - Western CEDAR
    Mercantilism was an effective system for expanding state power and prosperity in early. Modern Europe when three specific conditions existed: weak states, ...
  50. [50]
    [PDF] New Estimates of the Average Tariff of the United States, 1790-1820 ...
    The average tariff on US imports from 1790-1820 was much lower than later in the 19th century, and the average tariff jumps sharply from 1820 to 1821.
  51. [51]
    Charted: The Average U.S. Tariff Rate (1890-2025) - Visual Capitalist
    Apr 10, 2025 · In the late 19th century, tariff rates climbed as high as 29.6% under the McKinley Tariff of 1890. At the time, tariffs were used to protect ...
  52. [52]
    [PDF] Tariff Act of July 4, 1789 - International Trade Commission
    High tariffs were designed to "protect" U.S. indus- tries and producers from foreign competition and to preserve domes- tic employment levels. The passage and ...<|separator|>
  53. [53]
    History of U.S. tariffs and why it matters today - Thomson Reuters
    May 15, 2025 · Free-trade advocates argued that tariffs stifled competition and innovation, while protectionists maintained they were essential for a robust ...
  54. [54]
    [PDF] Tariffs and Growth in Late Nineteenth Century America Douglas A ...
    Late nineteenth century U.S. tariffs also appear to have been structured to protect relatively labor-intensive manufactures, such as cotton textiles and ...
  55. [55]
    Tariffs and industrialization in late nineteenth century America
    May 1, 2020 · I find that the tariff positively contributes to US manufacturing growth, but the magnitudes are small.
  56. [56]
    [PDF] Did Tariffs Make American Manufacturing Great? New Evidence ...
    First, we con- clude that there is no evidence that higher US tariffs promoted labor productivity in the manufacturing sector. This result is largely ...
  57. [57]
    https://oxfordre.com/economics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190625979.001.0001/acrefore-9780190625979-e-551
  58. [58]
    Return to protectionism in Germany and France
    Learn about the industrial revolutions' impact on the economy and the return to protectionism in Germany and France. Explore 10000 years of history.
  59. [59]
    The Rise of German Protectionism in The 1870s: A Macroeconomic ...
    In 1879 Germany imposed tariffs on a wide variety of industrial and agricultural goods. The German tariff marked a turning point in the nineteenth century ...
  60. [60]
    German tariff of 1879 - Wikipedia
    The German tariff of 1879 was a protectionist law passed by the Reichstag (under the guidance of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck) that imposed tariffs on ...
  61. [61]
    [PDF] WHAT DID FREDERICK LIST ACTUALLY SAY? Some Clarifications ...
    The purpose of this study is to clarify some confusion surrounding the infant industry argument presented by Frederick List. Its main contribution is to show ...
  62. [62]
    [PDF] When and how should infant industries be protected?
    The infant industry argument is one of the oldest arguments used to justify the protection of industries from international trade. First formulated by Alexander ...
  63. [63]
    The Problem of the Tariff in American Economic History, 1787–1934
    Sep 26, 2023 · James Madison viewed tariffs as necessary to raise revenue but was caught off-guard by early attempts to enact tariffs for industry protection.
  64. [64]
    [PDF] The Smoot-Hawley Trade War
    The legislation raised the average U.S. tariff on dutiable imports by around six percentage points (Irwin, 2017, pp. 389- 90).
  65. [65]
    The Smoot-Hawley Trade War | Cato Institute
    Nov 3, 2021 · Our results show that countries that responded to Smoot‐ Hawley with retaliatory tariffs reduced their imports from the United States by an average of 28–32 ...
  66. [66]
    [PDF] Tariffs and the Great Depression Revisited
    The figure also shows that foreign tariff levels did not rise abruptly following the passage of the Hawley—Smoot Tariff Act in 1930 but increased gradually.<|separator|>
  67. [67]
    [PDF] Evidence from the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act - GitHub Pages
    Jan 31, 2024 · This paper examines the effect of tariff increases on regional economies after the passage of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, ...
  68. [68]
    The GATT years: from Havana to Marrakesh
    The Tokyo Round lasted from 1973 to 1979, with 102 countries participating. It continued GATT's efforts to progressively reduce tariffs. The results included ...
  69. [69]
    [PDF] The GATT's Starting Point: Tariff Levels circa 1947
    The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) is usually given substantial credit for the liberalization of world trade that took place after World War II.
  70. [70]
    [PDF] The Gatt's Contribution to Economic Recovery in Post-War Western ...
    The GATT helped by securing early tariff reductions, preventing higher tariffs, and establishing an open trade environment, though it was a supporting actor.
  71. [71]
    [PDF] Chapter 3 - US Trade Policy since 1934
    Tariffs have been lowered or eliminated on nearly all products, and average tariff rates for the United States declined from 18.4 percent in 1934 to 1.3 percent ...
  72. [72]
    The Economics of GATT | NBER
    As a consequence of the eight negotiating rounds that GATT has sponsored, the average ad valorem tariff on industrial goods has fallen from over 40 percent to ...
  73. [73]
    [PDF] The Impact of GATT on International Trade Michael Tomz Judith ...
    Except in the North African/Middle East subsample, GATT has an economically significant effect on trade ranging from 48 percent to 97 percent when both ...
  74. [74]
    Trump's Trade War Timeline: An Up-to-Date Guide | PIIE
    The timelines below track the development of the most pressing trade conflicts with links to the latest available data and PIIE analysis.Missing: empirical | Show results with:empirical
  75. [75]
    A tectonic shift in tariff policy | UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
    Sep 17, 2025 · The new measures signal a tectonic shift in US trade policy and a departure from rules that have underpinned the international trading system ...
  76. [76]
    Trump Tariffs: Tracking the Economic Impact of the Trump Trade War
    China: The 10 percent tariffs on all imports from China took effect on February 4, 2025. On February 27, Trump said the tariffs on China would increase by ...
  77. [77]
    US-China Trade War Tariffs: An Up-to-Date Chart | PIIE
    China has retaliated in three tranches in early 2025, increasing the scope of covered US exports initially from 58.3 percent to 63.0 percent, and then to 100 ...Trump's trade war timeline 2.0 · Phase One · Chad P. Bown
  78. [78]
    Timeline: U.S.-China Relations - Council on Foreign Relations
    China imposes retaliatory measures in early April on a range of U.S. products, stoking concerns of a trade war between the world's largest economies. The move ...
  79. [79]
    Biden Tariffs & Trump Trade War - Tax Foundation
    The Trump tariffs amount to an average tax increase of over $1,300 per US household in 2025 and nearly $1,600 per US household in 2026. 45 min read. New ...
  80. [80]
    A Timeline of the U.S.-China Trade War During Trump's Second Term
    Jun 27, 2025 · February 1. Trump signed an executive order increasing tariffs on imported goods from China by 10%, to take effect on Feb. 4. The order aimed to ...
  81. [81]
    Trump's trade war with China in 2025 - Reuters
    Oct 13, 2025 · April 8 - The U.S. raises tariffs on all Chinese imports to 84% from 34%. April 4 - China announces retaliatory tariffs of 34% on all U.S. ...<|separator|>
  82. [82]
    Frontloading, measured responses cushion tariff impact in 2025 but ...
    Aug 8, 2025 · Increased tariffs—including those that took effect this week—will dampen trade in the second half of 2025 and in 2026 (see Chart 1 and Table 1).
  83. [83]
    The WTO at 30: The return of higher tariffs | PIIE
    Apr 10, 2025 · The Trump April 2 tariffs plan mark the beginning of a new era for international trade policy, a departure and new course from all than went before.
  84. [84]
    International Economics Glossary: Tariff in Partial Equilibrium
    Notes: · The analysis here uses a partial equilibrium model, thus focusing only on the market for a single good and ignoring any interactions with other markets.
  85. [85]
    Effects of Tariffs under Partial Equilibrium | International Economics
    The imposition of tariff reduces the demand for foreign products. The amount of money not spent on imported goods may either be spent on the home-produced goods ...
  86. [86]
    An Introduction to Partial Equilibrium Modeling of Trade Policy - USITC
    This paper introduces the theoretical framework and data inputs of a basic partial equilibrium model of how an industry's import volumes, domestic shipments, ...
  87. [87]
    Modeling Trade Tensions: Different Mechanisms in General ...
    Dec 11, 2020 · In this paper, we investigate the mechanisms through which import tariffs impact the macroeconomy in two large scale workhorse models used for quantitative ...
  88. [88]
    [PDF] an introduction to the itc computable general equilibrium model
    Hence, it remains internally consistent even after introducing a policy change. The policy parameters included in a CGE model include tariffs, quotas, and ...
  89. [89]
    [PDF] Demystifying Modelling Methods for Trade Policy
    A general equilibrium model captures the fact that markets are linked and events that take place in one market have effects on other markets that need to be ...
  90. [90]
    When Are Tariffs Optimal? - Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
    Standard economic theory consistently demonstrates that tariffs alter prices, alter production and consumption patterns, distort markets, reduce overall ...
  91. [91]
    A Dynamic Theory of Optimal Tariffs | NBER
    Jun 5, 2025 · The classic tariff formula states that the optimal unilateral tariff equals the inverse of the foreign export supply elasticity.
  92. [92]
    [PDF] Classical and Neoclassical Roots of The Theory of Optimum Tariffs
    Here is Sidgwick's recognition of one point stressed by optimum tariff theory, namely that a tariff is powerless to improve the terms of trade when the foreign ...<|separator|>
  93. [93]
    What Can We Learn About the Costs and Benefits of Tariffs from a ...
    In this article, we quantify the costs and benefits of tariffs based on a modern trade model. This model predicts that in the case of unilateral tariffs set ...
  94. [94]
    The Optimal Tariff
    We call that tariff rate the “optimal tariff.” One regularity that results is that the optimal tariff is always less than the maximum revenue tariff. Figure ...
  95. [95]
    4.4 The Terms-of-Trade Effect and a Nationally Optimal Tariff
    If many nations apply optimal tariffs, they are likely to experience decreases in economic well-being as the level of world trade falls.
  96. [96]
    [PDF] A Dynamic Theory of Optimal Tariffs - EliScholar
    The classic tariff formula states that the optimal unilateral tariff equals the inverse of the foreign export supply elasticity. We generalize this result and ...
  97. [97]
    [PDF] The Optimal Tariff, Production Lags, and Time Consistency
    The optimal tariff for a large country equals the reciprocal of the foreign export ... ( a). The standard optimal tariff formula is de- rived by maximizing V ...
  98. [98]
    Optimal Tariffs and Market Power: The Evidence
    We find that prior to World Trade Organization membership, countries set import tariffs 9 percentage points higher on inelastically supplied imports.
  99. [99]
    [PDF] Optimal Tariffs and Trade Policy Formation - Princeton Economics
    Tariffs are largely determined by firm lobbies, but about 5% are explained by terms of trade. The median optimal tariff is 14%, with a weak relationship to ...
  100. [100]
    [PDF] Optimal Tariffs: The Evidence Christian Broda Nuno Limão David E ...
    A common objection to the terms-of-trade motive for tariffs as a positive theory of trade policy is that governments do not choose tariffs to maximize social ...
  101. [101]
    [PDF] Deconstructing the Theory of Comparative Advantage
    Ricardo states that domestic and international trade are regulated by different rules, the former by absolute and the latter by comparative production cost ...
  102. [102]
    11 Criticisms to the Theory of Comparative Costs
    Another drawback of the Ricardian principle of comparative costs is that it assumes constant returns to scale and thus constant costs of production in both the ...
  103. [103]
    Limitations of Ricardian Comparative Cost Theory | PDF - Scribd
    Rating 5.0 (4) Ricardo ignores transport costs in determining comparative advantage in trade. This is highly unrealistic because transport costs play an important role in ...
  104. [104]
    [PDF] Kicking Away the Ladder: The "Real" History of Free Trade
    Central to the neoliberal discourse on globalization is the conviction that free trade, more than free movements of capital or labor, is the key to global ...
  105. [105]
    Kicking Away the Ladder | Anthem Press
    $$21.56Kicking Away the Ladder. Development Strategy in Historical Perspective. Ha-Joon Chang. Paperback. £14.99 / $26.95. eBook (PDF). £11.99 / $21.56.
  106. [106]
    Kicking Away the Ladder: The "Real" History of Free Trade - FPIF
    From the eighteenth century, Britain proved the superiority of free-market and free-trade policies by beating interventionist France, its main competitor at the ...<|separator|>
  107. [107]
    [PDF] Paul Krugman Ricardo's difficult idea
    What these critics must be trying to do is draw attention to the ways in which comparative advantage may fail to work out in practice. After all, economists are.
  108. [108]
    Rediscovering Krugman - World Bank Blogs
    Sep 30, 2019 · This is the so-called theory of “comparative advantage.” Krugman showed that there is another reason that countries trade: to exploit economies ...
  109. [109]
    [PDF] Increasing Returns in a Comparative Advantage World
    The main point of this paper is simply to point out that increasing returns – made apparent by the localization of industries – have historically played an ...
  110. [110]
    Who Was Wassily Leontief and What Was His Paradox? - Investopedia
    The Leontief Paradox, as it came to be known, led many economists to question the Heckscher-Ohlin Theorem, which states that countries produce and export what ...Missing: critique | Show results with:critique
  111. [111]
    Industrial structure, factor intensity and the Leontief Paradox
    This article explains the Leontief Paradox within the Heckscher-Ohlin trade model, by dropping the assumption that perfect competition allows comparative price ...Missing: critique | Show results with:critique
  112. [112]
    Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical ...
    the standard set of policy recommendations that aim to ...
  113. [113]
    [PDF] Dubious assumptions of the theory of comparative advantage
    The theory of comparative advantage is the core of the case for free trade. However, contrary to orthodox myth, this theory is crippled by the dubious ...
  114. [114]
    US Tariffs on Steel and Aluminum: Impact on the Metals Industry
    Jun 6, 2025 · Following the 2018 Trump's tariffs, US steel production remained steady at approximately 80 million tons annually through 2024, and tariffs on ...
  115. [115]
    Trump's New Aluminum and Steel Tariffs Explained in Six Charts
    Research estimates that Trump's 2018 tariffs led to the direct loss of seventy-five thousand manufacturing jobs [PDF], with additional losses from retaliatory ...
  116. [116]
    Tariffs, Productivity and Resource Misallocation - Oxford Academic
    Apr 12, 2025 · This paper documents a strong empirical link between trade protection and the misallocation of capital among import-competing domestic firms.
  117. [117]
    Tariffs and Total Factor Productivity: The Case of Ghanaian ...
    We find a strong negative impact of nominal tariffs on firm productivity, controlling for observed and unobserved firm characteristics and industry ...
  118. [118]
    How the Steel and Aluminum Tariffs Are Hurting U.S. Manufacturing
    Mar 25, 2025 · U.S. manufacturing is struggling due to increased steel and aluminum tariffs, leading to higher costs and reduced global competitiveness.
  119. [119]
    Section 232 Tariffs on Steel and Aluminum: Economic Impact 2024
    May 23, 2024 · The Section 232 tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum raised the cost of production for manufacturers, reducing employment in those ...
  120. [120]
    How Trump's Tariffs Really Affected the U.S. Job Market
    Jan 28, 2021 · A recent study on US-China trade concludes that Trump's trade policies cost the US economy nearly a quarter million jobs.
  121. [121]
    Tallying the two channels of job losses from tariffs
    Jul 8, 2025 · Research studying the US-China trade war in 2018 and 2019 found that that these costs of tariffs outweighed any benefits and resulted in modest job losses.
  122. [122]
    Unions raise wages. Tariffs don't: Why Trump's trade policy won't ...
    Sep 3, 2025 · Given such unemployment in labor markets near manufacturing plants, we should not expect Trump's new tariffs to increase workers' wages.
  123. [123]
    Trump's Trade War Squeezes Middle-Class Manufacturing ...
    Sep 5, 2025 · Trump's Trade War Squeezes Middle-Class Manufacturing Employment · Manufacturing workers' wage growth is stagnating under Trump's tariffs · Who ...<|separator|>
  124. [124]
    Trump Tariffs: Prices & Long-Term Economic Effects - Tax Foundation
    Mar 18, 2025 · Data from 151 countries from 1963 through 2014 shows higher tariffs reduce output and productivity, increase unemployment, and worsen inequality ...
  125. [125]
    [PDF] The Impact of the 2018 Trade War on U.S. Prices and Welfare
    The 2018 trade war caused price increases, reduced US real income by $1.4 billion monthly, and increased tax costs by $3 billion monthly. Tariffs also raised ...
  126. [126]
    The Impact of the 2018 Tariffs on Prices and Welfare
    The full incidence of the tariffs has fallen on domestic consumers and importers so far, and our estimates imply a reduction in aggregate US real income of $1. ...
  127. [127]
    The Fed - Detecting Tariff Effects on Consumer Prices in Real Time
    May 9, 2025 · Our results indicate that the 2025 tariffs have so far led to a 0.3 percent increase in core goods PCE prices, contributing to a 0.1 percent ...
  128. [128]
    Impact of Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act on U.S. Economy - Capitalism.org
    Learn how the protectionist Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act led to a decline in U.S. exports, causing job losses, economic downturn, and a significant drop in world ...
  129. [129]
    Did tariffs cause the Great Depression? Here's what to know - NPR
    Mar 6, 2025 · The tariffs implemented under the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act worsened the Great Depression, Richardson, Clarke and Witcher say. These tariffs also ...
  130. [130]
    Trade Balances in China and the US Are Largely Driven by ...
    Sep 12, 2024 · China's widening trade surplus and the growing US trade deficit since the pandemic have renewed concerns about global imbalances and fueled ...<|separator|>
  131. [131]
    [PDF] How Tariffs Affect Trade Deficits - MIT Economics
    We study the positive (not normative) effect of a permanent import tariff on trade deficits. We consider a two-period trade model with general preferences ...
  132. [132]
    What Is the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act? History, Effect, and Reaction
    The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 increased import tariffs by about 20%, kicking off a global trade war that contributed to the Great Depression's ill effects ...
  133. [133]
    [PDF] The Economic Impacts of Retaliatory Tariffs on U.S. Agriculture
    This report provides a detailed look at the impact of retaliatory tariffs on farmers at the State level by estimating the direct export losses associated with ...
  134. [134]
    Why is the US Trade Deficit Growing? The US-China Trade War 2.0
    Apr 14, 2025 · By 2024, the U.S. trade deficit had surged to $920 billion, including a $300 billion deficit with China, while China's trade surplus reached a ...
  135. [135]
    [PDF] The Impact of Retaliatory Tariffs on Agricultural and Food Trade
    The analysis shows that these countries gained USD. 13.5 billion in additional trade with retaliatory countries. The trade diversion effects are dominated by ...
  136. [136]
    [PDF] Macroeconomic Consequences of Tariffs, WP/19/9, January 2019
    We find empirically that tariff increases lead to declines of output and productivity in the medium term, as well as increases in unemployment and inequality.
  137. [137]
    [PDF] The impact of US tariffs against China on US imports: evidence for ...
    The empirical analysis first of all shows that the tariffs imposed in 2018 had strong negative direct effects on US imports of targeted products from China. In ...
  138. [138]
    Illuminating the effects of the US-China tariff war on China's economy
    This paper studies the impact of the US-China tariff war on China, using high-frequency night lights data and grid-level measures of tariff exposure.
  139. [139]
    Certain Effects of Section 232 and 301 Tariffs Reduced Imports and ...
    Mar 15, 2023 · Section 232 tariffs reduced imports of affected aluminum products by 31 percent, increased the price of aluminum products in the United States ...Missing: case | Show results with:case
  140. [140]
    [PDF] Disentangling the Effects of the 2018-2019 Tariffs on a Globally ...
    Dec 23, 2019 · We find that U.S. manufacturing industries more exposed to tariff increases experience relative reductions in employment as a positive effect ...Missing: NBER | Show results with:NBER
  141. [141]
    [PDF] President Trump's 2018 Tariffs on Steel - BYU ScholarsArchive
    Overall, Trump's steel tariff contributed to a deterioration of economic relations with some of our most significant allies. Although the steel industry reaped ...
  142. [142]
    Infant Industry Argument - Corporate Finance Institute
    The infant industry argument was initiated by Alexander Hamilton in 1791 when he argued for the protection of industries in the United States from imports from ...
  143. [143]
    A History Of Tariffs, From Hamilton To Trump - Forbes
    Jul 31, 2024 · And they boosted the average tariff rate to 50 percent, up from the 20 percent before the Civil War. And it stayed there. Stayed there until ...
  144. [144]
    Infant-Industry Theory: Definition, Main Arguments, and History
    The infant-industry theory states that new industries in developing countries need protection against competitive pressures until they mature.
  145. [145]
    Are there any examples of tariffs working?
    Mar 3, 2018 · The infant industry argument. In a 2007 article, Chang gives various examples of protectionism "working", including the US in the 19th century:.
  146. [146]
    National Security Tariffs and Trade Policies - Schulz Trade Law
    Jun 17, 2025 · National security tariffs are tariffs imposed on goods and services that are considered essential for a nation's defense and overall security.
  147. [147]
    Trump's National Security Tariffs - Council on Foreign Relations
    Feb 12, 2025 · President Donald Trump has concluded that steel and aluminum imports remain a threat and is reimposing tariffs through Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act ...
  148. [148]
    How to Make Tariffs Work for National Security, Enforcement, and ...
    Jun 24, 2025 · Ad valorem tariffs are vulnerable to fraud. Specific tariffs are fixed per-unit charges, and compound tariffs combine both for better  ...Ad Valorem Tariffs: The Good... · Why Av Tariffs Are More... · Compound Tariffs: The Best...
  149. [149]
    Tariffs and global trade: The economic impact on business - McKinsey
    Apr 18, 2025 · Reinforcing national security. The United States has imposed trade restrictions on sectors that it deems critical to protecting sensitive and ...<|separator|>
  150. [150]
    A Guide to Trump's Section 232 Tariffs, in Maps
    The Trump administration is investigating the national security threat of imported medium- and heavy-duty trucks, including buses, vans, and tractor trucks.
  151. [151]
    Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 | Congress.gov
    Jul 16, 2025 · Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (19 USC §1862, as amended) allows the President to impose restrictions on goods imports or enter into ...Missing: justifications | Show results with:justifications
  152. [152]
    Section 232 Investigations - Bureau of Industry and Security
    The purpose of the investigation is to determine the effect of imports on the national security. Investigations may be initiated based on an application from an ...Missing: justifications | Show results with:justifications
  153. [153]
    Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Addresses the Threat to ...
    Oct 17, 2025 · President Trump has repeatedly used Section 232 tariffs to protect against threats to our national security and to strengthen manufacturing ...Missing: justifications | Show results with:justifications
  154. [154]
    Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Ensures National Security ...
    Apr 15, 2025 · Trump Ensures National Security and Economic Resilience Through Section 232 Actions on Processed Critical Minerals and Derivative Products.Missing: justifications | Show results with:justifications
  155. [155]
    Commerce Department opens new automobile parts Section 232 ...
    Oct 8, 2025 · This action follows from President Trump's March 26, 2025 proclamation imposing Section 232 tariffs automobiles and automobile parts, which ...Missing: justifications | Show results with:justifications
  156. [156]
    Tariffs can help secure US critical mineral supply chains—if they're ...
    Apr 18, 2025 · Moreover, tariffs cannot successfully improve US supply chain security without a comprehensive suite of supportive policies. Recent efforts to ...Missing: arguments | Show results with:arguments
  157. [157]
    Rethinking Tariffs as Bold Tools for American Security & Global ...
    May 9, 2025 · President Trump's “Liberation Day” tariffs are not merely economic instruments—they are strategic tools designed to safeguard American national ...
  158. [158]
    The impact of tariffs on supply chains: a comprehensive analysis - ORI
    In 2018-2019, the US imposed tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese imports, ranging from electronics to industrial components. Many US-based manufacturers ...
  159. [159]
    How Tariffs Can Impact Supply Chains & Security - Flock Safety
    Apr 14, 2025 · A recent example includes the U.S. - China Trade War Tariffs from late 2018 to early 2020. The tariffs originated as a method to address ...
  160. [160]
    Section 232 Tariff Investigations and Public Comments
    Jun 16, 2025 · Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 provides the President broad authority to impose restrictions on imports determined to threaten ...
  161. [161]
    Five Reasons to Continue the Section 232 Tariffs
    not only now, but in years to come ...Missing: justifications | Show results with:justifications
  162. [162]
    How much revenue has the US government collected this year?
    In fiscal year 2025, federal revenue was equal to 17% of total gross domestic product (GDP), or economic activity, of the United States that year $5.23 trillion ...
  163. [163]
    Trump's tariff revenue has skyrocketed. But how big is it, really? - NPR
    Aug 11, 2025 · "Historically, tariff revenue has never accounted for more than about 2% of total federal government revenues in the modern era," said Shai ...Tariff Revenue Has... · What Tariffs Mean For You · Tariffs Are A Very Small...
  164. [164]
    Tariffs as a Major Revenue Source: Implications for Distribution and ...
    Jul 12, 2024 · Existing imports duties on goods raised $80 billion last year, about 2 percent of the $4.44 trillion in total Federal tax revenue (Figure 1b).
  165. [165]
    How Much Are U.S. Tariffs Raising in Revenue?
    Net tariff revenue in recent years has been 80% to 85% of gross tariff and certain other excise tax revenue. Non-partisan scoring organizations like the Joint ...
  166. [166]
    Mainly Poor Countries Use Tariffs as a Major Source of Government ...
    Jul 16, 2019 · It is primarily poor countries that rely on taxes on imports to fund their governments. China raises only 2.3 percent of its revenue from tariffs.
  167. [167]
    Tariffs as Fiscal Policy | PIIE
    Sep 24, 2025 · Broad tariffs generate a large negative supply shock, simultaneously raising prices and reducing macroeconomic activity.
  168. [168]
    The Fiscal, Economic, and Distributional Effects of All U.S. Tariffs ...
    Apr 2, 2025 · All 2025 tariffs to date, incorporating the revenue effects of retaliation to date as well, would raise $3.1 trillion over 10 years ...
  169. [169]
    [PDF] Distortive Subsidies and Their Effects on Global Trade
    Subsidies can be more distortive to trade than tariffs—ad valorem equivalents of export support average 15 percent for agriculture and 8 percent for ...
  170. [170]
    Anti-dumping, subsidies, safeguards: contingencies, etc
    The reaction to dumping and subsidies is often a special offsetting import tax (countervailing duty in the case of a subsidy). This is charged on products from ...
  171. [171]
    U.S. Steel and Aluminum Tariffs Won't Solve the Chinese Dumping ...
    Feb 14, 2025 · The Trump administration plans to reimpose global tariffs on steel and aluminum—but will they fix China's market-distorting policies?
  172. [172]
    Section 232 Tariffs on Steel & Aluminum - Tax Foundation
    Sep 20, 2022 · Currently, $2.9 billion worth of tariffs remain on steel and aluminum, down from about $5 billion when the tariffs were first imposed in 2018.Introduction · Background · The Economic Effects of Tariffs...
  173. [173]
    President Trump Announces Strong Actions to Address China's ...
    Mar 22, 2018 · ... steal U.S. technology and intellectual property,” said Ambassador Lighthizer. ... China's cyber intrusions and cyber theft align with its ...
  174. [174]
    Section 301 and China: The U.S.-China Phase One Trade Deal
    Feb 12, 2025 · §2411), the USTR concluded that China engaged in forced technology transfer, cyber-enabled theft of U.S. IP and trade secrets, discriminatory ...
  175. [175]
    Trump's reciprocal tariffs trace back to the WTO - Hinrich Foundation
    Feb 11, 2025 · The WTO has failed, for 30 years, to make its member economies level up their tariff commitments. Some, most notably China and India, ...
  176. [176]
    Donald Trump Wants Reciprocity in Trade: Here's a Closer Look
    Feb 14, 2025 · As former U.S. trade negotiator Mark Linscott argues, the failure of reciprocity-focused tariff negotiations at the WTO, with a particular ...Missing: response | Show results with:response
  177. [177]
    The Protective Effect of a Tariff - Econlib
    Jul 20, 2025 · The deadweight loss is broken down into two categories: the consumption effect of the tariff and the protective effect of the tariff.
  178. [178]
    https://www.nber.org/papers/w25402
  179. [179]
    https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/economics/smoot-hawley-tariff-act/
  180. [180]
    Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act - Overview, Legislative History, Impact
    In June 1930, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act increased U.S. tariffs on agricultural imports and more than 20,000 imported goods. The tariffs imposed were the ...
  181. [181]
    How Smoot-Hawley Tariff sparked the 'mother of all trade wars'
    Feb 5, 2025 · U.S. exports to retaliating nations fell by about 28% to 32%, said Mitchener. Further, nations that protested Smoot-Hawley also reduced their ...<|separator|>
  182. [182]
    The Economic Impacts of the US-China Trade War
    By late 2019, the United States had imposed tariffs on roughly $350 billion of Chinese imports, and China had retaliated on $100 billion of US exports.
  183. [183]
    [PDF] Global Trade Outlook
    Apr 14, 2025 · Taken together, the reciprocal tariffs and spreading TPU would lead to a 1.5% decline in world merchandise trade volume in 2025. •. The impact ...
  184. [184]
    The Effect of Tariffs on the US Economy | Economic Forecast Project
    It is true that there were jobs gained, but far more jobs were lost due to the tariffs, hurting American workers. The challenge for policymakers is that ...
  185. [185]
    [PDF] Trade Restrictiveness and Deadweight Losses from US Tariffs
    On average, import duties resulted in a welfare loss of 40 cents for every dollar of revenue generated, slightly higher than contemporary estimates of the.
  186. [186]
    The impact of import tariffs on GDP and consumer welfare
    We find that the resulting decline in GDP and consumer welfare depends on the affected industries: their network centrality, the elasticity of substitution ...
  187. [187]
    Lobbying and international cooperation in tariff setting - ScienceDirect
    This paper develops a theory of tariff protection that incorporates cooperative behavior and lobbying.
  188. [188]
    Tariff and the Lobbyist: Political Institutions, Interest Group Politics ...
    After delegation, interest groups have less incentive to lobby Congress since members of Congress have little to no ability to affect tariff rates on ...Abstract · An Access Point Theory of the... · Time Series Analysis of Tariff...<|separator|>
  189. [189]
    Combining rent-seeking and public choice theory in the analysis of ...
    In the case of tariffs versus quotas, we do not believe that we have yet sufficient knowledge of all of the relevant political economy considerations to predict ...
  190. [190]
    The Politics of Tariff Exemptions - Cato Institute
    May 7, 2025 · Our findings confirm that campaign contributions and lobbying increased the likelihood of tariff exemptions.
  191. [191]
    Trade lobbying works (for big firms): Evidence from the China trade ...
    May 15, 2025 · We find that lobbying for tariff reductions by large firms was hugely more effective than for small firms, though with one major exception.
  192. [192]
    The Politics of Protectionism | Columbia Business School
    Nov 25, 2019 · The research demonstrates that industries based in swing counties, where only between 40 and 60 percent of the electorate voted Republican in ...
  193. [193]
    Businesses Eager to Beat Tariffs Turn to Trump Connected Lobbyists
    Oct 1, 2025 · Lobbying on tariffs and other trade-related issues hit an all-time high in the first half of 2025, with total spending of $908 million, up 28% ...
  194. [194]
    Understanding the WTO - principles of the trading system - WTO
    Since GATT's creation in 1947-48 there have been eight rounds of trade negotiations. A ninth round, under the Doha Development Agenda, is now underway. At ...
  195. [195]
    U.S.-Japan Trade Agreements and Tariff Negotiations - Congress.gov
    Jul 15, 2025 · Japan agreed to reduce or eliminate tariffs on about 600 agricultural tariff lines (e.g., beef, pork, cheese) and expand tariff-rate quotas for ...
  196. [196]
    Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific ...
    Jun 2, 2025 · A free trade agreement between Canada and 10 other countries in the Indo-Pacific: Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, ...
  197. [197]
    The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)
    It removed Mexico's restrictive tariffs, quotas, and import licenses on products from the United States and Canada. NAFTA helped "lock in" Mexico's trade and ...
  198. [198]
    Trump Tariff Tracker - Atlantic Council
    This tracker monitors the evolution of these tariffs and provides expert context on the economic conditions driving their creation—along with their real-world ...
  199. [199]
    Tariff rate, applied, weighted mean, all products (%) | Data
    Tariff rate, applied, weighted mean, all products (%). Staff estimates; World Integrated Trade Solution system ( WITS ), World Bank ( WB ); Trade Analysis and ...
  200. [200]
    World Tariff Profiles 2023 - World Trade Organization
    Summary tables provide comparisons of the average “bound” or maximum tariff each economy may apply to imports and the average tariffs it applies in practice.
  201. [201]
    [PDF] Key Statistics and Trends in Trade Policy 2023 - UNCTAD
    As of 2022, trade costs directly related to tariffs remained stable at about 2 per cent for developed countries and about 4 per cent for developing countries.
  202. [202]
    [PDF] World Tariff Profiles - World Trade Organization
    World Tariff Profiles is a joint publication on market access for goods, providing information on tariffs and non-tariff measures of over 170 countries.<|separator|>
  203. [203]
    Propelled Economy: Lessons from South Korea's Experience
    a virtual free trade regime for exporters, infant industry protection has almost always meant protection only for non-export sales; that is, protection has ...
  204. [204]
    [PDF] The Macroeconomy After Tariffs - World Bank Documents & Reports
    Tariff increases are associated with persistent, economically and statistically significant declines in domestic output and productivity, as well as higher ...<|separator|>
  205. [205]
    [PDF] Panel Data Analysis of Import Tariff Policy on Economic Growth and ...
    Abstract. This paper is focused on interpreting the effects of import tariff policy on domestic economic growth in the small market economies of developing ...
  206. [206]
    Infant Industry Argument - Economics Help
    The infant industry argument states that developing countries are justified to put tariffs on imports if they are seeking to develop new industries and ...
  207. [207]
    Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Increases Section 232 Tariffs ...
    Jun 3, 2025 · President Trump is raising the tariff on steel and aluminum imports from 25% to 50%, with the higher tariff set to go into effect on June 4, 2025.
  208. [208]
    [PDF] How has the WTO membership worked for China?
    China U.S. before China acceded to the WTO, to 9.7% in 2005; the average MFN duty rates for agricultural and non-agricultural products were 15.3% and 8.8%, ...
  209. [209]
    The case of China's tariff liberalization after WTO accession
    To meet its WTO obligations, China aggressively cut its tariff rates. Consequently, the average tariff rate went down from 18% in 2001 to 10% in 2006. There is ...
  210. [210]
    How Influential is China in the World Trade Organization?
    China experienced explosive trade growth after joining the WTO. Driven in part by tariff reductions, China's trade in goods jumped from $516.4 billion in 2001 ...
  211. [211]
    How China's WTO Entry Led to Lower Prices in the US | NBER
    Along with lowering tariffs, the Chinese government moved to stimulate Chinese exports by lifting export restrictions on domestic industry and removing capital ...
  212. [212]
    [PDF] China Part A.1 Tariffs and imports: Summary and duty ranges Part A ...
    Simple average final bound. 10.0. 15.7. 9.1. Total. 100. MFN applied. Non-Ag. 100. Simple average. 2024. 7.5. 14.0. 6.5 Ag: Tariff quotas (in %). 4.5. Trade ...
  213. [213]
    China Tariff Rates | Historical Chart & Data - Macrotrends
    China tariff rates for 2021 was 2.31%, a 0.16% decline from 2020. · China tariff rates for 2020 was 2.47%, a 0.06% decline from 2019. · China tariff rates for ...
  214. [214]
    Made in China 2025 and Industrial Policies: Issues for Congress
    Dec 12, 2024 · China uses tax preferences to incentivize foreign firms to invest in production and research and development (R&D). It uses standards, IP, ...
  215. [215]
    Tariff rate, applied, weighted mean, all products (%) - China | Data
    Tariff rate, most favored nation, weighted mean, all products (%) · Bound rate, simple mean, all products (%) · Tariff rate, applied, simple mean, all products ...
  216. [216]
    Industrial policy and asset prices: Evidence from the Made in China ...
    We study the link between industrial policy and asset prices by using the Made in China 2025 industrial policy, announced in May 2015, as an external shock.
  217. [217]
    An eye for an eye? The trade and price effects of China's retaliatory ...
    We analyze the trade and price effects of China's retaliatory tariffs on imports from the United States in the period from January 2017 to May 2019.Introduction · The Us-China Trade Tension... · Trade And Price Effects
  218. [218]
    https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2025/04/beyond-tariffs-what-the-us-can-learn-from-chinas-industrial.html
  219. [219]
    What the U.S. Can Learn from China's Industrial Playbook - RAND
    Apr 17, 2025 · Beijing did not rely on a tariff-based traditional import substitution strategy. China implemented many promotive and restrictive measures to ...
  220. [220]
    [PDF] Was Made in China 2025 Successful? - Rhodium Group
    May 5, 2025 · These tariffs targeted $50 billion worth of goods across two tiers explicitly citing industries aligned with MIC25. The US also tightened export ...
  221. [221]
    Customs Tariff - Taxation and Customs Union - European Commission
    The 'Common Customs Tariff' (CCT) therefore applies to the import of goods across the external borders of the EU. The tariff is common to all EU members.Taric · Classification of goods · Tariff quotas · The Combined Nomenclature
  222. [222]
    EU tariffs explained - Consilium
    A tariff is a tax levied on imports of goods. The primary purpose of tariffs is to: promote local businesses and jobs. protect domestic industry from unfair ...Missing: common | Show results with:common
  223. [223]
    EU - Import Tariffs - International Trade Administration
    Feb 3, 2024 · All products entering the European Union are classified under a tariff code that carries information on duty rates and other levies on imports and exports.
  224. [224]
    [PDF] European Union Part A.1 Tariffs and imports
    European Union. Part A.1. Tariffs and imports: Summary and duty ranges. Total ... Tariff lines and import values (in %). Fruit, vegetables, plants. Coffee ...
  225. [225]
    Tariffs | Access2Markets - European Commission's trade
    Common customs tariff duties apply to goods which are imported from third countries across the EU's external borders. In some special circumstances, such ...
  226. [226]
    The European Union's proposed duties on Chinese electric vehicles ...
    The CVDs range from 17.4 percent to 37.6 percent of the import price, on top of the EU's 10 percent tariff on imported vehicles. They represent a formidable ...
  227. [227]
    EU announces retaliatory tariffs in response to US tariffs on steel ...
    Mar 14, 2025 · The EU announced their expectation that they will impose the first countermeasures in response to President Donald Trump's steel and aluminium tariffs on 15 ...
  228. [228]
    EU threatens countermeasures over Trump's steel tariffs hike | Reuters
    May 31, 2025 · EU prepared to retaliate against planned steel and aluminum tariff increases · Tariffs take effect on June 4 · Canadian Chamber of Commerce, ...
  229. [229]
    The EU's Latest Response to Trump II Tariffs
    Apr 16, 2025 · On April 9, 2025, the EU approved new trade countermeasures targeting c. €18 billion of U.S.-origin products in response to 25% tariffs imposed ...The Eu's Latest Response To... · Eu Response To U.S. Steel... · Revival Of 2018 And 2020...
  230. [230]
    Definitive duties on BEV imports from China - European Commission
    Oct 28, 2024 · EU imposes duties on unfairly subsidised electric vehicles from China while discussions on price undertakings continue · BYD: 17.0% · Geely: 18.8% ...
  231. [231]
    Slamming the Brakes: The EU Votes to Impose Tariffs on Chinese EVs
    Dec 16, 2024 · On October 4, EU member states approved tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs). The move follows a historic rise in imports from China.
  232. [232]
    EU, China will look into setting minimum prices on electric vehicles ...
    Apr 10, 2025 · The EU increased tariffs on Chinese-built EVs to as much as 45.3% last October, but Brussels and Beijing have floated the idea of lifting the ...
  233. [233]
    Tesla and BMW sue EU as discontent over Chinese EV tariffs mounts
    Jan 28, 2025 · Last year, the EU imposed a tariff of 7.8% on electric vehicles made by Tesla in China, while BMW's China-produced EVs were hit with a 20.7% ...
  234. [234]
    Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism - Taxation and Customs Union
    CBAM is a system to confirm that a price has been paid for the embedded carbon emissions generated in the production of certain goods imported into the EU.
  235. [235]
    https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/01/carbon-border-tax-us-china-and-india-lash-out-at-eu-climate-policy.html
  236. [236]
    Carbon border tax: U.S., China and India lash out at EU climate policy
    Sep 30, 2025 · Starting from Jan. 1 next year, the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) will impose a cost on goods such as steel, fertilizers, ...
  237. [237]
    EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism: What is it, how does it ...
    Mar 21, 2025 · This blog post explores the likely impact of the European Union's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) on global carbon emissions and trade.
  238. [238]
    The economic implications of rising protectionism: a euro area and ...
    The rise in protectionism implies that a progressively larger share of global trade has been affected by trade distortions. Data from the Global Trade Alert ...A changing trade policy... · Tariffs announced by the US... · The macroeconomic...<|control11|><|separator|>
  239. [239]
    India's average import tariffs are nearly double 2014 levels, but ...
    Feb 19, 2025 · In 2023-24, the trade-weighted average tariffs on imported goods in India stood at 12%, much higher than 7% in 2014. Yet, total merchandise imports grew about ...Missing: protectionism | Show results with:protectionism
  240. [240]
    India's high tariffs are a barrier to imports, White House's Hassett says
    Feb 10, 2025 · Based on data from the World Trade Organization, India's simple average tariff rate is 17%, compared to about 3.3% for the U.S. On a trade ...Missing: protectionism 2014-2025<|separator|>
  241. [241]
    Decoding India's Tariff Strategy: Protectionism or Pragmatic Policy?
    Jul 1, 2025 · This brief report examines India's tariff strategy through a macroeconomic lens to assess whether recent policies represent protectionism or a pragmatic ...
  242. [242]
    Brazil - Trade Barriers
    Aug 21, 2025 · Brazil's trade barriers include duplicative, arbitrary, or discriminatory regulations, high tariffs, an uncertain customs system, and high, ...
  243. [243]
    https://fee.org/articles/brazils-case-against-protectionism/
  244. [244]
    Brazil's Case Against Protectionism - FEE.org
    Jun 22, 2025 · Many credit this growth to protectionist policies: high tariffs on imports, tax breaks for domestic producers, and generous government ...
  245. [245]
    Protectionism in the 21st Century: Insights from the US, India and EU
    Oct 11, 2025 · Despite rising globalization in the 21st century, the global economy is witnessing a rapid hike in protectionist policies that threaten the ...
  246. [246]
    Developing and emerging economies should double down on trade ...
    Jul 11, 2025 · More often, countries have failed to implement long-term, infant-industry-oriented industrial policy and trade strategy in the context of ...
  247. [247]
    What is the Harmonized System (HS)? - World Customs Organization
    It comprises more than 5,000 commodity groups; each identified by a six digit code, arranged in a legal and logical structure and is supported by well-defined ...
  248. [248]
    [PDF] Introduction to the Harmonized System - World Trade Organization
    Jun 19, 2023 · What is tariff classification? • A legal process undertaken by Customs to determine the correct tariff code for imported and exported goods. -> ...Missing: systems | Show results with:systems
  249. [249]
    Overview (WCO) - World Customs Organization
    Mar 21, 2024 · The Harmonized System is used by more than 200 countries and economies as a basis for their Customs tariffs and for the collection of international trade ...
  250. [250]
    A Brief History of the Harmonized Tariff Classification System
    A brief history of the Harmonized Tariff System and the systems of tariff classification it replaced, along with a list of the HTS's most recent revisions.
  251. [251]
    Harmonized Tariff Schedule
    The Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) sets out the tariff rates and statistical categories for all merchandise imported into the United ...Download Archive · Contact Us · Interactive HTS Training
  252. [252]
    Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) Archive
    Editions of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSA) are available from 1989 (the first year of publication) - present.
  253. [253]
    537 Harmonized System Codes and Other Classification Codes
    The first six digits of the HTS code match the WCO 6-digit HS code, whereas the last four digits are unique to the United States and do not necessarily match ...<|separator|>
  254. [254]
    USITC Begins Process to Modify the Harmonized Tariff Schedule to ...
    Aug 12, 2025 · The HS, maintained by the World Customs Organization (WCO), is an international product naming system used to categorize and monitor global ...
  255. [255]
    legal texts - Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the ... - WTO
    The methods of valuation are set out in a sequential order of application. The primary method for customs valuation is defined in Article 1 and imported ...
  256. [256]
    https://www.wcoomd.org/en/topics/valuation/overview/wto-valuation-agreement.aspx
  257. [257]
    WTO Valuation Agreement - World Customs Organization
    The Agreement provides a Customs valuation system that primarily bases the Customs value on the transaction value of the imported goods.
  258. [258]
    Customs valuation gateway - WTO
    The WTO agreement on customs valuation aims for a fair, uniform and neutral system for the valuation of goods for customs purposes.
  259. [259]
    Comprehensive tariff data on the WTO website
    The new WTO Tariff & Trade Data platform provides enhanced access to official tariff and trade figures for over 150 economies. It includes bilateral trade ...
  260. [260]
    The dynamic dual role of tariffs: insight into specific and ad valorem ...
    Oct 21, 2020 · An “ad rem” or “specific” tariff is calculated as a fixed amount of money per unit of a good.
  261. [261]
    Customs Valuation | United States Trade Representative
    The Valuation Agreement is administered by the WTO Committee on Customs Valuation, which holds two formal meetings a year. The Valuation Agreement also ...Missing: methods | Show results with:methods
  262. [262]
    Trade Remedies | U.S. Customs and Border Protection
    US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is enforcing new trade remedy measures for duties and quotas on imported goods.Cbp ieepa faq · Active Section 232 Product... · Section 301Missing: mechanisms | Show results with:mechanisms
  263. [263]
    U.S. Customs and Border Protection ramping up as trade ...
    Sep 12, 2025 · CBP's statistics suggest that some of this potential is already being realized: As of June 30, 2025, CBP had collected more than $136 billion in ...
  264. [264]
    US Tariff Enforcement Risk Continues to Rise as DOJ Assigns Unit ...
    Jul 14, 2025 · The Department of Justice has tasked its MIMF (Market Integrity and Major Frauds) Unit with investigating fraud schemes by companies dodging US tariffs.Missing: agencies | Show results with:agencies
  265. [265]
    Customs and tariff fraud enforcement intensifies: DOJ wields mix of ...
    Sep 25, 2025 · The DOJ is also expanding civil enforcement of tariff evasion through the False Claims Act (FCA), which can result in the imposition of both ...
  266. [266]
    Departments of Justice and Homeland Security Partnering on Cross ...
    Aug 29, 2025 · Today, the Department of Justice launched a cross-agency Trade Fraud Task Force to bring robust enforcement against importers and other ...
  267. [267]
    Tariff Hikes, Trade Fraud, and Enforcement: White-Collar Risks of ...
    Apr 6, 2025 · ... tariff regime: misrepresenting the country of origin and tariff evasion ... smuggling goods or misrepresenting facts to evade import laws.Missing: statistics | Show results with:statistics
  268. [268]
    Differentiated products and evasion of import tariffs - ScienceDirect
    In their 1970 volume, Little, Scitovsky and Scott (1970) pointed out that evasion of import duties through smuggling was a major problem in Mexico, Argentina ...
  269. [269]
    https://americarenewing.com/issues/primer-the-threat-of-tariff-evasion-within-u-s-trade-policy/
  270. [270]
    Primer: The Threat of Tariff Evasion within U.S. Trade Policy
    Jul 7, 2025 · Just for tariff evasion violations, CBP data show that over 2,000 e-allegations were filed in 2023, a significant increase from just a few ...
  271. [271]
    FY 2023 textile enforcement stats show CBP's efforts to protect ...
    Oct 25, 2023 · In FY 2023, CBP seized more than 5,000 textile shipments valued at more than $129 million, issued approximately $19.3 million in commercial ...Missing: evasion | Show results with:evasion<|separator|>
  272. [272]
    Tariff evasion in global trade data - Taylor & Francis Online
    We estimate that in total, revenue losses from tariff evasion are currently likely to exceed 400 to 670 million USD globally per year, and find that the ...Missing: WTO | Show results with:WTO
  273. [273]
    [PDF] Trade Facilitation and Tariff Evasion
    The point estimate suggests that 1% increase in tariff rate increases missing imports by 0.3%. This result, obtained in a large set of countries and products, ...
  274. [274]
    What Every Multinational Company Should Know About … Criminal ...
    Mar 25, 2025 · Smuggling (18 U.S.C. § 545), which criminalizes knowingly and ... Plywood Tariff Evasion Case (2024): A Florida couple was charged ...Missing: statistics | Show results with:statistics
  275. [275]
    Five Compliance Best Practices for … Minimizing Customs Tariffs ...
    Feb 20, 2025 · Minimizing tariffs is a common objective for businesses engaged in international trade, as tariffs can significantly impact the cost of importing or exporting ...<|separator|>
  276. [276]
    https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2017/10/global-trade-without-corruption_g1g7e2ae/9789264279353-en.pdf
  277. [277]
    [PDF] Global Trade Without Corruption | OECD
    This report analyzes integrity policies in trade, exposes corruption costs, maps risks, and prioritizes measures to address corruption and promote clean trade.
  278. [278]
    New U.S. Trade Fraud Task Force: Heightened Enforcement and ...
    Sep 12, 2025 · The Task Force is designed to synchronize efforts among the DOJ's civil and criminal divisions, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), and ...
  279. [279]
    Electronic Commerce Work Programme - WTO
    15 May 2025​​ Members discussed the moratorium on the imposition of customs duties on electronic transmissions at …
  280. [280]
    WTO Extends E-Commerce Tariff Moratorium as Broader ...
    Mar 7, 2024 · The World Trade Organization's (WTO) 13th Ministerial Conference (MC13) has extended the e-commerce customs duty moratorium for another two years.
  281. [281]
    WTO members discuss duty-free electronic transmissions, hear ...
    May 15, 2025 · Members discussed the moratorium on the imposition of customs duties on electronic transmissions at a workshop held on 15 May, which included private sector ...
  282. [282]
    WTO members prepare to advance e-commerce discussions as ...
    25 September 2025. electronic ... Members are preparing to consider proposals on a draft ministerial decision on the work programme and the moratorium on ...<|separator|>
  283. [283]
    Digital Taxation around the World - Tax Foundation
    Apr 30, 2024 · Tariffs are trade barriers that raise prices, reduce available quantities of goods and services ... Digital Goods and Services in OECD Countries.
  284. [284]
    Digital Services Taxes in Europe, 2025 - Tax Foundation
    May 6, 2025 · Announced, Proposed, and Implemented Digital Services Taxes, as of May 2025 ; Austria (AT), 5%, Online advertising ; Belgium (BE), 3% · Selling of ...
  285. [285]
    Section 301 – Digital Services Taxes - U.S. Trade Representative
    Virtual multi-jurisdictional hearing regarding the proposed action in the Section 301 Investigations of Digital Services Taxes (DSTs) in Austria, India, Italy, ...
  286. [286]
    Trump's Tariffs and the Politics of India's Withdrawal of Digital ...
    Sep 2, 2025 · In response, the USTR proposed a 25% tariff on certain Indian goods in 2021. However, these tariffs were paused for 180 days to allow for ...<|separator|>
  287. [287]
    Trump vows added tariffs on countries with digital services taxes
    Aug 25, 2025 · President Donald Trump vows to impose "substantial" new tariffs and restrict U.S. chip exports for countries that do not remove digital taxes.
  288. [288]
    What is a digital services tax, and why is Trump against it?
    Aug 26, 2025 · President Donald Trump on Monday threatened to raise tariffs on countries that have a digital services tax, accusing such nations of ...
  289. [289]
    The 2025 Tax Debate: International Taxes Under Pillars 1 and 2
    Aug 26, 2024 · Pillar 1 would replace other countries' unilateral digital services taxes (DSTs) with a multilateral, consensus-based approach that allocates ...
  290. [290]
    Explaining, Assessing the Digital Services Tax Dilemma
    Jul 7, 2025 · To go into global effect, Pillar 1 must be ratified by the US, an unlikely event as it has been highly opposed by Republicans for some time.<|control11|><|separator|>
  291. [291]
    How taxation of digital services is again a concern for businesses - EY
    Aug 12, 2025 · As BEPS 2.0 Pillar One progress stalls, businesses worry that digital services taxes are back on the agenda for some governments. Read more
  292. [292]
    Tariffs 101: What you need to know about tariffs in the new Trump era
    Jan 8, 2025 · Digital goods are protected from the imposition of tariffs under CUSMA/USMCA. Article 19.3 of the agreement provides that neither Canada nor the ...