Como Combater o Mercantilismo Chinês?

A simple but effective proposal by Peterson Institute economists C. Fred Bergsten and Joseph E. Gagnon is worth considering. Their idea: the U.S. should announce that, when faced with currency “aggression,” it will pursue a countervailing currency intervention. This credible threat would deter unilateral attempts at manipulation, they explain in their new book, Currency Conflict and Trade Policy: A New Strategy for the United States. The book is not just about China, and the authors don’t oppose globalization or free trade; rather, they worry that the lack of response to currency manipulation is creating a political backlash against free trade. “During the Great Recession,” they write, “when unemployment was high, [China’s behavior] contributed to the loss of millions of jobs”—though this wasn’t widely recognized at the time. They argue that if China’s currency manipulation had been curtailed during the last decade, “China’s average account surplus of $205 billion would have been nearly or entirely eliminated.” China would still have seen rapid economic growth, but U.S. trade deficits would have been much less.
At the moment, Chinese devaluation practices are in a lull, and the Beijing leadership recently intervened to support the national currency. But China is pursuing other mercantilist practices related to technology transfer, whereby firms seeking entry to Chinese markets are forced to share their intellectual capital with local companies under licensing agreements. This arrangement frequently results in Chinese “re-innovation” of the existing technology. The United States will need to counter these moves, lest it lose its competitive advantage in advanced research and development. And beyond concerns about China, the U.S. needs to improve its global competitiveness and upgrade its position in the global value chain.