New Articles
  February 2nd, 2018 | Written by

Import Relief: It’s Complicated

[shareaholic app="share_buttons" id="13106399"]


  • To get relief under Section 201 a company needs to establish that a rapid increase in imports is causing serious injury.
  • The safeguard concept permits temporary import relief in Section 201 cases.
  • Final action in Section 201 cases is up to the president, who has broad discretion.

The two Section 201 cases that the president recently decided—solar panels and washing machines—are good illustrations of how much the trade landscape has changed in recent years and how unexpectedly complicated these decisions have become.

Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 authorizes “safeguard” measures, which are permitted under limited circumstances by the World Trade Organization (WTO). To get “relief,” a petitioning company or industry need not prove dumping or subsidization or any other unfair practice. It simply needs to establish that a fairly rapid increase in imports is causing serious injury. The safeguard concept permits temporary import relief in such cases, usually defined as no more than four years, with the expectation that any relief granted will decline in each succeeding year. To win, the International Trade Commission (ITC) must decide that serious injury has occurred by reason of the imports and recommend a remedy, but final action is up to the president, who has broad discretion.

Old Trade Laws, New Economy

This has not been a common remedy in recent years—the last one before these two was in 2001. It fell into disuse partly because it proved difficult to get presidents to approve relief even after an industry had “won” at the ITC, and the 2001 case involving steel, which the United States subsequently lost at the WTO, was a signal that even winning was no guarantee of significant relief.

The two current cases, however, illustrate how much the trading system has changed in the past 30 years. Early 201 cases involved items like footwear, where rapid increases in imports were wiping out a domestic industry. The consumer decision was binary—you bought American shoes or foreign—and the consequences showed up in job losses here and job gains overseas. The case was clear-cut, although the president did not always provide relief.

Workers Lose, Workers Gain

Things got more complicated in an automobile case in the 1980s. The industry failed to convince the ITC that the cause of its injury was imports as opposed to other factors, but the case, along with subsequent congressional attempts to legislate persuaded the Japanese to invest in the United States and move car production over here, thereby permanently changing the nature and composition of the domestic industry. Echoes of that strategy can be seen in the current washing machine case, where the defending Korean companies have pointed out the substantial number of jobs they plan to create in the United States, in the Samsung case via a new plant in South Carolina that has been touted by President Trump as a policy success.

The solar panel case raises another issue. The complaint was brought by US manufacturers of panels, but it has been strongly opposed by the companies that install panels, which account for many more jobs than are involved in panel manufacture. Relief is also opposed by environmental groups arguing that it will lead to higher prices for solar panels and thus declining demand, fewer installations, and greater reliance on fossil fuels.

Who Gets Prioritized — Consumers, Workers, One Set of Employers?

These are not binary choices as they may have been decades ago. Then the argument against relief was primarily the consumer price argument—relief would make shoes more expensive. The president had to weigh prices versus one set of workers. In both new cases, there is opposition to relief from companies that account for (or say they will account for) a significant number of jobs, so the president has to weigh some jobs against other jobs, with, in the solar panel case, the likelihood that relief will lead to many more jobs lost than gained.

In a globalized marketplace where everything is made everywhere via global value chains, answers are not clear-cut. Import relief will save or create some jobs, but it will cost others. The cases also illustrate why they end up on the president’s desk. The ITC is charged with two things: determining whether imports are a cause of serious injury, and, if so, proposing a remedy. Making the political of whether saving those jobs outweighs other impacts on the economy, including other jobs that will be lost, falls to the president.

William Reinsch holds the Scholl Chair for International Business at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He previously served as president of the National Foreign Trade Council and as the Under Secretary for Export Administration in the US Department of Commerce.

This article originally appeared on Used with permission.