#1 How shall we describe the relationship between the Alliance and the Accord? Are they collaborators or competitors? Do you think the Alliance and the Accord can join forces?
#2 How many inspectors are “enough” for Bangladesh? The case study mentions that the Alliance and the Accord are observing around 2,000 factories, but how about the other 3,000 in Bangladesh? And how about those unknown and “undocumented” factories, where the working conditions could be even worse?
#3 Do Western fashion brands genuinely care about what is happening in the Bangladeshi garment factories? Or do they actually care about their own interests—profit, public image and reputation among consumers?
#4 What has made Western fashion brands stay in Bangladesh after the Rana Plaza tragedy instead of moving their sourcing orders to other Asian countries in the area such as Cambodia and Vietnam?
#5 How transparent companies’ supply chain should be? Should fashion brands be required to disclose more supply chain information—such as where their products were made and who made them? What could be the difficulty of enforcing a more transparent apparel supply chain?
#6 In addition to more frequent inspections, what other measures can be taken to improve social responsibility practices in the garment industry?
#7 Four years after the Rana Plaza, are you satisfied with the changes that have happened in Bangladesh? What major social responsibility problems in the Bangladeshi garment industry remain unsolved?
[Please feel free to join our online discussion. For the purpose of convenience, please mention the question # in your reply/comment.]
At an event hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) on September 18, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer addressed the U.S. trade policy in the Trump Administration, particularly Trump’s beliefs on trade:
Philosophy 1: The reason why some Americans oppose free trade is NOT that they were “ill-informed.” Rather, it is because the U.S. trade policy for decades has failed to create a “level playing field.” The Trump Administration will proactively use all instruments to “make it expensive” for U.S. trading partners to engage in the non-economic behavior, convince U.S. trading partners to treat U.S. workers, farmers, and ranchers fairly and demand “reciprocity” both in the home and international markets.
Philosophy2: Trade deficits matter. Although trade policy is not the only cause for the trade deficit, it can be a major contributor, such as high tariffs that deny the market access for U.S. products, not imposing the border adjustment tax and currency manipulation.
Philosophy 3: China is the top challenge. According to Lighthizer, “the sheer scale of China’s coordinated efforts to develop their economy, to subsidize, to create national champions, to force technology transfer, and to distort markets in China and throughout the world is a threat to the world trading system that is unprecedented.”
Philosophy 4: The Trump Administrations will exam all existing trade agreements to make sure they provide “roughly equivalent” measured by trade deficits. “Where there the numbers and other factors indicate a disequilibrium, one should renegotiate.”
During the Q&A session, Lighthizer further shared his views on some cutting-edge trade issues:
- Regarding the NAFTA renegotiation, Lightlizher said that the negotiation is “moving at warp speed, but we don’t know whether we’re going to get to a conclusion, that’s the problem.” The consultation process with U.S. Congress is complicated and time-consuming, but it is unavoidable.
- The Trump Administration prefers bilateral trade deal over regional and multilateral ones. Given the size of the U.S. economy, Lighthizer believes that bilateral trade agreement will provide more negotiation leverages and ensure better enforcement.
- The Trump Administration will still stay very much engaged in Asia.
- The WTO Dispute-Settlement mechanism doesn’t work well—it has both imposed new obligations for the U.S. and reduced a lot of U.S. benefits.
- Regarding the outlook for the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) negotiation, Lighthizer stressed the importance of the US-EU trade relations. He said that the series of elections in EU is a reason why the negotiation of the agreement hasn’t moved forward.
- Regarding TISA (Trade in services agreement), the U.S. objective is to open markets and eliminate market access barriers for U.S. companies.
#1 Why should or should not globalization be responsible for Brexit? Why would Britain want to exit the EU in the first place if there were so many negative impacts on the economy, especially on the retailers and UK brands? Is Brexit an anti-globalization movement?
#2 Seeing all of the complications that resulted from Brexit in regards to trade and the fashion industry as a whole, will similar disruptions occur if the US pulls out of more trade agreements? If so, then do the negative impacts on the economy outweigh the positives?
#3 Who could be the winners and losers of Brexit and why? Any observed impact of “Brexit” on the global fashion apparel industry?
Debate on Trade and Foreign Investment
#4 South Carolina’s economy depends on foreign companies as of late, companies like Giti, a foreign-owned tired plant. Do you think more states should embrace the South Carolina philosophy and welcome foreign companies into their states to build plants on their land and employ US workers? Do you think this would be a good thing for the US economy? Why or why not?
#5 As a more developed and educated nation, would it be in our best interest to teach the new generations how to work alongside technology and acclimate to the changing job market or continue to fight to bring textile jobs back to the US when other countries can do the same job for a lower cost, and have limited employment skills and opportunities?
#6 Without globalization and international trade, would South Carolina voters be better off or worse economically? Why?
#7 Concerning the commercial interests of the United States, why do you support or oppose President Trump’s proposal to impose 45% punitive tariffs on imports from China?
Please join our online discussions. In your comment, please mention the question #.
First, apparel (defined by HS Chapters 61 & 62) is one of the top categories of North Korea’s merchandise exports. Statistics from the International Trade Center (ITC) show that of North Korea’s total US$2,339.9 million merchandise exports in 2016, US$564.7 million (or 19.4%) were apparel.
Second, apparel is also one of the fastest-growing categories of North Korea’s exports over the past decade. From 2003 to 2016, the value of North Korea’s apparel exports surged by 416%, compared to only 171% increase of other products over the same period.
Third, over 99.4% of North Korea’s apparel exports went to China in 2016. Notably, back in 2003, China only accounted for 49.7% of North Korea’s apparel exports. However, apparel exports from North Korea to China received two substantial boosts just in the past ten years: one in 2009 (the year when UN resolution 1874 was adopted) and another in 2013 (the year when UN resolution 2087 was adopted).
Fourth, interesting enough, North Korea’s apparel exports predominantly concentrate on men and women’s overcoats (HS 6201 and 6202) as well as suits, jackets, and blazers (HS 6203 and 6204). This is a notable difference from most other developing countries, such as Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Cambodia whose apparel exports usually focus on more basic items like shirts and trousers.
by Sheng Lu
Disclaimer: All blog posts on this site are for FASH455 educational purposes only and they are nonpolitical and nonpartisan in nature. No blog post has the intention to favor or oppose any particular public policy, nor shall be interpreted in that way.