International Trade – Page 8 – FASH455 Global Apparel & Textile Trade and Sourcing

USTR Releases Negotiating Objectives of the Proposed U.S.-Japan Free Trade Agreement (USJTA)

On December 21, 2018, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) released negotiating objectives of the proposed U.S.-Japan Free Trade Agreement (USJTA). Overall, USJTA aims to address both tariff and non-tariff barriers to achieve fairer and more balanced trade between the two countries.

Regarding the textiles and apparel sector, USTR says it will “secure duty-free access for U.S. textile and apparel products and seek to improve competitive opportunities for exports of U.S. textile and apparel products while taking into account U.S. import sensitivities” during the negotiation. USJTA also will “establish origin procedures for the certification and verification of rules of origin that promote strong enforcement, including with respect to textiles.” According to the 2015 Trade Promotion Authority Act, the earliest day to start the USJTA negotiation will be in mid-January 2019.

Regarding the potential economic impact of USJTA on the textile and apparel sector:

First, the overall economic impact is likely to be modest given the limited U.S.-Japan bilateral trade flows for textiles and apparel. Data from the UNComtrade shows that in 2017 U.S. exported $220 million textiles (1.7% of the total) and $141 million apparel (4.7% of the total) to Japan. Meanwhile, U.S. imported $550 million textiles (1.9% of the total) and $104 million apparel (0.1% of the total) from Japan. In comparison, over 70% of U.S. textile and apparel exports went to the Western-Hemisphere and U.S. imported textiles and apparel mostly from NAFTA & CAFTA-DR members and other Asian countries (such as China and Vietnam).

Second, the elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers under USJTA could expand the bilateral trade flows for technical textiles. Notably, the top categories of U.S. textile and apparel exports to Japan in 2017 were mostly technical textiles such as specialty and industrial fabrics, filament yarns, and non-woven textiles. Likewise, the top categories of Japan’s textile and apparel exports to the U.S. in 2017 also include special purpose fabric, non-woven fabric, and synthetic filament fabrics.

Third, the textiles and apparel-specific rules of origin (RoO) is likely to remain a heated debate in the USJTA negotiation. To protect the interests of the U.S. textile industry and the Western-Hemisphere regional textile and apparel supply chain, most free trade agreements enacted in the United States adopt the so-called “yarn-forward” RoO. Even though USJTA may not be a too big deal economically, the U.S. textile industry is unlikely to give up the RoO fight. However, most free trade agreements enacted in Japan adopt more liberal fabric-forward rules of origin. As textile and apparel production in Japan is increasingly integrated with other Asian countries, the strict “yarn-forward” RoO could prevent Japanese textile and apparel exporters from enjoying the preferential duty benefits under USJTA fully. On the other hand, adopting a liberal RoO in USJTA is also advocated strongly by U.S. fashion brands and apparel retailers.

Appendix: U.S.-Japan textile and apparel trade statistics: 2000-2017 (Excel)

How Has the Apparel Trade Flow Reacted to the Section 301 Tariff Action against China? (updated November 2018)

While apparel products are not subject to the Section 301 tariff yet, the trade action nevertheless has created huge market uncertainties for U.S. fashion brands and apparel retailers. Here is how the monthly trade flow of U.S. apparel imports has reflected the impacts of the U.S.-China tariff war:

First, U.S. companies did NOT stop importing from China. Seasonally adjusted data shows that between January and September 2018, the value of U.S. apparel imports from China decreased by 0.6 percent in volume and 0.05 percent in value year on year. Despite the decline, China remained the No.1 apparel supplier for the U.S. market in the first nine months of 2018, accounting for 32.3 percent market share in value and 41.3 percent shares in quantity, only marginally dropped by 1 and 0.7 percentage points from a year earlier respectively .

Second, apparel “Made in China” are becoming even cheaper. Notably, the average unit price of U.S. apparel imports from China dropped from $2.5/SME in 2016,$2.38/SME in 2017 to $2.36/SME in the first nine months of 2018. On the one hand, this result suggests that cost concern is not the most influential factor that drives U.S. companies to source less from China. However, it is also likely that Chinese exporters are intentionally reducing their price to keep their orders and overcome the challenges caused by the Section 301.

Third, there is no perfect replacement for “Made in China”. In response to the market uncertainty created by the Section 301 trade action, U.S. apparel importers are diversifying their sourcing base. That being said, it is difficult to identify a single largest beneficiary–notably, the market shares of apparel exports from Vietnam, Bangladesh, NAFTA, and CAFTA regions only marginally increased in the first nine months of 2018 compared with a year ago.

Additionally, it remains unclear whether the section 301 trade action has benefited U.S. textile and apparel manufacturing. Data shows that in the first ten months of 2018, the production index (2012=100) of textile manufacturing in the United States slightly increased from 92.8 in 2017to 94.3. However, over the same period, the index of apparel manufacturing decreased from 73.6 to 72.4.

Looking ahead, the volume of US textile and apparel imports from China is likely to increase in the short run since U.S. importers are eager to complete their sourcing orders before the new tariff hit. Usually, companies place sourcing orders several months ahead of the selling season. However, it will be interesting to see if the trade data in the first half of 2019 will reveal the negative impact of the Section 301 action on China’s apparel exports to the U.S. market.

Data source: Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA), US Department of Commerce

by Sheng Lu

U.S. Textile and Apparel Industry Provided Assessment of the Impacts of USMCA (NAFTA2.0)

On November 16, 2018, leading U.S. textile and apparel associations testified before the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) to provide industry assessments of the U.S. Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA, or commonly called “NAFTA2.0”). Below is a summary of these associations’ comments:

First, both the U.S. textile industry and the U.S. apparel industry expressed overall support for USMCA, which is regarded as critical for maintaining the Western-Hemisphere textile and apparel supply chain.

National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO): “In an overarching fashion, the new agreement is an improvement over the original NAFTA in many areas.”… “The United States, Canada and Mexico have built a vibrant and prosperous textile production chain over the 24 years through NAFTA.”

U.S. Fashion Industry Association (USFIA): “We reviewed the details of the USMCA, and we were pleased to find much we can support in it.” “USMCA remains a trilateral agreement, and “does no harm” to existing U.S.-Mexico-Canada supply chains.”

American Apparel and Footwear Association (AAFA): “…state our very strong support of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). NAFTA serves as an important anchor for the U.S. textile, apparel, and footwear industry. Much of the textile manufacturing in the United States is tied directly to NAFTA through U.S. exports to NAFTA partners.”…” The USMCA appears to have largely met the goal of “do no harm”. We were pleased to see the USMCA retain this essential trilateral feature.”

Second, not surprisingly, the U.S. textile industry and U.S. fashion brands and apparel retailers hold divided views on the textile and apparel specific rules of origin provision in USMCA—particularly the tariff preference level (TPL). In general, the U.S. textile industry welcomes the changes that limit the usage of-USMCA originating textile inputs, whereas U.S. fashion brands and retailers ask for more flexibilities. Further, even though the agreement seems to be a balanced deal, both the two sides expressed “dissatisfactions” for what they did not get.

Regarding the yarn-forward rules of origin

NCTO: “We are pleased that the basic textile origin rules adopted originally in NAFTA were essentially reaffirmed in USMCA. Commend the creation of a separate textile chapter, which recognized the sensitivities associated with trade in this sector and allows for unique provisions.”

USFIA: “The yarn-forward rule of origin already discourages trade in our sector—and some companies have told us that they don’t claim the duty savings on eligible products from the region because the compliance requirements are simply too onerous and expensive.”

Regarding the tariff preference level (TPL)

NCTO: “While USMCA did reduce the size of some specific TPLs, the reductions will not cut into existing trade levels. This outcome is frustrating given the President’s stated goals of increasing benefits for U.S. manufacturers and eliminating provisions that have helped non-signatory countries, such as China, taking advantage of tariff preferences intended for North American producers.”

USFIA: “The agreement maintains the Tariff Preference Levels (TPLs) for apparel to and from all three countries. This is one of the most important elements of the agreement for our industry, and according to some of our members, the only way they can source textiles and apparel with these trading partners.”… “We also applaud the elimination of the requirement that visible linings for tailored clothing come from the NAFTA region. The maintenance of the TPLs and the elimination of the visible linings requirement–will help companies continue and expand business with our trading partners Canada and Mexico.”

AAFA: “we are discouraged that… the changes made to the rules of origin were to introduce more restrictive approaches. For example, many tariff preference levels (TPLs) were lowered…”

“As we argued throughout the talks, the best way to encourage more U.S. content is to weave in more flexibility into the rules. Such flexibilities provide additional opportunities for business to be conducted under the agreement. For example, the USMCA dramatically increases the TPLs that will enable more U.S. apparel and made up goods to be exported to Canada. Even though such articles don’t have to be made with U.S. textiles, the mere presence of their production in the U.S. will mean more customers for U.S. textile firms.”

Sewing thread, pocketing, narrow elastics and coated fabrics requirements

NCTO: ”We are very supportive of revisions that will require the use of USMCA-origin sewing thread, pocketing, narrow elastics and coated fabrics in certain end items—which will offer a boost for U.S. producers formerly left out of the origin rules in the original NAFTA ($250 million annual demand for sewing thread and $70 million for pocketing in the USMCA market).”

USFIA: “the USMCA creates new technical requirements –for example, the addition of requirements for originating sewing thread, pocketing and narrow elastic bands—which will result in higher costs for inputs and higher costs for brands and retailers (as well as their suppliers in Mexico and Canada) to administer the agreement.”

“We are concerned that the addition of more regulatory requirements to qualify for duty-free market access may hold back the ability of some companies to expand their sourcing with Mexico and Canada.”…”There will be some companies who shift operations out of the Western Hemisphere, or decide not to move new orders to Canada or Mexico because of these cost increases. The new regulations WILL make it more expensive and complicated for American brands and retailers to use the agreement.”

AAFA: “we are discouraged that – with few exceptions – the changes made to the rules of origin were to introduce more restrictive approaches. For example, many tariff preference levels (TPLs) were lowered and the USMCA now includes new requirements that sewing thread, elastic strips, and pocketing originate. While we understand U.S. negotiators were attempting to legislate more U.S. content into North American textile and apparel supply chains, the result, unfortunately, may be the opposite.”

Additionally, theU.S. textile industry is pleased with the changes to the government procurement provision, which closed a “loophole” regarding the Kissell Amendment.

NCTO: “We are also appreciative of a key change made in the Government Procurement Chapter of USMCA regarding the Kissell Amendment, which is a Buy American statute for textiles that applies to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Kissell requires 100% U.S. content, with very limited exceptions, for purchases by the Coast Guard and Transportation Security Administration (TSA).

Regarding TSA procurement, Kissell has a problematic loophole tied to NAFTA that has allowed Mexico to supply these contracts. As a result, under the terms of NAFTA, Mexico can supply TSA uniforms made from Mexican fiber, yarn, and/or fabric. The TSA Mexico loophole translates to a significant weakening of U.S. Buy American statutes. Noting that DHS spent $34million on clothing and textiles for TSA in FY2017, closing the Kissellloophole was a substantive change from NCTO’s perspective.”

[Note: Not like NAFTA, USMCAwill exclude FSC 83 (Textiles, Leather, Furs, Apparel, Shoe Findings, Tents, and flags) and FSC 84 (Clothing, Individual Equipment, and Insignia and Jewelry)from the procurement list of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that opens to Mexico and Canada.]

Appendix:

Comment by the National Council of Textile Organizations
Comment by the U.S. Fashion Industry Association
Comment by the American Apparel and Footwear Association

Why is the used clothing trade such a hot-button issue?

Shannon Brady and Sheng Lu (2018). Why is the used clothing trade such a hot-button issue? Just-Style [full article available]

Key Findings:

First, the world used clothing trade has grown significantly over the past ten years. Statistics from the United Nations show that the value of world used clothing trade (HS code 630900) has quickly increased from $1.8bn in 2006 to $3.7bn in 2016, an increase of 106 percent. Between 2006 and 2016, the value of world used clothing trade enjoyed a 7.6 percent compound annual growth rate (CAGR), which was almost double the pace of 3.4 percent CAGR for new clothing trade (HS chapters 61 and 62) over the same period.

Second, the world used clothing trade flow is highly unbalanced. On the one hand, the developed economies are the dominant suppliers of used clothing to the world. In 2016, nearly 40 percent of the world’s used clothing exports came from three countries alone: the United States (15 percent), the United Kingdom (13 percent) and Germany (11 percent). Data also shows that the European Union and the United States together stably accounted for as much as 65 percent of the value of world clothing exports between 2006 and 2016. The other country worth mentioning is China, which is quickly becoming another leading used clothing exporter in the world. In 2016, China’s used clothing exports totaled US$218m from only US$0.32m in 2006, an increase of more than 684 percent!

On the other hand, most of the world used clothing exports end up sold in the developing countries, especially the least developed ones. For example, in 2016, Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) as a whole imported approximately 20 percent of the world’s used clothing, far more than any other regions in the world. By value, the top three individual importers of used clothing in 2016 are all developing countries as well, namely Pakistan (6.0 percent), Malaysia (5.8 percent) and Ukraine (4.9 percent).

Third, trade policies regulating used clothing trade often raise controversies. While trade barriers on new clothing attract much of the public attention, the used clothing trade is facing even heavier and trickier restrictions of various kinds. The World Trade Organization (WTO) data shows that in 2016 the average applied tariff rate for used clothing imports was 19.3 percent, higher than 15.4 percent of new clothing (HS Chapters 61 and 62). Of the total 180 countries covered by the WTO tariff database, 115 (or 64 percent) set an equal or higher tariff rate for used clothing than the new one. Further, it is not rare to see extremely high import tariff rates and other quantitative restrictions applied to used clothing trade. For example, in 2016 the applied most-favored-nation (MFN) ad valorem equivalent tariff rate for used clothing was as high as 356.9 percent in Uzbekistan, 167.3 percent in Zimbabwe, 149.2 percent in South Africa, 116.8 percent in Rwanda and 100 percent in Vietnam.

After all, because of the complicated social, economic and political factors involved, how to regulate and manage used clothing trade remains a key challenge facing the world community.

U.S. Trade Policy and Textile and Apparel in 2018

Speaker: Julia Hughes, President of the U.S. Fashion Industry Association

Slides of the presentation are available HERE

Patterns of Canada’s Apparel Sourcing and Trade

The full article is available HERE

Key findings:

First, Canada is one of the largest and fastest growing apparel import markets in the world. Data from the UN Comtrade show that the value of Canada’s apparel imports totaled $10.7bn in 2017, which ranked the fifth in the world, only after the European Union (EU), the United States, Japan, and Hong Kong.

Second, the Asian region as a whole is the dominant apparel supplier for Canada. Measured in value, as much as 80.9 percent of Canada’s apparel imports in 2017 came from Asia. Specifically, China (40.6 percent), Bangladesh (11.1 percent), Cambodia (8.1 percent) and Vietnam (7.7 percent) were the top individual supplier for Canada in 2017, and all of them are located in Asia. Meanwhile, Canadian apparel companies are gradually diversifying their sourcing base: the Herfindahl Index (HHI), a commonly adopted measure of market concentration, declined from 0.3 in 2010 to 0.19 in 2017.

Third, the NAFTA-region remains an important apparel-sourcing base for Canada, but its overall influence is in decline. Measured in value, the United States and Mexico were the 6th and 9th top apparel supplier for Canada in 2017 respectively. However, facing the competition from Asia, the United States and Mexico combined accounted for only 6.4 percent of Canada’s apparel imports in 2017, a significant drop from 9.8 percent back in 2007.

Fourth, free trade agreements and trade preference programs provide duty-saving opportunities for apparel sourcing in Canada. In 2017, Canada applied an average tariff rate of 17.1 percent on imports of knitted apparel (HS Chapter 61) and 15.9 percent on woven apparel (HS chapter 62). As of August 2018, Canada has 17 free trade agreements (FTAs) and trade preference programs (TPAs) in force, offering preferential or duty-free market access to Canada. Traditionally, a substantial portion of Canada’s FTA partners come from the Western Hemisphere, such as Chile, Costa Rica, Colombia, Peru, Honduras, and Panama. However, in recent years, Canada has been actively negotiating and reaching new FTAs with countries in Asia (such as South Korea, India, and Japan) and Europe (including the European Union and Ukraine).

Compared with the United States, in general, Canada adopts more liberal rules of origin (RoO) for apparel products. Quite a few Canada FTAs allow companies to source yarns or even fabrics from anywhere in the world – with the finished products still enjoying duty-free treatment when exported to Canada.

[comment for this blog post is closed]

China’s Changing Role in the World Textile and Apparel Supply Chain (updated October 2018)

Following the steps of many countries in history, China is gradually shifting its role in the world textile and apparel supply chain. While China unshakably remains the world’s largest apparel exporter, its market shares measured by value fell from 38.6 percent in 2015 to 33.7 percent in 2017. China’s market shares in the world’s top three largest apparel import markets, namely the United States, EU, and Japan, also indicate a clear downward trend in the past five years. This result is consistent with several recent survey studies, which find that fashion brands and retailers are actively seeking alternative apparel sourcing bases to China. Indeed, no country, including China, can forever keep its comparative advantage in making labor-intensive garments when its economy becomes more industrialized and advanced.

However, it is also important to recognize that China is playing an increasingly important role as a textile supplier for apparel-exporting countries in Asia. For example, measured by value, 47 percent of Bangladesh’s textile imports came from China in 2017, up from 39 percent in 2005. We observe similar trends in Cambodia (up from 30 percent to 65 percent), Vietnam (up from 23 percent to 50 percent), Pakistan (up from 32 percent to 71 percent), Malaysia (up from 25 percent to 54 percent), Indonesia (up from 28 percent to 46 percent), Philippines (up from 19 percent to 41 percent) and Sri Lanka (up from 15 percent to 39 percent) over the same time frame.

So maybe the right question to ask in the future is: how much value of “Made in China” actually contains in Asian countries’ apparel exports to the world?

China’s Textile and Apparel Factories Today

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Related readings:

Are Textile and Apparel “Made in China” Losing Competitiveness in the U.S. Market? (updated October 2018)

A fact-checking review of trade statistics in 2017 of a total 167 categories of textile and apparel (T&A) products categorized by the Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA) suggests that T&A products “Made in China” still have no near competitors in the U.S. import market. Specifically, in 2017:

Of the total 11 categories of yarn, China was the top supplier for 3 categories (or 27.3%);
Of the total 34 categories of fabric, China was the top supplier for 26 categories (or 76.5%);
Of the total 106 categories of apparel, China was the top supplier for 87 categories (or 82.1%);
Of the total 16 categories of made-up textiles, China was the top supplier for 11 categories (or 68.8%);

In comparison, for those Asian T&A suppliers regarded as China’s top competitors:

Vietnam was the top supplier for only 5 categories of apparel (less than 5% of the total);
Bangladesh was the top supplier for only 2 categories of apparel (less than 2% of the total)
India was the top supplier for 1 category of fabric (2.9% of the total), 1 category of apparel (1% of the total) and 5 categories of made-up textiles (41.7% of the total)

Notably, China not only was the top supplier for many T&A products but also held a lion’s market shares. For example, in 2017:

For the 26 categories of fabric that China was the top supplier, China’s average market shares reached 40.5%, 22 percentage points higher than the 2nd top suppliers for these categories
For the 87 categories of apparel that China was the top supplier, China’s average market shares reached 52.4%, 36 percentage points higher than the 2nd top suppliers for these categories.
For the 11 categories of made-up textiles that China was the top supplier, China’s average market shares reached 58%, 43 percentage points higher than the 2nd top suppliers for these categories.

Furthermore, T&A “Made in China” are demonstrating even bigger price competitiveness compared to other suppliers in the U.S. market. For example, in 2017, the unit price of apparel “Made China” was only 74% of the price of “Made in Vietnam” (in 2015 was 80%), 86% of “Made in Bangladesh” (in 2015 was 93%), 85% of “Made in Mexico” (in 2015 was 90%) and 86% of products by members of CAFTA-DR (in 2012 was 98%).

Last but not least, the U.S.-China tariff war apparently has NOT affected China’s textile and apparel exports to the United States significantly. From January to August this year, China’s apparel exports to the U.S. declined by 1% in value and 0.3% in quantity from a year earlier, but China’s textile exports to the U.S. increased by 12.3% in value and 7.2% in quantity. China’s market shares in the U.S. market also remains overall stable.

Are the results surprising? How to explain China’s increasing price competitiveness despite its reported rising labor cost? What’s your outlook for the future of China as a sourcing destination for U.S. fashion brands and retailers? Please feel free to share your views.

Suggested citation: Lu, Sheng. (2018). Are Textile and Apparel “Made in China” Losing Competitiveness in the U.S. Market? (updated October 2018). Retrieved from https://shenglufashion.com/2018/10/28/are-textile-and-apparel-made-in-china-losing-competitiveness-in-the-u-s-market-updated-october-2018/

Apparel Specific Rules of Origin in NAFTA 2.0 (US-Mexico-Canada Free Trade Agreement)

The full article is available HERE

Key findings:

First, in general, USMCA still adopts the so-called “yarn-forward” rules of origin. This means that fibers may be produced anywhere, but each component starting with the yarn used to make the garments must be formed within the free trade area – that is, by USMCA members.

Second, other than the source of yarns and fabrics, USMCA now requires that some specific parts of an apparel item (such as pocket bag fabric) need to use inputs made in the USMCA region so that the finished apparel item can qualify for the import duty-free treatment.

Third, USMCA allows a relatively more generous De minimis than NAFTA 1.0.

Fourth, USMCA seems to be a “balanced deal” that has accommodated the arguments from all sides regarding the tariff preference level (TPL) mechanism:

1) Compared with NAFTA, USMCA will cut the TPL level, but only to those product categories with a low TPL utilization rate;
2) Compared with NAFTA, USMCA will expand the TPL level for a few product categories with a high TPL utilization rate.

Fifth, USMCA will make no change to the Commercial availability/short supply list mechanism in NAFTA 1.0.

Sixth, it remains to be seen whether USMCA will boost Made-in-the-USA fibers, yarns and fabrics by limiting the use of non-USMCA textile inputs. For example, while the new agreement expands the TPL level for U.S. cotton/man-made fiber apparel exports to Canada (currently with a 100 percent utilization rate), these apparel products are NOT required to use U.S.-made yarns and fabrics. The utilization rate of USMCA will also be important to watch in the future.

About USMCA

On 30 September 2018, The United States reached an agreement with Canada, alongside Mexico on the updated North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), now called the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).

Before taking into effect, USMCA still needs to be ratified by all member countries. In the United States, the earliest that President Trump can sign the agreement will be 11/29/2018 (i.e., 90 days after notifying the Congress). The U.S. International Trade Commission has until 3/14/2019 (i.e., 150 days after President signing the agreement) to release an assessment of the new trade agreement. Afterward, the Trump Administration will need to work with the Congress to develop legislation to approve and implement the agreement.

USITC Releases New Study on the State of the U.S. Textile and Apparel Manufacturing Sector

A recent study released by the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) provides a comprehensive review and valuable insights into the state of textile and apparel manufacturing in the United States. According to the study:

First, data suggests a mixed picture of the recovery of textile manufacturing in the U.S.

Total capital expenditures in plants and equipment for the textile sector increased by 36 percent in the 2013–16 period. Interesting enough, much of the new investment is by foreign firms, including new investments by Chinese and Indian firms, as well as by firms from Mexico, Canada, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia.
U.S. textile shipments increased in 2017 to $39.6 billion, but remained 3 percent below the 2013 level. The result suggests that rather than simply increasing capacity, some of the new investment is likely replacing existing equipment, as firms upgrade and modernize their manufacturing processes and/or focus their operations on different products. [Note: shipments measure the dollar value of products sold by manufacturing establishments and are based on net selling values, f.o.b. (free on board) plant, after discounts and allowances are excluded]
At $10.6 billion, U.S. textile exports in 2017 were also below the five-year high of $12.1 billion in 2014.
Employment in the textiles sector declined by 4 percent from 131,000 in 2013 to an estimated 126,000 in 2017. Meanwhile, official data on labor productivity index for yarns and fabrics show steady declines during 2013–16.

Second, some evidence suggests that reshoring has taken place in recent years in the apparel sector, although on a modest scale.

For the 2013–16 period, capital expenditures were up 5 percent to $301 million, suggesting capital investment in the apparel sector may be increasing, as the industry begins to adopt more labor-saving technologies.
Domestic shipments of apparel showed modest increases in the past two years, reaching $12.0 billion in 2016 and $12.5 billion in 2017, after a record low of $11.5 billion in 2014 and 2015.
Employment in the apparel sector steadily declined during 2013–17, down 21 percent from 145,000 workers in 2013 to 120,000 workers in 2017. Official data on labor productivity also showed steady declines during 2013–16.
U.S. fashion companies continue to source apparel from the United States, although in a relatively small amount.

Third, the advantages of making textiles and apparel in the United States include:

Advantages of producing textiles in the United States include local and state incentives for investment, and the benefits afforded by free trade agreement (FTA) preferences (i.e., the “yarn-forward” rules of origin) that encourage the use of U.S.-produced inputs in downstream production in FTA partner countries, energy cost and the availability and reliability of high-quality cotton. Meanwhile, product innovation and automation are important aspects of the U.S. textile sector’s competitiveness strategy.
Advantages of producing apparel in the United States include improved lead times, better quality control, and more flexible production. Many domestically made products also use “Made in USA” branding to capitalize on the buy-American trend and the appeal of “Made in USA.” The adoption of various automation and digital technologies to accelerate the process of product development, improve the fit of the final product and reduce the needs for skilled sewing operators may also help improve the competitiveness.

Textile and Apparel Items Removed from USTR’s Original Proposed Product List for the Section 301 Action (September 2018)

On September 17, 2018, President Trump formerly announced to take the Section 301 action against another $200 billion worth of imports from China. The additional tariffs will be effective starting September 24, 2018, and initially will be in the amount of 10 percent. Starting January 1, 2019, the level of the additional tariffs will increase to 25 percent.

The $200 billion imports from China targeted include 5,745 full or partial lines of the original 6,031 tariff lines that were on a proposed list of Chinese imports announced on July 10, 2018. Included among the products removed from the original proposed list are certain consumer electronics products such as smart watches and Bluetooth devices; certain chemical inputs for manufactured goods, textiles and agriculture; certain health and safety products such as bicycle helmets, and child safety furniture such as car seats and playpens.

Below are the textile and apparel related products removed from the original proposed list:

Data source: CCCT (2018)

However, the final $200 billion product list still covers several textile and apparel-related products such as backpacks, handbags, purses, wallets, baseball gloves, hats and leather, and fur apparel, as well as textiles and machinery that are used for domestic manufacturing. In general, the final $200 billion product list includes about 20% consumer products (v.s. only 1% in the $50 billion already subject to the 25% additional tariff), 50% intermediary goods and 30% capital goods.

Trade War Looms over New York Fashion Week

Discussion questions:

Why does the U.S. textile industry call for additional tariffs on textile and apparel imports from China whereas U.S. fashion brands and apparel retailers oppose the tariffs?
Based on the trade theories we have learned so far, why or why not would you recommend President Trump to impose 25% punitive tariffs on imports from China?

Appendix: Comments on the Proposed Section 301 Tariffs on Imports from China (August 2018)

National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO)—Representing U.S. textile industry
U.S. Fashion Industry Association (USFIA)—Representing U.S. fashion brands and apparel retailers
American Apparel and Footwear Association (AAFA)—Representing U.S. apparel companies

For the complete timeline of the U.S. Section 301 tariff action against China, please click HERE

Textile and Apparel “Made in the World”

While shopping in SoHo (NYC), Nicole Farese, a student from FASH455, found the label of a Splendid sweater reads “Made of Italian Yarn” and “Made in China”. Splendid is a casual wear store which is known for their high-quality clothing sold at a premium price.

Exercise: Check your wardrobe and can you find any clothing that is also made through a “global supply chain?” Please feel free to submit your picture with a brief description of your item to shenglu@udel.edu.

BIS Released Assessment Report of the U.S. Textile and Apparel Manufacturing Sector

The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) under the U.S. Department of Commerce recently released its assessment report of the U.S. textile and apparel (T&A) manufacturing sector. The report was based on a survey of 571 U.S. T&A manufacturers in summer 2017. These respondents include 230 textile mills (NAICS 313), 128 textile product mills (NAICS 314), and 213 apparel manufacturers (NAICS 315).

Below are the key findings of the study:

The state of the U.S. textile and apparel (T&A) manufacturing sector

U.S. T&A manufacturing has shrunk significantly: the value of T&A shipments (seasonally adjusted) in 2016 ($68 billion) was almost 56% decrease in real terms since 1995 ($153 billion).
U.S. T&A manufacturing has undergone substantial structural change: textiles and textile products accounted for 82% of the total shipments of the U.S. T&A industry as of 2016, compared to 57% in 1995. Notably, only 18% of shipments came from apparel manufacturing in 2016, compared to 43% in 1995.
U.S. T&A manufacturing sector is hiring less: Between 1990 and 2016, total employment decreased by 79%, from 1.7 million to 352,000 workers; over the same period, over 86% of apparel manufacturing jobs disappeared.
U.S. T&A manufacturers are making more capital investments: The overall total Capital Expenditures (CAPEX) of the 571 respondents increased 90 percent from 2012 to 2016 (from $1.6 billion to $3.1 billion). Particularly, the CAPEX of textile mills grew by 80 percent over that period—mostly on “Machinery, Equipment, and Vehicles.”
North Carolina hosted the largest number of U.S. T&A facilities (22 percent of the respondents), followed by Georgia (10 percent), and South Carolina (9 percent).
China, Mexico, and Canada are the most popular destinations for foreign investments by U.S. T&A manufacturers.

Competition landscape and factors

Respondents listed a total of 1,309 U.S. competitors and 552 non-U.S. competitors. Chinese companies were cited as the number one source of foreign competition.
“Quality,” “Lead Time,” and “Innovation” were the top three competitive advantages of U.S. T&A manufacturers as they related to foreign competition. “Labor Costs” was regarded as the top disadvantage of U.S. T&A manufacturing.
43 percent of respondents believed that reshoring was occurring in U.S. T&A manufacturing. Almost all of these respondents believed that “Shorter Lead Times” and the “Marketability of the ‘Made in USA’ Label” were the factors driving the trend.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA), Minimum Wage regulations (Federal, State, and Local), and U.S. Trade Policy were the top governmental regulations and provisions cited as negatively impacting the competitiveness of U.S. T&A manufacturers.
61 percent of respondents reported that they had difficulties hiring and/or retaining employees for their T&A operations, specifically production line workers such as operators and machine technicians. The skill gaps in the labor market for those positions were by far the biggest ones identified for the industry.
43 percent of respondents believed that reshoring was occurring in T&A manufacturing (i.e., the practice of transferring a business operation that was moved to a non-U.S. location back to the United States.) Textile manufacturers were more likely to be aware of reshoring.

Trade and U.S. textile and apparel manufacturing

On average, respondents say 48 percent of their textile and textile products are “100 percent made in the U.S.”, while for apparel it was around 54 percent.
U.S. T&A exports dropped 10 percent between 2012 and 2016, from $2.2 billion to $1.98 billion. On average, exports accounted for only 12 percent of respondents’ total sales.
33 percent of respondents considered themselves to be dependent on foreign sources for supplies, which was highest among textile mills.
37 percent of respondents reported that they considered themselves to be dependent on non-U.S. sourcing for their machinery or equipment.

Berry Amendment and U.S. textile and apparel manufacturing

For textile mills, an average of 12 percent of U.S. output was Berry Amendment-related; for textile product mills the average was 21 percent, and for apparel production, it averaged 26 percent. 67 percent of respondents believed that the Berry Amendment had a positive impact on their organization’s business.

U.S. and Mexico Reached a Deal to Replace NAFTA

us-mexico-trade-agreement

The Office of U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) announced that the United States and Mexico have “reached a preliminary agreement in principle” to update the 24-year old North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). According to USTR, compared with the existing NAFTA, the new deal will

strengthen the labor and environmental protection provisions
provide stronger and more effective protection and enforcement of intellectual property right protection
reduce various non-tariff barriers facing U.S. agriculture exports
include new rules of origin and origin procedures for autos (including requiring 75 percent of auto content be made in the United States and Mexico AND 40-45 percent of auto content be made by workers earning at least $16 per hour.)
include new chapters dealing with digital trade and textiles
include a 16-year “sunset period” with a review every six years, at which time the parties can renew the deal for another 16 years.

Specifically for the textile and apparel sector, USTR said that “The new provisions on textiles incentivize greater United States and Mexican production in textiles and apparel trade, strengthen customs enforcement, and facilitate broader consultation and cooperation among the Parties on issues related to textiles and apparel trade.” More specifically, the new textile chapter in renegotiated NAFTA will:

1) Promote greater use of Made-in-the-USA fibers, yarns, and fabrics by limiting rules that allow for some use of non-NAFTA inputs in textile and apparel trade; and requiring that sewing thread, pocketing fabric, narrow elastic bands, and coated fabric, when incorporated in apparel and other finished products, be made in the region for those finished products to qualify for trade benefits. “

2) Include textile-specific verification and customs cooperation provisions that provide new tools for strengthening customs enforcement and preventing fraud and circumvention.

Based on USTR’s statement, it is likely, although not confirmed, that the US-Mexico deal will allow more limited tariff preference level (TPL) than the existing NAFTA.

USTR’s statement also said that the new deal would be subject to “finalization and implementation,” and its relationship with NAFTA remain unclear. The statement did not mention anything about Canada, another NAFTA member, either. Interesting enough, when announcing the US-Mexico deal in front of the press, President Trump said “I will terminate the existing deal (NAFTA). When that happens, I can’t quite tell you; it depends on what the timetable is with Congress. But I’ll be terminating the existing deal and going into this deal. We’ll start negotiating with Canada relatively soon.”

In a statement released on the same day, the American Apparel and Footwear Association (AAFA) said it welcomed the conclusion of bilateral talks with Mexico on NAFTA and emphasized the need for Canada to be a part of any final agreement: “The conclusion of talks between the U.S. and Mexico is a positive step in the NAFTA negotiations, however, it is essential that the updated agreement remain trilateral. At the same time, we encourage the administration to share the details of the agreement so the business community can inspect the impact on North American supply chains and share feedback with the administration and Congress…Any update to the agreement must continue to support these American jobs, promote trade linkages, and be seamlessly implemented to be considered a success. It is with this in mind that we are deeply concerned to hear any mention of withdrawal or termination of the existing agreement at this late stage.”

According to Inside U.S. Trade, the National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO) which represents the U.S. textile industry says it is “encouraged by the information released by USTR with respect to strengthening the rules of origin for textiles and apparel in the announced agreement with Mexico. U.S. talks with Canada are still ongoing, however, and NCTO will wait to review the text of any final agreement before issuing a more detailed statement on the negotiation outcome.”

WTO Reports World Textile and Apparel Trade in 2017

Statistical review of world textile and apparel trade in 2018 is now available

According to the newly released World Trade Statistical Review 2018 by the World Trade Organization (WTO), the current dollar value of world textiles (SITC 65) and apparel (SITC 84) exports totaled $296.1bn and $454.5bn respectively in 2017, increased by 4.2% and 2.8% from a year earlier. This is the first time since 2015 that the value of world textile and apparel exports enjoyed a growth.

Textiles and apparel are not alone. Driven by rising demand for imports globally, the current dollar value of world merchandise exports also grew by 4.7% in 2017–its most robust growth in six years, to reach $17.43 trillion. Particularly, the ratio of trade growth to GDP growth finally returned to its historic average of 1.5, compared to the much lower 1.0 ratio recorded in the years following the 2008 financial crisis.

China, European Union (EU28), and India remained the world’s top three exporters of textiles in 2017. Altogether, these top three accounted for 66.3% of world textile exports in 2017, up from 65.9% in 2016. All the top three also enjoyed a faster-than-average export growth in 2017, including 5.0% of China, 5.8% of EU(28) and 5.9% of India. The United States remained the world’s fourth top textile exporter in 2017, accounting for 4.6 percent of the shares, the same as a year earlier.

Regarding apparel, China, the European Union (EU28), Bangladesh and Vietnam unshakably remained the world’s top four largest exporters in 2017. Altogether, these top four accounted for as much as 75.8% of world market shares in 2017, which was higher than 74.3% a year earlier and a substantial increase from 68.3% back in 2007.

Continuing with the emerging trend in recent years, China is exporting less apparel and more textiles to the world. Notably, China’s market shares in world apparel exports fell from its peak—38.8% in 2014 to a record low of 34.9% in 2017. Meanwhile, China accounted for 37.1% of world textile exports in 2017, which was a new record high. It is important to recognize that China is playing an increasingly critical role as a textile supplier for many apparel-exporting countries in Asia. Measured by value, 47% of Bangladesh’s textile imports came from China in 2017, up from 39% in 2005. We observe similar trends in Cambodia (up from 30% to 65 %), Vietnam (up from 23 % to 50 %), Pakistan (up from 32 % to 71 %), Malaysia (up from 25 % to 54 %), Indonesia (up from 28 % to 46 %), Philippines (up from 19 % to 41 %) and Sri Lanka (up from 15 % to 39 %) over the same period.

Additional readings:
Lu, S. (2018). Changing trends in world textile and apparel trade. Just-Style.
Lu, S. (2018). How regional supply chains are shaping world textile and apparel trade. Just-Style.

2018 U.S. Fashion Industry Benchmarking Study Released

The 2019 U.S. Fashion Industry Benchmarking Study is now available. cover

The report can be downloaded from HERE

Key findings of this year’s study:

Business challenges facing U.S. fashion companies: Protectionism is the top challenge for the U.S. fashion industry in 2018. More companies worry about increases in production or sourcing cost, too. For the second year in a row, “protectionist trade policy agenda in the United States” ranks the top challenge for U.S. fashion companies in 2018.

Industry outlook: Despite concerns about trade policy and cost, executives are more confident about the five-year outlook for the U.S. fashion industry in 2018 than they were a year ago, although confidence has not fully recovered to the level seen in 2015 and 2016. In addition, 100 percent of respondents say they plan to hire more employees in the next five years, compared with 80-85 percent in previous studies; market analysts, data scientists, sustainability/compliance related specialists or managers, and supply chain specialists are expected to be the most in-demand.

U.S. fashion companies’ sourcing strategy: When it comes to sourcing, diversification is key for many companies.

Most respondents continue to maintain a diverse sourcing base, with 60.7 percent currently sourcing from 10+ different countries or regions, up from 57.6 percent in 2017.
Larger companies, in general, continue to be more diversified than smaller companies.
Reflecting the U.S. fashion industry’s growing global reach, respondents report sourcing from as many as 51 countries or regions in 2018, the same as in 2017. Asia as a whole continues to take the lead as the dominant sourcing region. Meanwhile, with the growing importance of speed-to-market and flexibility, the Western Hemisphere is becoming an indispensable sourcing base.
Keeping a relatively diverse sourcing base will remain a key element of U.S. fashion companies’ sourcing strategy. Nearly 80 percent of respondents plan to source from the same number of countries, or more countries, in the next two years. However, respondents are equally divided on whether to increase or decrease the number of suppliers they will work with.
“China plus Vietnam plus Many” has become an ever more popular sourcing model among respondents. And this model is evolving as companies further diversify their China production. In particular, China now typically accounts for only 11-30 percent of companies’ total sourcing value or volume, compared with 30-50 percent in the past.
Although China’s position as the top sourcing destination is unshakable, companies are actively seeking alternatives to “Made in China.” This does not seem to be due to concerns about cost, but rather the worries about the escalating U.S.-China trade tensions.
Benefiting from the diversification away from China, Vietnam and Bangladesh are expected to play a bigger role as apparel suppliers for the U.S. market in the near future.

Rules of origin and the utilization of trade agreements for sourcing: Rules of origin, and exceptions to the rules of origin, significantly impact whether companies use free trade agreements (FTAs) and trade preference programs for sourcing.

While FTAs and trade preference programs remain largely underutilized by U.S. fashion companies, more companies are using NAFTA (65 percent), CAFTA-DR (58 percent) and AGOA (50 percent) than in the past two years.
Still, it’s concerning that companies often do not claim the duty-free benefits when sourcing from countries with FTAs or preference programs. Companies say this is primarily due to the strict rules of origin.
Exceptions to the “yarn-forward” rules of origin, including tariff preference levels (TPLs), commercial availability/short supply lists, and cumulation, are priorities for respondents; 48 percent say they currently use these mechanisms for sourcing. These exceptions provide critical flexibilities that make companies more likely to use FTAs and source from FTA regions.

NAFTA: U.S. fashion companies call for a further reduction of trade barriers and urge trade negotiators to “do no harm” to NAFTA, the most-utilized free trade agreement by respondents.

Respondents predominantly support initiatives to eliminate trade barriers of all kinds, from high tariffs to overcomplicated documentation requirements, to restrictive rules of origin in NAFTA and future free trade agreements.
More than half of respondents explicitly say NAFTA is important to their business—and they have grave concerns about the uncertain future of the agreement.

Sourcing in sustainable and socially compliant ways: Overall, U.S. fashion companies are making more commitments to sustainability and social responsibility.

85 percent of respondents plan to allocate more resources for sustainability and social compliance in the next two years, in areas including providing training to suppliers and internal employees, adding more employees, and working more closely with third-party certification programs on sustainability and social compliance. However, the availability of operational budget remains the primary hurdle for companies that want to do more.
100 percent of respondents map their supply chains (i.e., keep records of name, location, and function of suppliers), up from 90 percent in 2017. Over 80 percent of respondents track not only Tier 1 suppliers (i.e., factory where the final product is assembled), but also Tier 2 suppliers (i.e., subcontractors or major component suppliers, such as fabrics). However, it’s less common for companies to map Tier 3 (i.e., yarn spinners, finding and trimming suppliers) and Tier 4 suppliers (i.e., raw materials suppliers, such as cattle/pig hides, rubber, cotton, wool, goose down, minerals/metals and chemicals).
100 percent of respondents audit their suppliers for issues including building safety, fire safety, and treatment of workers. The vast majority of respondents (96 percent) currently use third-party certification programs to audit, with both announced and unannounced audits.

The US Fashion Industry Benchmarking Study from 2014 to 2017 can be downloaded from HERE

U.S. Textile and Apparel Industry Responds to Trump’s Tariff Announcement against China

FOREIGN201708211521000183597989940

On June 15, 2018, the Trump Administration announced to impose a 25% punitive tariff on a list of Chinese goods based on the results of its Section 301 investigation, which targeted against China’s unfair trade practices related to the forced transfer of American technology and intellectual property. The additional duty will first apply to 818 lines of products on July 6, 2018, which cover approximately $34 billion worth of imports from China. Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) said it would issue a final determination on the second set of 284 proposed tariff lines, which cover approximately $16 billion worth of imports from China shortly. The total 1,102 tariff lines targeted by USTR generally focuses on products from industrial sectors that contribute to or benefit from the “Made in China 2025” industrial policy, which include industries such as aerospace, information and communications technology, robotics, industrial machinery, new materials, and automobiles.

In response to the U.S. action, China’s Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) quickly announced its proposed countermeasures, including a 25% punitive tariff on approximately $34 billion worth of U.S. soybean, autos, and fruits effective July 6, 2018. China is also ready to impose the punitive tariff on another list of products, which cover approximately $16 billion worth of medical device, chemicals and energy imports from the United States.

The U.S. textile and apparel industry keeps a close watch on the U.S.-China trade dispute since as much as 36% of U.S. textile and apparel imports come from China. In an announcement released on June 16, 2018, the American Apparel and Footwear Association (AAFA) called a victory that no textile and apparel products are subject to the punitive tariff proposed by USTR. The June 15 USTR list also removes the majority of the textile machinery initially on the retaliation product list back in April 2018. However, U.S. fashion brands and apparel retailers remain deeply concerned about Trump’s tariff action and its potential negative economic impacts on the apparel sector.

In contrast, the U.S. textile industry, represented by the National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO) praised the Trump administration’s tariff announcement. NCTO also called on the Trump administration to include finished textile and apparel products on any future lists of imports from China to be made subject to Section 301 tariffs. Not surprisingly, NCTO’s proposal is opposed strongly by AAFA and the U.S. Fashion Industry Association, representing U.S. fashion brands and apparel retailers. As argued by USFIA, the U.S. tariff rates on apparel and fashion products are already the highest among manufactured goods, reaching 32 percent for man-made fiber apparel and 67 percent for footwear. Any additional tariff would constitute a huge, regressive tax increase and have a negative impact on the American jobs.

Appendix: Timeline of U.S. Section 301 Investigation against China

June 15, 2018: The Trump Administration announced to impose a 25% punitive tariff on a list of Chinese goods based on the results of its section 301 investigation

June 4, 2018: Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross concluded his two-day trade negotiation with China in Beijing. A White House statement said “the meetings focused on reducing the United States’ trade deficit by facilitating the supply of agricultural and energy products to meet China’s growing consumption needs, which will help support growth and employment in the United States. The United States officials conveyed President Donald J. Trump’s clear goal for achieving a fair trading relationship with China.” While the announcement didn’t mention the next round, it says that the delegation will “receive guidance on the path forward.”

May 29, 2018: President Trump suddenly announced that the United States will impose a 25 percent tariff on $50 billion of goods imported from China containing industrially significant technology, including those related to the “Made in China 2025” program. The final list of covered imports will be announced by June 15, 2018. The announcement also said that the U.S. Trade Representative Office (USTR) will continue WTO dispute settlement against China originally initiated in March to address China’s discriminatory technology licensing requirements. Additionally, the United States will implement specific investment restrictions and enhanced export controls for Chinese persons and entities related to the acquisition of industrially significant technology. The list of restrictions and controls will be announced by June 30, 2018.

May 19, 2018: A joint statement released by the White House said that the United States and China had led to an agreement for China to buy more goods and services, including “meaningful increases in U.S. agriculture and energy exports.” The statement also said that both sides attach importance to intellectual property protections, agreed to encourage two-way investment and to strive to create a fair, level playing field for competition, and agreed to engage at high levels on trade and investment issues. Additionally, the statement said that the United States would send a team to China to work out the details of the agreement. However, the statement did not contain a specific target for reducing the $375 billion trade deficits.

April 5, 2018: President Trump announced that he has instructed the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to consider $100 billion additional retaliatory tariffs on China, in response to China’s own retaliation against the Section 301 tariffs announced in late March. In a statement released the next day, USTR confirms the proposed new measures. USTR also says that any additional tariffs proposed will be subject to a similar public comment process as the proposed tariffs announced on April 3, 2018. No tariffs will go into effect until the respective process is complete.

April 3, 2018: USTR released the proposed list of Chinese products to be subject to the retaliatory tariff under the Section 301 action. The proposed list covers approximately 1,300 separate tariff lines and will undergo further review in a public notice and comment process, including a hearing (scheduled at around May 15, 2018). The USTR statement says it will make a final decision on whether to implement the proposed tariff action after the whole process.

March 26, 2018: USTR filed a WTO case against China’s discriminatory technology licensing requirements (DS542). The US claimed that China’s measures appear to be inconsistent with Articles 3, 28.1(a) and (b) and 28.2 of the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS). As of April 8, 2018, the European Union, Japan, Ukraine and Saudi Arabia have requested to join the dispute as third parties. According to the WTO rule, China shall enter into consultation with the US no later than April 26, 2018. If the dispute is not resolved by May 25, 2018 (i.e., 60 days after the request for consultation), the United States may request a WTO panel. As of June 17, 2018, the case is still in consultations.

March 22, 2018: President Trump announced his decisions on the actions the Administration will take in response to China’s unfair trade practices covered in the USTR Section 301 investigation of China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation. U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer initiated the investigation in August 2017 at the direction of President Trump. In the Memorandum he signed, President Trump directed the US Trade Representative to level tariffs on about $50 billion worth of Chinese imports.

January 2018: the U.S. Trade Representative Office submitted its annual report on China’s WTO Compliance to U.S. Congress. The report says that “It seems clear that the United States erred in supporting China’s entry into the WTO on terms that have proven to be ineffective in securing China’s embrace of an open, market-orientated trade regime.”

August 14, 2017: President Trump issued a memorandum directing the USTR to determine if China’s policies regarding IPR theft and forced technology requirements “may be harming American intellectual property rights, innovation, or technology development,” and thus warrant USTR action under Section 301of the 1974 Trade Act.

Sourcing Strategy of Leading U.S. Fashion Brands and Apparel Retailers (updated in May 2018)

The Section 301 Investigation against China Divides the U.S. Textile Industry and U.S. Fashion Brands and Retailers

FOREIGN201708211603000328832175771

On April 3, 2018, the U.S. Trade Representative Office (USTR) released the proposed list of Chinese products to be subject to the retaliatory tariff under the Section 301 action. The proposed list covers approximately 1,300 separate tariff lines, including textile machinery. However, textile and apparel (HS chapters 50 to 63) were not on the list.

USTR says it will make a final decision on whether to implement the proposed tariff action after a public hearing process scheduled at around May 15, 2018. Most U.S.-based textile and apparel industry associated have submitted their public comments regarding the section 301 investigation. Because of their respective commercial interests, not surprisingly, the U.S. textile industry favors the retaliatory tariffs on imports from China whereas U.S. fashion brands and retailers oppose the action strongly. Specifically:

National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO)

NCTO applauds the Trump Administration’s formal initiation of a Section 301 case designed to address China’s persistent and highly damaging actions in the area of intellectual property theft. NCTO argues that illegal activity on the part of the government of China has gone on for far too long, at the direct expense of U.S. manufacturers and the loss of millions of U.S. manufacturing jobs.
The U.S. textile industry is severely disappointed that the retaliation list published by USTR on April 3 does not contain a single textile or apparel product.
NCTO argues that China’s illegal IPR activities have damaged the U.S. textile industry and recommend that textile and apparel products be added to the retaliation list.

The United States Fashion Industry Association (USFIA)

USFIA opposes adding apparel (items classifiable under chapters 61 and 62 of the HTSUS) and other fashion products (such as footwear, handbags, and luggage) to the retaliation list against China.
USFIA argues that tariffs are NOT the appropriate mechanism to redress the activities outlined in USTR’s report to the White House. Imposing tariffs on imports of fashion products would do nothing to solve the concerns about China’s IP policies and practices outlined in USTR’s Section 301 report.
USFIA believes that the best way to address concerns about China’s IPR practices is action at the multilateral level that includes other US trading partners.

American Apparel and Footwear Association (AAFA)

AAFA strongly opposes the proposed imposition of tariffs on textile, apparel, and footwear equipment and machinery as this will result in increased costs for AAFA members who are making yarns, fabrics, clothes, and shoes in the United States.
AAFA believes that a tariff on textile and apparel products would be a hidden tax on U.S. consumers, particularly since China represents such a large source of U.S. imports of these products.
AAFA strongly supports the Trump Administration’s efforts to improve the protection of intellectual property rights in China.

New CRS Report: U.S. Trade with Free Trade Agreement (FTA) Partners

Key findings:

Between 1985 and 2011, the United States entered into 14 free trade agreements (FTAs) with 20 countries. Data from the Census shows that U.S. merchandise trade (or trade in goods) with FTA partner countries represents nearly 70% of all U.S. exports in goods and services, and more than 80% of all U.S. imports of goods and services.
In 2016, the United States ran a merchandise trade deficit of -$71.3 billion with the 20 FTA partner countries and a services surplus of $68.9 billion. The share of the U.S. trade deficit with FTA partners, however, has fallen by nearly half over the 2007-2017 period, from 18% to only about 10% of the total -$734.4 billion U.S. merchandise trade deficit.

Regarding the economic impact of FTAs on the United States, a study conducted by the U.S. International Trade Commission suggests that bilateral and regional trade agreements increased U.S. aggregate trade by about 3%, but less than 1% for U.S. employment (or 159,300 full-time equivalent employees). Specifically, the study finds that rising imports, due in part to the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC), accounted for most of the reduction in U.S. employment in the apparel industry between 1998 and 2014.
Current trade data treat exports and imports as though the full value of an export was produced domestically and the full value of an import was produced abroad. However, the rapid growth of global value chains and intra-industry trade (importing and exporting goods in the same industry) has significantly increased the amount of trade in intermediate goods in ways that can blur the distinction between domestic and foreign firms and goods. For example, foreign value added accounts for about 11% of the content of U.S. exports in 2010. As a result of the growth in value chains, traditional methods of measuring trade may obscure the actual sources of goods and services and the allocation of resources that are used in producing those goods and services.

Trade agreements of the type currently being negotiated by the United States comprise a broad range of issues that could have significant economic effects on trade and commercial relations over the long run between the negotiating parties, particularly for developing and emerging economies. However, the negative effects of international trade and trade agreements, particularly potential job losses and lower wages, often are distributed disproportionately with the effects falling more heavily on some workers and on some firms.

The full report can be downloaded from HERE

Regional Textile and Apparel Supply Chains–Questions from FASH455

NAFTA and Textile and Apparel Rules of Origin

#1 How do rules of origin (RoO) and free trade agreement (FTA) regulations affect speed to market in apparel sourcing? Do countries who are part of an FTA find it to be easier to get to market in a shorter amount of time if they are working with other FTA members? Or could RoO slow down the production process because producers have to be more careful about compliance with the complicated RoO?

#2 Why or why not the “yarn forward” rules of origin remains an effective way to promote textile and apparel production in the Western-Hemisphere? What other options are available to improve the competitiveness of the Western-Hemisphere textile and apparel supply chain?

#3 What would happen to the Western-Hemisphere textile and apparel supply chain should NAFTA no longer exist?

#4 Should NAFTA be responsible for the loss of US apparel manufacturing jobs? Any hard evidence?

#5 If you were U.S. trade negotiators, what would you do with TPL in NAFTA given the competing views from the U.S. textile industry and U.S. fashion brands and retailers?

The Outlook of “Factory-Asia”

#6 From the perspective of the U.S. textile and apparel industry, is it a good idea for the United States to reach free trade agreement (FTA) with Asian countries? If so, what countries should be included in the new FTA? If not, why?

#7 How can U.S. companies get involved in the Asia-based textile and apparel supply chain?

#8 Why or why not is the “Flying geese model” unique to Asia? Can the model be replicated in America too?

(Welcome to join our online discussion. Please mention the question number in your reply)

Competition in the U.S. Apparel Import Market (Updated March 2018)

CPTPP Tariff Phaseout Schedule for Textiles and Apparel

The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), signed on March 8, 2018, is a new free trade agreement between Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. Once the CPTPP enters into force, it will be one of the largest free trade agreements in the world and will provide enhanced market access to key Asian markets. Below is the detailed tariff phaseout schedule for textile and apparel products by CPTPP members:

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

by Sheng Lu

Social and Economic Impacts of Apparel Trade–Questions from FASH455

Used-clothes-e1501882805445

Debate on Used clothing trade and AGOA

#1 What evidence can support the arguments that cutting off secondhand clothing imports from Africa will allow African nations to build their own textile industry? Likewise, what evidence can support the arguments that African countries overall benefit from importing used clothing from countries like the United States?

#2 Given the debate on used clothing trade on African nations, will you continue to donate used clothing? Why or why not?

#3 China holds a dominant position in textile and apparel production and exports because of their vast amounts of technology, workers, and resources. How do you think least developing countries like Africa will be able to keep up with such steep competition? Why or why not it is a wise decision for the United States to threaten to take away East African countries’ benefits under AGOA?

Social and economic impact of apparel trade

#4 Is factory employment in India a step in the right direction for the country’s gender equality? What effects, positive or negative, could such employment have in regards to gender issues?

#5 We keep arguing that globalization is negative because we are taking jobs away from U.S. workers. But by sending more work to factories in India, we’ve created jobs for these Indian women who, before working in the factories, were sheltered and only sent off into the world for arranged marriage. In this sense, is globalization still negative if we’re creating a sense of freedom and purpose for these women?

#6 As detailed in the article, the working conditions and treatment of workers is extremely unethical in some garment factories. Can globalization help this issue or hurt it more?

#7 How do you compare your life to the Indian girls in the article? And please just imagine: ten years later, what will the life of these Indian girls look like? How about yours?

Welcome to our online discussion! Please mention the question # in your comment.

Automation Comes to Fashion

Video Discussion Questions:

#1 Why do you agree or disagree with the video that automation will post a significant challenge to garment workers in developing countries such as Bangladesh? How should policymakers react to the challenges?

#2 Can automation be a permanent solution to the social responsibility problem in the garment industry?

#3 In your view, how will automation affect the big landscape of apparel sourcing and the patterns of world textile and apparel trade?

#4 Why or why not do you anticipate a sizable return of apparel manufacturing to the United States if apparel production can be largely automated?

Additional reading: The robots are coming for garment workers. (WSJ, 2018)

Please feel free to share your views and join our online discussion!

US Continues to Lose Textile and Apparel Manufacturing Jobs in 2017

It may disappoint those who are hoping a return of textile and apparel manufacturing jobs in the United States. But according to latest statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the U.S. textile industry (NAICS 313 and 314) and apparel industry (NAICS 315) respectively lost another 4,100 and 10,100 jobs in 2017. Between January 2005 and December 2017, 44.2% and 56.3% of jobs in the U.S. textile and apparel sectors were gone.

From the academic perspective, a sizable return of textile and apparel manufacturing job in the United States seems to be extremely unlikely given the nature of the U.S. and the global economy in the 21st century.

Notably, the rising import is found NOT a significant factor leading to the decline in employment in the U.S. textile industry (NAICS 313). As estimated by a US International Trade Commission study in 2016, imports were found only contributed 0.4 percent of the total 7.6 percent annual employment decline in the U.S. textile industry between 1998 and 2014. Instead, more job losses in the sector were caused by: 1) the improved productivity as a result of capitalization and automation (around 4.6 percent annually); and (2) the shrinkage of domestic demand for the U.S. made textiles (around 3.5 percent annually).

And consistent with the prediction of classic trade theories, as capital and technology abundant developed country, the United States, not surprisingly, continues to lose its comparative advantage in making labor-intensive apparel. Hypothetically, apparel “Made in the USA” may come back if apparel manufacturing can be substantially automated like textile manufacturing. However, net job creation in the sector as a result of automation is hard to tell. Additionally, most U.S. apparel companies heavily rely on global sourcing and non-manufacturing activities such as branding, marketing, and design today. Few companies still regard “manufacturing” a key competitive advantage or an area of strategic importance to invest in the future.

Is It Necessary to Cut Trade Deficit and Achieve Trade Balance?

While the Trump Administration is seeking to reduce the U.S. trade deficit and achieve a more “balanced trade” with its trading partners, a newly-released World Economic Forum (WEC) paper questions the necessity and economic rationale of doing so. As argued by the paper:

First, a country’s trade balance is NOT a measurement of its international commercial success. Neither is the case that “imports are bad and exports are good. “Instead, the paper says that “it is more accurate to think of imports as the benefits of trade, and exports as the cost that needs to be paid to obtain these benefits.”

Second, it is a misconception that “trade deficits cause a reduction in employment and production and trade surplus increase them.” Rather, imports could increase because of an increase in domestic income thereby increasing the aggregate demand. Empirical studies also overwhelmingly find that rapid economic growth and larger trade deficit are associated with faster employment growth in the United States in history (see the graphs above).

Third, as the supply chain goes global, a tax on imported inputs can reduce rather than promote a country’s exports, particularly manufacturing goods (for example high tariffs on imported fabrics will reduce the price competitiveness of clothing exports). Likewise, trade barriers could disrupt production and reduce domestic employment in both the “protected” industries and those downstream sectors that use their outputs.

Fourth, primarily trade balance is a function of a country’s national saving and investments, not of trade policies. In other words, trade policies, such as higher tariffs and quantitative restrictions, will have no impact on a country’s trade balance. Interesting enough, countries like Singapore which maintain fairly low trade barriers, run a trade surplus equal to as high as 20% of its GDP. In comparison, India was one of the most highly protected economies in the early 1990s when it experienced unsustainable large trade deficits. Further, there is a dynamic balance between a country’s trade balance and exchange rate: in an open economy, reducing a country’s imports could lead to an appreciation of its currency and eventually hurt its exports as well.

What is your view on the trade deficit and trade balance? Why do you agree or disagree with the arguments of the WEC paper? Do you find any evidence that challenges the findings of the paper? Please feel free to leave your comments.

Outlook 2018: Apparel Industry Issues in the Year Ahead

Outlook 2019: Apparel Industry Issues in the Year Ahead is available

In January 2018, Just-Style consulted a panel of industry leaders and scholars in its Outlook 2018–Apparel Industry Issues in the Year Ahead management briefing. Below is my contribution to the report. All suggestions and comments are most welcome!

1. What do you see as the biggest challenges – and opportunities – facing the apparel industry in 2018, and why?

One of the biggest opportunities facing the apparel industry in 2018 could be the faster growth of the world economy. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the global growth forecast for 2018 is expected to reach 3.7 percent, about 0.1 percent points higher than 2017 and 0.6 percent points higher than 2016. Notably, the upward economic growth will be broad-based, including the United States, the Euro area, Japan, China, emerging Europe and Russia. Hopefully, the improved growth of the world economy will translate into increased consumer demand for clothing in 2018.

Nevertheless, from the macroeconomic perspective, oversupply will remain a significant challenge facing the apparel industry in 2018. Data from the World Bank and the World Trade Organization (WTO) shows that, while the world population increased by 21.6 percent between 2000 and 2016, the value of clothing exports (inflation-adjusted) surged by 123.5 percent over the same period. Similarly, between 2000 and 2016, the total U.S. population increased by 14.5 percent and the GDP per capita increased by 22.2 percent, but the supply of apparel to the U.S. retail market surged by over 67.8 percent during the same time frame. The problem of oversupply is the root of many challenges faced by apparel companies today, from the intense market competition, pressure of controlling production and sourcing cost, struggling with excessive inventory and deep discounts to balancing sustainability and business growth.

2: What’s happening with sourcing? How is the sourcing landscape likely to shift in 2018, and what can apparel firms and their suppliers do to stay ahead?

The 2017 US Fashion Industry Benchmarking Study, which I conducted in collaboration with the US Fashion Industry Association (USFIA) earlier this year, provides some interesting insights into companies’ latest sourcing strategies and trends. Based on a survey of 34 executives at the leading U.S. fashion companies, we find that:

First, most surveyed companies continue to maintain a relatively diversified sourcing base, with 57.6 percent currently sourcing from 10+ different countries or regions, up from 51.8 percent last year. Larger companies, in general, continue to have a more diversified sourcing base than smaller companies. Further, around 54 percent of respondents expect their sourcing base will become more diversified in the next two years, up from 44 percent in 2016; over 60 percent of those expecting to diversify currently source from more than 10 different countries or regions already. Given the uncertainties in the market and the regulatory environment (such as the Trump Administration’s trade policy agenda), companies may use diversification to mitigate potential market risks and supply chain disruptions due to protectionism.

Second, although U.S. fashion companies continue to seek alternatives to “Made in China” actively, China’s position as top sourcing destination remains unshakable. Many respondents attribute China’s competitiveness to its enormous manufacturing capacity and overall supply chain efficiency. Meanwhile, it is interesting to note that the most common sourcing model is shifting from “China Plus Many” to “China Plus Vietnam Plus Many” (i.e. China typically accounts for 30-50 percent of total sourcing value or volume, 11-30 percent for Vietnam and less than 10 percent for other sourcing destinations). I think this sourcing model will likely to continue in 2018.

Third, social responsibility and sustainability continue to grow in importance in sourcing decisions. In the study, we find that nearly 90 percent of respondents give more weight to sustainability when choosing where to source now than in the past. Around 90 percent of respondents also say they map their supply chains, i.e., keeping records of name, location, and function of suppliers. Notably, more than half of respondents track not only Tier 1 suppliers, suppliers they contract with directly, but also Tier 2 suppliers, i.e., supplier’s suppliers. However, the result also suggests that a more diversified sourcing base makes it more difficult to monitor supply chains closely. Making the apparel supply chain more socially responsible, sustainable and transparent will continue to be a hot topic in 2018.

3: What should apparel firms and their suppliers be doing now if they want to remain competitive further into the future? What will separate the winners from the losers?

I assume many experts will suggest what apparel firms should change to stay competitive into the future. However, the question in my mind is what should companies keep doing regardless of the external business environment? First, I think companies should always strive to understand and impress consumers and control their supply chains. Despite the growing popularity of e-commerce and the adoption of transformative new technologies, the fundamental nature of apparel as a buyer-driven business will remain the same. Second, companies should always leverage their resources and stay “unique,” no matter it means offering differentiated products or value-added services, maintaining exclusive distribution channels or keeping the leadership position in a particular niche market. Third, apparel firms should always follow the principle of “comparative advantage” and smartly define the scope of their core business functions instead of trying to do everything. Additionally, winners will always be those companies that can take advantage of the mega-development trends of the industry and be willing to make long-term and visionary investments, both physical and intangible (such as human talents).

4: What keeps you awake at night? Is there anything else you think the apparel industry should be keeping a close eye on in the year ahead? Do you expect 2018 to be better than 2017, and why?

I think the apparel industry should keep a close eye on the following issues in 2018:

The destiny of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA): The potential policy change to NAFTA means so much to the U.S. textile and apparel industry as well as suppliers in other parts of the world. Notably, through a regional textile and apparel supply chain facilitated by the agreement over the past 23 years, the NAFTA region has grown into the single largest export market for U.S. textile and apparel products as well as a major apparel sourcing base for U.S. fashion brands and retailers. In 2016, as much as half of U.S. textile and apparel exports went to the NAFTA region, totaling US$11billion, and U.S. apparel imports from Mexico and Canada exceeded US$3.9billion. Understandably, if NAFTA no longer exists, sweeping changes in the trade rules, such as import duties, could significantly affect the sourcing and manufacturing behaviors of U.S. textile and apparel companies and consequentially alter the current textile and apparel trade patterns in the NAFTA region. For example, Mexico’s focus on basic apparel items suggests that U.S. importers could quickly source from elsewhere if duty savings under NAFTA are eliminated.
The possible reaching of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP): Even though RCEP is less well-known than the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), we should not ignore the potential impact of the agreement on the future landscape of textile and apparel supply chain in the Asia-Pacific region. One recent study of mine shows that the RCEP will lead to a more integrated textile and apparel supply chain among its members but make it even harder for non-RCEP members to get involved in the regional T&A supply chain in the Asia-Pacific. This conclusion is backed by the latest data from the World Trade Organization (WTO): In 2016, around 91 percent of Asian countries’ textile imports came from other Asian countries, up from 86 percent in 2006. The more efficient regional supply chain as a result of RCEP will further help improve the price competitiveness of apparel made by “factory Asia” in the world marketplace. Particularly in the past few years, textile and apparel exports from Asia have already posted substantial pressures on the operation of the textile and apparel regional supply chain in the Western Hemisphere.
Automation of apparel manufacturing and its impact on the job market: Recall my observations at the MAGIC this August, several vendors showcased their latest technologies which have the potential to automate the cut and sew process entirely or substantially reduce the labor inputs in garment making. The impact of automation on the future of jobs is not a new topic, but the apparel industry presents a unique situation. Globally, over 120 million people remain directly employed in the textile and apparel industries today, a good proportion of whom are females living in poor rural areas. According to the World Trade Organization (WTO), for quite a few low-income and lower-middle income countries such as Bangladesh, Gambia, Pakistan, Madagascar, Sri Lanka, and Cambodia, as much as over 70 percent of their total merchandise exports were textile and apparel products in 2016. Should these labor-intensive garment sewing jobs in the developing countries were replaced by machines, the social and economic impacts will be consequential. I think it is the time to start thinking about the possible scenarios and the appropriate policy responses.

	Tariffs Make New Yar… on Updated Impact of Increasing T…
	Tariffs Make New Yar… on Patterns of U.S. Apparel Impor…
	Atul Singh on New Paper: Evolving Patterns o…
	eagleeclecticae1f527… on New Paper: Evolving Patterns o…
	10 Reasons Why Europ… on EU Textile and Apparel Industr…
	Like Entrepreneurs,… on Updated Impact of Increasing T…
	Clothing prices fall… on Minimum Wage Level for Garment…

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: