The multi-year phase out of U.S. textile and clothing quotas (and similar quotas for some other developed countries) is done on January 1. The Economist covers the ground: "The freeing of the world's textile trade"
This isn't the end of restrictions and burdens on textile and clothing trade, but it is the end of a particularly unpleasant one:
"Quotas are a particularly perverse kind of protectionism. Like tariffs, they distort markets and harm consumers: they restrict the supply of a good, thus raising the price consumers must pay. But unlike tariffs, which are collected by the government, quotas are of value to the exporter that fills them, not the state that imposes them. They give exporters the opportunity to overcharge an underserved market."
The Economist is saying here, that when the U.S. raises consumer prices using tariffs, at least the U.S. gets the tariff revenues; when it restricts imports with quotas, it exports the profits associated with the import restrictions and the higher U.S. prices to exporters in foreign countries.
The U.S. took steps to continue to protect the domestic industry from competition, at the expense of domestic consumers:
"...America?s Commerce Department has already slapped new restraints on imports from China of bras, gowns and knitted fabrics, which were freed from quotas earlier than other textile goods, in 2002. America will impose a month-long embargo in January on Chinese goods that were reportedly ?overshipped?, that is, imported in excess of their quota, in 2004. And it is contemplating no fewer than 11 requests from industry lobbyists to block imports of several other products, such as trousers and shirts..."
As a result:
"To placate its protectionist antagonists, China this month decided to impose taxes on its exports. This will raise their price and blunt their competitiveness, much as an import tariff or quota would do. But this way at least the Chinese government gets to collect the revenues."
That is, U.S. consumers get higher prices and the Chinese get the tariff revenues.
Addendeum 12-29-04: Guy Berger, over at Full Context, suggests that the Chinese may have been looking for an excuse to impose this export tariff: "Clever Trade Policy and the Mercantilist Fallacy". For a detailed look at the theory underlying Berger's post, see this web page by Steven Suranovic: "Welfare Effects of an Export Tax: Large Country".
Comments