Simon J. Evenett and Michael Meier of the Swiss Institute for International Economics have carefully reviewed (representative by representative and senator by senator - except Virginia, which hadn't been decided when they wrote) the trade stances of everyone newly elected to Congress, and the people they replace: The U.S. Congressional Elections in 2006: What Implications for U.S. Trade Policy? (November 9).
Here is their executive summary:
Tuesday's U.S. Congressional elections assumed considerable importance for trade negotiators because it is thought that, even if significant progress were made on the Doha Round negotiationsin early 2007, Congress would need to extend the U.S. President's Trade PromotionAuthority (TPA) to allow the Round to be completed. Much turns on how the newcomers tothe U.S. House and Senate are expected to vote. In this note we examine the stance taken bythe 62 individuals who won their elections to the House or Senate for the first time. We comparedtheir stance on trade policy matters during their election campaigns with the incumbentsthat they will soon replace. Our analysis, therefore, takes account of every known case wherea seat changed hands and not just the cases where a Democrat replaced a Republican office
Here are the principal findings concerning the election campaigns of the newcomers to the next U.S. Congress
- Democrats raised trade-related matters far more often than Republicans.
- All of the new Democratic Senators had bad things to say about trade reform.
- The free trade agreements (FTAs) signed by the Bush Administration were prominent targets of the Democrats' ire, with half of Democrats making the CAFTA agreement an election issue.
- In contrast, very few Democrats made critical references to the WTO or the Doha Round.
- Many Democrats campaigned on platforms to include labour and environmental standards in trade agreements.
Where possible, we compared the stance taken by a newcomer to Congress with the member that they will replace. We found:
- In the Senate 5 seats held by Senators will soon be held by individuals who fought campaigns that are, at best, described as "trade-sceptic."
- In the House 16 seats held by "trade-friendly" Representatives will soon be held by individuals who fought campaigns that are, at best, described as "trade-sceptic."
- There were no cases of a "trade-sceptic" being replaced a "trade-friendly" member in either chamber.
What are the likely implications for U.S. trade policy? On the basis of the evidence presented here:
- Should any TPA extension go forward, labour and environmental strings are likely to be attached--a step that is almost certain to infuriate the developing country trading partners of the USA.
- Given the ire directed by newcomers towards U.S. FTAs in their election campaigns, one option available to the U.S. Administration may be to seek--when the timing is right--a TPA extension for the completion of the Doha Round only.
- Dark clouds must now loom over the approval of any FTA brought before the new Congress. Uncertainties over Congressional ratification may well cause U.S. trade negotiators to be even tougher on potential FTA partners, and those partners may well be discouraged by the extra concessions sought and the growing likelihood that any deal will never come into force.
- This constitutes a major blow to the U.S. Administration's trade strategy of "Competitive Liberalization." Far from building a domestic political consensus behind trade reform, as USTR Zeollick had originally hoped, this strategy has probably created the seeds of its own destruction.
I earned about this from an article in today's Wall Street Journal, that draws on it: "Democratic Gains Raise Roadblocks To Free-Trade Push" by Greg Hitt and Neil King.
Comments