Hot Topics

Noteworthy

"If we increase the number of H-1B visas that are available to U.S. companies, employment of U.S. nationals would likely grow as well. For instance, Microsoft has found that for every H-1B hire we make, we add on average four additional employees to support them in various capacities."
Bill Gates,
Testimony before the Committee on Science and Technology, US House of Representatives,
March 12, 2008.

June 18, 2003

Trade Briefing Paper no. 17

Ending the "Chicken War": The Case for Abolishing the 25 Percent Truck Tariff

by Daniel Ikenson

Daniel Ikenson is a policy analyst with Cato's Center for Trade Policy Studies.

Executive Summary

In 1962, the European Economic Community (EEC) raised tariffs on imported chicken, effectively shutting U.S. producers out of a growing and lucrative poultry market. One year later, after failing to resolve the issue diplomatically, the United States retaliated by boosting tariffs on four products important to European exporters: potato starch, dextrin, brandy, and light trucks. The "chicken war" was underway.

Forty years later, the truck tariff still stands at a whopping 25 percent. While the other retaliatory measures were lifted over the decades, the truck tariff remains, and nobody quite knows why. It's a policy in search of a rationale.

The retaliatory purpose of the truck tariff was served. Volkswagen, the intended target, no longer even produces the vehicles subject to the tariff. U.S. producers, whom the tariff presumes to protect, dominate the market regardless of the tariff. Despite the fact that a the large Japanese nameplate producers manufacture pickup trucks in the United States - a fact related to the existence of the tariff in the first place - the Big Three hold 87 percent of the U.S. pickup truck market.

The concern that imports would run roughshod over domestic producers in the absence of the tariff is hollow. All of the world's major producers are already operating in the United States. Having made huge investments in U.S. truck production, they're not about to leave even if the truck tariff were eliminated. After all, foreign carmakers continue to invest in new U.S. production facilities even though the duty on automobiles is only 2.5 percent. The bottom line for cars and trucks is that producers want to manufacture in their biggest markets.

If the truck tariff has any justification at all, it is a bargaining chip in trade negotiations. But since the major foreign pickup truck producers already manufacture in the United States, the truck tariff's value as a bargaining chip is minimal. A U.S. offer to remove the tariff is of limited commercial value to foreign countries, and thus is unlikely to "buy" too much in the way of reciprocal market-opening offers.

Meanwhile, the truck tariff actually works to weaken the U.S. bargaining position by undermining the credibility of overall U.S. trade policy. Maintaining a tariff peak of 25 percent - almost 10 times the average U.S. tariff - is unfair to consumers and is jarringly inconsistent with the general U.S. commitment to open trade and ongoing liberalization of trade barriers. The truck tariff should be eliminated as soon as possible.

 

 


Text of Trade Briefing Paper No. 17 (PDF, 12pgs, 81k)



Commentary

Despite Doha collapse, free trade is marching on
by Daniel Ikenson
August 1, 2008

Bad Trade
by Daniel Ikenson
July 31, 2008

Expanding trade is a key to winning presidency
by Daniel Griswold
July 30, 2008

Greasing the World Economy Without Doha
by Daniel Ikenson
July 30, 2008

View all

CTPS @ Liberty

The Uncool Animal Farm Bill
by Daniel Ikenson
August 27, 2008

The Predictable Fallout from Doha
by Sallie James
August 27, 2008

New Income and Poverty Figures Spoil the Pity Party
by Daniel Griswold
August 26, 2008

Joe Biden's So-So Record on Trade
by Daniel Griswold
August 25, 2008

View all