Opinion

The global economy’s three games

In this column, Jean Pisani-Ferry portrays the current international economic and geopolitical order as increasingly reminiscent of chess. Three key players: the US, China and a loose coalition of the other G7 members play three games simultaneously, and no one knows which game will take precedence.

By: Date: October 29, 2018 Topic: Global Economics & Governance

Chess masters are able to play simultaneously on several boards with several partners. And the more time passes, the more US President Donald Trump’s international economic strategy looks like such a match.

There are three major players: the United States, China, and a loose coalition formed by the other members of the G7. And there are three games, each of which involves all three players. Unlike chess, however, these games are interdependent. And no one – perhaps not even Trump – knows which game will take precedence.

On Trump’s first board is the break the rules of trade game. Many in his administration regard the World Trade Organization’s principles and procedures as an obstacle to bilateral negotiations. They would prefer to clinch deals with partners one by one, without being bound by the obligation to apply liberalisation measures across the board and without being forced to abide by the rulings of the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism. Their aim is to restructure the trade relationships along a hub-and-spoke model, with the US at the centre.

The underlying reasoning is fairly simple: multilateral rules always protect the weakest players. Why should the US refrain from using its overwhelming bargaining power? The recent United States-Mexico-Canada agreement (USMCA) shows the way, by imposing US-determined national content obligations on the other two countries and restraining their own trade policy options. More such deals should follow.

Europe, Japan, and China have all criticised the US stance and portray themselves as champions of multilateralism. This is only half true: Europe has built its own web of trade agreements, and China, itself a fairly transactional power, regards global rules as an embodiment of yesterday’s Western dominance. But on this issue (as on climate change), there is currently more commonality among non-US partners than there is between them and the US.

On the second board is the discipline China game. For a decade or so, many in the US have claimed that China’s categorisation as a developing country, and the resulting favorable treatment it enjoys at the WTO, do not reflect the true strength of an economy whose goods exports amount to $2 trillion, or 11% of world trade. As Susan Schwab, President Barack Obama’s trade chief, put it back in 2011, in trade discussions elephants were hiding behind mice. The Trump administration now wants to trap the Chinese elephant.

The internal heterogeneity of China’s economy is indeed exceptionally high for a developing country. Parts of China are poor, and parts wealthy. Some industries are unsophisticated, while others are at the cutting edge of innovation. The latter shouldn’t hide behind the former.

America’s grievances regarding China’s behaviour, from its treatment of intellectual property to its implicit and explicit subsidies and policy-motivated takeovers of foreign industrial jewels, are essentially shared by its G7 partners. Many Chinese experts also agree that ending the wholesale subsidisation of industrial behemoths and letting market signals play a stronger role in investment choices is in their country’s best interest.

More generally, China’s partners argue that trade rules conceived for market economies are not adequate when dealing with a centrally-directed economy. This claim is more contentious, because leaders in Beijing regard state ownership of enterprises as a matter of sovereign choice, and do not want to renounce big to industrial policy endeavours. But there is room for discussion. All in all, the discipline China game is one in which the US, Europe, Japan, and Canada are largely aligned. All look forward to a robust negotiation with the Chinese.

This makes the discipline China game very different from the third contest, the roll back China game. This game is not about the enforcement of trade rules, or their design, but about the sheer geopolitical rivalry between the incumbent superpower and a rising challenger. As Kevin Rudd, the former Australian prime minister, noted in a remarkable speech a few weeks ago, the US security establishment has become convinced that strategic engagement with China has not paid off and should give way to strategic competition – a stance that would encompass all dimensions of the bilateral relationship. In early October, a particularly harsh speech by US Vice President Mile Pence illustrated Rudd’s point.

Europe, Japan, and Canada are not part of this rivalry – they simply do not matter in the same way that the US and China do. But they are inevitably part of its diplomatic, economic, and, for Japan at least, security components. If the tension between the two powers dominates global politics in the decades to come, they won’t be able to avoid taking a stance. And, for all their reluctance, they may well end up aligned with the US, for two reasons: because a hardening of the rivalry with the US would drive the Chinese leadership further from Western values, and because they ultimately depend on the US for their own security.

The problem, however, is that it is still not clear in which game President Trump intends to score a victory. Does he intend to play a long game? And, if so, what are his aims? Nobody really knows.

For the non-US G7 countries, this uncertainty creates a dilemma. Should they engage with China on WTO reform and the strengthening of the associated disciplines? This is a topic on which they could help pave the way for an eventual global compromise. The risk, however, is that if China fears that the US really aims at winning the rollback game, and expects the rest of the West to fall in line eventually, it will refuse to make meaningful concessions.

Alternatively, the rest of the G7 could align with the US, at the risk of antagonising China and eventually being strategically demoted if Trump ultimately settles on a bilateral deal with Chinese President Xi Jinping. If that game prevails, the non-US G7 will end up being the losers.

Absent a no-risk strategy, Europe, Japan, and Canada might well choose to wait and see. This would be the surest way to be sidelined in all possible circumstances and provide a demonstration that only the US-Chinese “G2” matters. What these countries are facing is a test of leadership, which they may pass, or fail. There is no third way.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint.

Due to copyright agreements we ask that you kindly email request to republish opinions that have appeared in print to communication@bruegel.org.

View comments
Read about event More on this topic

Upcoming Event

Jan
22
08:00

Rules-based trading system and EU-Australia

At this event the Australian Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham will speak about Australia-EU bilateral trade, the FTA negotiations and the importance of multilateral rules-based trading system

Speakers: Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham, André Sapir and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Global Economics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

Elections, institutions and statecraft: A tumultuous year for Modi in India

With the turn of the year, India has firmly entered election mode. Recent regional elections have begun to shift the political landscape, while tensions continue to simmer between the Reserve Bank of India and the Ministry of Finance. How the Modi government sees out this term could set important precedents for the incoming government in May 2019.

By: Suman Bery Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: January 16, 2019
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

What 2019 could bring: A look inside the crystal ball

Economic performance prospects in Europe, the US and Asia in 2019. We start off by reviewing commentaries and predictions about the euro zone, which many commentators expect to perform below potential as uncertainties continue to dampen a still robust recovery.

By: Michael Baltensperger Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Global Economics & Governance Date: January 14, 2019
Read about event More on this topic

Upcoming Event

Feb
8
08:30

The world’s response to China’s Belt and Road Initiative

This event will look at the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative as well as the response from the rest of the world.

Speakers: Alicia García-Herrero, Jean-Francois Di Meglio, Theresa Fallon and Uri Dadush Topic: Global Economics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

Policy Contribution

The Belt and Road turns five

Five years after its launch, Michael Baltensperger and Uri Dadush reflect on China’s Belt and Road Initiative. The plan to revive ancient trade routes has the potential to enhance development prospects across the world and in China, but that potential might not be realised because the BRI’s objectives are too broad and ill-defined, and its execution is too often non-transparent, lacking in due diligence and uncoordinated.

By: Michael Baltensperger and Uri Dadush Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: January 10, 2019
Read about event

Upcoming Event

Feb
12
12:30

Is the European automotive industry ready for the global electric vehicle revolution?

How can Europe catch up on the global electric vehicle race?

Speakers: Simone Tagliapietra and Reinhilde Veugelers Topic: Energy & Climate, Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

Lose-lose scenario for Europe from ongoing China-US negotiations

Without an expectation of a larger market for European exports in the absence of additional opening up by Chinese authorities, European exporters should not enjoy the ongoing China-US negotiations.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: January 9, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

Deep Focus: Europe's auto industry and the global electric vehicle revolution

Bruegel fellows Reinhilde Veugelers and Simone Tagliapietra elaborate on the recent Policy Contribution they co-authored on the European automotive industry in the light of the global electric vehicle revolution.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: January 8, 2019
Read article More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

Director’s cut: Wrapping up 2018

With 2018 drawing to a close, and the dawn of 2019 imminent, Bruegel's scholars reflect on the economic policy developments we can expect in the new year – one that brings with it the additional uncertainty of European elections.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Energy & Climate, European Macroeconomics & Governance, Finance & Financial Regulation, Global Economics & Governance, Innovation & Competition Policy Date: December 20, 2018
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

Policy Contribution

Is the European automotive industry ready for the global electric vehicle revolution?

This Policy Contribution investigates the position of the European automotive industry in a scenario in which electrification substantially progresses. Europe cannot follow China in the adoption of centrally-planned industrial policy measures. But it certainly can and should do more to stimulate the transformation of its automotive industry through more ambitious policies.

By: Gustav Fredriksson, Alexander Roth, Simone Tagliapietra and Reinhilde Veugelers Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: December 20, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

China’s view of the trade war has changed—and so has its strategy

The truce agreed on by China and the United States at the sidelines of the recent G-20 meeting in Buenos Aires doesn’t really change the picture of the U.S.’s ultimate goal of containing China. The reason is straightforward: The U.S. and China have become strategic competitors and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future, which leaves little room for any long-term settlement of disputes.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: December 19, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Brexit: Now for something completely different?

The life of Brexit. After a week of ECJ rulings, delayed votes, Theresa May’s errands across Europe and the vote of no confidence, we review the latest economists’ opinions to try to make sense of what has changed and what hasn’t.

By: Inês Goncalves Raposo Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: December 17, 2018
Load more posts