Sekėjai

Ieškoti šiame dienoraštyje

2025 m. vasario 14 d., penktadienis

The History of Trade Privileges for Some. ‘The W.T.O. Is Toast.’ What Happens to Global Trade Now.


"President Trump, who disabled the World Trade Organization during his first term, is going after international free trade rules in place since the 1940s.

When President Trump announced he would impose new tariffs on imports from countries around the world, he launched a frontal attack on the global free trade system created in the aftermath of World War II.

Mr. Trump’s move, announced Thursday and set to begin as soon as April, represents a bet that the United States will gain leverage by replacing global tariffs with its own tariffs, which are taxes on imports.

The United States, the world’s largest importer, has for decades bought far more from the rest of the world than it sells. Mr. Trump wants to change that and is calculating that other countries, with more exports at stake, might be cautious about retaliating by raising their own tariffs.

But instead, many trade experts warn, Mr. Trump’s action could presage a global shift toward higher tariffs. That would pose a big challenge to the World Trade Organization, which was established in 1993 to coordinate global tariffs and trade rules.

Decisions by other countries to follow Mr. Trump’s example and set tariffs unilaterally could impede trade, raising prices for everyone. The free trade promise of consumers buying from the lowest-cost producers could be imperiled.

“I would say the W.T.O. is toast, but what matters now is how other members respond,” said Deborah Elms, the head of trade policy at the Hinrich Foundation, a research group in Singapore that favors free trade. “Do they stand up for the system? Or do they also ignore key principles, provisions and practices?”

How We Got Here: GATT and the W.T.O.

The main agreement governing international trade, even today, is the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or GATT.

Only 23 countries, including colonial powers like Britain and France, signed that agreement in 1947. The pact’s signatories agreed to charge the same tariffs to all other member countries — a crucial provision that Mr. Trump is challenging. Member nations negotiated for years to reduce these tariffs.

The most important of these multiyear negotiations was the Uruguay Round, which led to an agreement in 1993 to reduce tariffs further. The negotiators, from 117 nations, also created the World Trade Organization to administer GATT rules and negotiations and to provide binding arbitration of disputes.

An American Backlash Against the W.T.O.

At the start of President Trump’s first term, he and his trade advisers voiced frustration with how the W.T.O.’s arbitration panels had worked out. They contended that the panels were reluctant to condemn export subsidies and other measures by countries like China that sought to strengthen their manufacturing sectors, in violation of the rules of free trade. And they complained that the panels often decided against the United States.

Mr. Trump blocked the naming of judges to the W.T.O.’s top body for resolving disputes. That body became unable to meet as judges’ terms expired, and could no longer issue binding verdicts.

Trade officials in Mr. Trump’s first term discussed whether to rewrite tariff rates, but decided that would be a step too far. The prospect of setting new tariffs for more than 4,000 import categories for U.S. trade with more than 150 countries was too daunting.

But Mr. Trump is preparing to do just that, overturning GATT’s most basic rules by setting tariffs unilaterally. The U.S. would match other countries’ tariffs and then add further tariffs to offset subsidies and non-tariff trade barriers in those countries. Mr. Trump particularly complained about value-added taxes in Europe and very steep tariffs in developing countries.

Steep Tariffs in Developing Countries

When GATT was established in 1947, only a handful of countries had industrialized their economies, and many of them were in ruins because of World War II. As colonial empires broke up into numerous developing countries, leaders of the world’s poor countries worried that they might never have a chance to develop manufacturing industries.

Developing countries insisted on keeping high tariffs to limit imports of factory goods. They also insisted on being allowed to subsidize their agricultural sectors to try to become self-sufficient in food.

Some of these developing countries, like China and India, are now among the world’s largest economies. But they have maintained their status as developing countries under GATT rules, allowing them to keep tariffs much higher than in developed economies and heavily subsidize agriculture. Only in response to Trump’s trade war in 2018 and 2019 did China begin to reduce its tariffs voluntarily, while retaining the world’s largest agricultural subsidies.

Mr. Trump signaled that developing countries with high tariffs may be hit with equally high American tariffs. But developing countries, including China and India, contend that while their industrial sectors have grown enormously, their populations are not yet affluent. They still have low average incomes per person and want to remain mostly self-sufficient in food.

The dilemma now for Europe and most developing countries is that they desperately need to run trade surpluses with the United States to afford their large trade deficits with China. If they retaliate against President Trump’s tariffs, they may trigger a global trade war and doom the W.T.O., which has helped them grow faster for so long." [1]

1. ‘The W.T.O. Is Toast.’ What Happens to Global Trade Now. Bradsher, Keith.  New York Times (Online) New York Times Company. Feb 14, 2025.

Kaip išgelbėti žlungančią organizacijq


 

 "Atstatyti

 

 Autorius Dan Heath

 

 Avid Reader, 288 puslapiai, 32 doleriai

 

 Ar į, sunkiai besiverčiančią, organizaciją atsivesti išorės ekspertą yra taip pat beprotiška, kaip atsivesti terapeutą gyventi pas save, tikintis, kad jūsų santuoka bus sutvarkyta? Taip, sako Danas Heathas knygoje „Atstatyti: kaip pakeisti tai, kas neveikia“. Tačiau jis vis dar pasisako už organizacijas, kurios tai darytų.

 

 Jis sako, kad tai veikia, kad beveik bankrutuojančios įmonės gali pereiti „nuo gyvybės palaikymo iki būtiniausios sveikatos – per kelis mėnesius“. Ir ne tik privačiame sektoriuje; net kai kurios vyriausybės problemos gali būti išspręstos tokiu būdu. Tai laiku pastebėta, atsižvelgiant į neseniai įsteigtą Vyriausybės efektyvumo departamentą (DOGE), kuriam vadovauja Elonas Muskas.

 

 Kaip tokie apsisukimai daromi? Ponas Heathas pateikia savo atsakymą, remdamasis paprasta analogija, kad daugelis verslo problemų yra tarsi rieduliai, užtveriantys jūsų kelią: stipresnis pastūmėjimas savaime neveiks – pirmiausia turite nustatyti sverto taškus, o tada ten „iš naujo sudėti“ išteklius.

 

 Tai skamba pakankamai paprastai, tačiau rasti tuos sverto taškus, kur mažos pastangos duoda didelių rezultatų, yra ne šiaip sau darbas.

 

 P. Heathas mums sako, kad pirmasis žingsnis apima Nelsono Repenningo, MIT profesoriaus, studijuojančio sistemos dinamiką, patarimą: turite „eiti ir pamatyti darbą“. Jei esate gamyklos savininkas, skirkite laiko darbui su pirmaujančiais darbuotojais. Jei esate direktorius, vaikščiokite po salę ir šešėliuokite mokinius. Ir jei esate ponas Muskas, praleiskite laiką su bet kurios vyriausybinės agentūros, kurią taisote, darbuotojais. Užuot sėdėjus konferencijų salėse dvikovai su idėjomis, norint iš naujo nustatyti, spėliones reikia pakeisti tikra patirtimi.

 

 Vadovai visada būna nustebinti, net susigėdę dėl to, ką randa, sako ponas Heathas. Vienas pardavimų viceprezidentas apskaičiavo, kad kiekvieną savaitę jis praleido 18 valandų prognozuodamas skambučius, o ne skatindamas pardavimą. Kitas vadovas atrado komandos narį, kuris valandų valandas gamino didelės raiškos spalvotus failų spaudinius ir tvarkė juos spintelėse, nors „buvo skaitmeninė saugykla, kuri automatiškai archyvavo šiuos failus“. Jam tiesiog nebuvo pasakyta.

 

 Tokias atliekas galima tiesiog pašalinti. Technologijos gali padėti: Asheboro, NC, birių šiukšlių sunkvežimiai važinėjo aukštyn ir žemyn kiekviena gatve, ieškodami didelių išmestų daiktų, o tai gerokai išeikvotų miesto degalų biudžetą. Miesto informacinių technologijų komanda leido įprastiems šiukšlių surinkėjams vietoj to pranešti didelių gabaritų daiktų GPS koordinates, kad stambių daiktų sunkvežimiai galėtų važiuoti tiesiai pas juos ir sutaupytų tūkstančius mokesčių mokėtojų dolerių.

 

 Tai yra „lengvos“ pergalės. Tai neišvengiamai tampa sudėtingiau, nes paprastai nėra pakankamai lengvai aptinkamų atliekų. Todėl ponas Heathas rašo: „mes neturėtume galvoti IR, mes turėtume mąstyti VIETOJE“ (jo pabrėžimas). Tai reiškia, kad pokyčių komanda turi apskaičiuoti, kuriuos žmones ar skyrius reikia produktyviai sumažinti arba pakeisti.

 

 Planuotojai turi atsitraukti nuo fronto linijų ir nutolti, nubrėždami visą organizaciją. Mažai tikėtina, kad asmenys pripažins (ar net žinos), kad tai, ką jie ar jų padaliniai daro, nėra pakankamai vertinga organizacijai, žvelgiant iš bendros perspektyvos. Ir jie tikrai nėra degantys noru tai sužinoti.

 

 Geras būdas gauti visapusišką vaizdą yra sekti visą kliento kelionę, kad suprastų jo patirtį, tačiau planuotojai turi labai aiškiai suprasti organizacijos tikslą – kad jis tikrai būtų teisingas, jie turi paklausti: „Koks yra tikslo tikslas?

 

 P. Heathas pateikia linksmą pavyzdį iš britų reklamos vadovo Rory Sutherlando. Po to, kai „Eurostar“ nuskuto 20 minučių nuo Londono iki Paryžiaus ir tai kainavo maždaug 6 mlrd. GBP, J. Sutherlandas atkreipė dėmesį, kad nors iškeltas tikslas buvo paspartinti maršrutą, tikslas buvo pagerinti keleivių patirtį. Pasak jo, tai būtų buvę galima padaryti geriau, išleidžiant apie 10 % šio biudžeto modeliams vyrams ir moterims, kurie vaikščiotų aukštyn ir žemyn traukiniais tiekdami Bordo pilnas taures. „Jūs vis tiek turėtumėte penkis milijardus svarų, – sakė jis, – ir žmonės prašytų sulėtinti traukinius.”

 

 Šio žanro knygose dažnai dėmesys skiriamas vienai sričiai, į kurią įmonės ar lyderiai gali susitelkti ir tobulėti. Ponas Heathas kuria savo knygą remdamasis daugybe tokių idėjų ir atvejų tyrimų, pritaikydamas jas žingsnis po žingsnio posūkiui. Tai reiškia, kad jis daug ką aprašo trumpai, tačiau kiekviename skyriuje jis naudingai nurodo, kaip toliau skaityti tiems, kurie nori pasinerti giliau.

 

 Kalbant apie visus p. Heath siūlomus pavyzdžius, įskaitant iš gerai žinomų kompanijų, pradedant T-Mobile ir baigiant Chick-Fil-A, pažymėtina tai, kad tai visų pirma yra asmenų ir skyrių istorijos, tai yra, galiausiai, jos yra vietinės istorijos. Jo pavyzdžiai – bent jau kiek mes žinome iš knygos – tada neįkvepia visos įmonės transformacijų. Vyriausybės pavyzdžiai yra panašiai lokalizuoti ir būdingi konkrečiai agentūrai. Galbūt, lyderiams tai neįdomu. Gal trukdo skausmas dėl tokio posūkio, ar trukdo vidaus politika ir valdos. Galbūt, visiškas institucinis posūkis yra tiesiog per sunkus. Galbūt, jie kažkur vyksta. Arba gali būti, kad jie tiesiog laukia tinkamos patirties, mąstymo ir, kritiškai vertinant, ryžtingo žmogaus. Pažiūrėsime, ar ponas Muskas yra toks asmuo federalinei vyriausybei.

 

 ---

 

 P. Freedmanas yra „NavT1“ vadovaujantis partneris ir „The Black Banners“ bendraautoris.“[1]

 

 1. How to Turn Things Around. Freedman, Daniel.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 14 Feb 2025: A13.  

How to Turn Things Around


"Reset

By Dan Heath

Avid Reader, 288 pages, $32

Is bringing an outside turnaround expert into a struggling organization as crazy as bringing a therapist to live with you in the hope of fixing your marriage? Yes, says Dan Heath in "Reset: How to Change What's Not Working." Yet he's still in favor of organizations doing just that.

He says it works, that nearly bankrupt businesses can go "from life support to basic health -- in a matter of months." And not only in the private sector; even some government problems might be solved this way, a timely observation considering the recent creation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), headed by Elon Musk.

How are such turnarounds done? Mr. Heath builds his answer around the simple analogy that many business problems are like boulders blocking your path: Pushing harder won't work on its own -- you need to first identify points of leverage, and then "restack" resources there.

It sounds simple enough, yet finding those points of leverage where small efforts yield big results is anything but.

The first step, Mr. Heath tells us, involves following the advice of Nelson Repenning, an MIT professor who studies system dynamics: you must "go and see the work." If you're a factory owner, spend time on the job with frontline workers. If you're a principal, walk the halls and shadow students. And if you're Mr. Musk, spend time with the workers of whatever government agency you're fixing. Instead of sitting in conference rooms dueling with ideas, a reset requires replacing conjecture with real experience.

Executives always end up being surprised, even embarrassed, at what they find, Mr. Heath says. One vice president of sales calculated that he spent 18 hours every week on forecasting calls instead of on driving sales. Another executive discovered a team member who spent hours producing high-definition color prints of files and then organizing them in cabinets, even though "there was a digital repository that auto-archived these files." She simply hadn't been told.

Waste like that can simply be eliminated. Technology can help: In Asheboro, N.C., bulk-trash trucks would drive up and down every street looking for large discarded items, significantly running up the city's fuel budget. The city's information-technology team enabled the regular trash collectors to instead report the GPS coordinates of bulky items so the large-item trucks could drive directly to them, saving thousands of taxpayer dollars.

These are the "easy" wins. It inevitably gets more difficult because usually there isn't enough easily discoverable waste. Therefore, Mr. Heath writes, "we shouldn't think AND, we should think INSTEAD OF" (his emphasis). This means the turnaround team needs next to calculate what people, or departments, need to be productively cut or repurposed.

Planners need to move away from the frontlines and zoom out, mapping the entire organization. Individuals are unlikely to admit (or even to be aware) that what they or their departments are doing isn't valuable enough to the organization from a big-picture perspective. And they're certainly not incentivized to find out.

A good way to get an overarching view is to follow a customer's entire journey to understand their experience, but the planners must be very clear about the organization's goal -- to really get it right, they must ask, "What's the goal of the goal?"

Mr. Heath offers an amusing example from Rory Sutherland, a British advertising executive. After the Eurostar shaved 20 minutes off the London to Paris commute, at a cost of roughly GBP6 billion, Mr. Sutherland pointed out that while the stated goal was speeding up the route, the goal of the goal was to improve the passenger experience. This, he said, could have been done better by spending about 10% of that budget on hiring male and female models to walk up and down the trains serving glasses of Bordeaux. "You'd still have five billion pounds in change," he said, "and people would ask for the trains to be slowed down."

Books in this genre often focus on a single area for companies or leaders to focus on and improve. Mr. Heath builds his book on lots of such ideas and case studies, fitting them into a step-by-step turnaround approach. This means he covers a lot briefly, but he helpfully points in each chapter to further reading for those wanting a deeper dive.

For all the examples Mr. Heath offers, including from well-known companies ranging from T-Mobile to Chick-Fil-A, what's notable is that they're primarily stories of individuals and departments -- that is, they're ultimately local. His examples -- at least as far as we know from the book -- don't then inspire company-wide transformations. Government examples are similarly localized and agency-specific. Perhaps leaders aren't interested in the pain of such a turnaround, or internal politics and fiefdoms get in the way. Perhaps complete institutional turnarounds are just too hard. Perhaps they're under way somewhere. Or it could be that they're just waiting for someone with the right experience, mindset and, critically, determination. We'll see if Mr. Musk is that person for the federal government.

---

Mr. Freedman is the managing partner of NavT1 and the co-author of "The Black Banners."” [1]

 

 1. How to Turn Things Around. Freedman, Daniel.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 14 Feb 2025: A13.