The U.S. Trade Deficit: Trends, Theory, Policy, and Sustainability (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (31 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
June 17, 1999 |
| Report Number |
98-693 |
| Authors |
Dick K. Nanto, Economics Division |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
Summary:
This report briefly surveys recent trends in the U.S. trade deficit and the economic theory and
policies surrounding it. After dropping to $74 billion in 1991, the U.S. merchandise trade deficit
increased by $49 billion in 1998 to a record high of $248 billion. Even though the reasons for the
rising deficit seem apparent, it raises questions about the theoretical analysis that underlies U.S.
policies to deal with it and its sustainability and effect on the U.S. economy.
The Federal Trade Deficit Review Commission was organized on June 10, 1999, and is
responsible for developing trade policy recommendations by examining the economic, trade, tax, and
investment policies and laws, and other incentives and restrictions that are relevant to addressing the
causes and consequences of the U.S. merchandise and current account deficits.
Economic theory is evolving with respect to the international trade side of the U.S. economy
and the relevant policy implications. The standard macroeconomic approach to explaining the trade
deficit is encountering some obstacles. First, the savings and investment equality is an ex
post
identity, a framework for analysis, and not a behavioral equation. Second, the linkage between
macroeconomic conditions and a nation's exchange rate has not been established; exchange rate
changes do not translate completely into price changes for imports and exports, and exchange rates
tend to overshoot the equilibrium rates. This brings other inefficiencies into an economy.
Government policy may also affect exchange rates. Recent weakness in the Japanese yen, for
example, has been exacerbated by Japanese government policy. The United States does not seem
to have a transparent method of determining if and when it should intervene in currency markets.
A third issue is that a focus on the savings-investment relationship in the economy can lead to
dubious policy prescriptions -- such as the assertion in the 1980s that eliminating the federal budget
deficit would do the same for the trade deficit. A fourth problem is that a static macroeconomic
approach does not account for why the United States may be borrowing from abroad and how those
funds are being used. There may be an optimal level for a nation's current account deficit, and
borrowing may be justified if it is used to increase productivity. Recent U.S. trade data indicate that
a rising share of U.S. imports has been for capital goods that should raise U.S. productivity and
economic growth.
The policy implications with respect to trade still center on the belief that free trade is optimal,
but extensions of the theory now allow for a strategic trade policy aimed at assisting certain
industries. The conventional economic conclusion that all intervention into trade flows has no effect
on the trade deficit, however, is yet to be demonstrated empirically. In terms of sustainability, if the
recent large capital inflows reaching nearly $200 billion per year continue into the next century, a
U.S. foreign debt would develop equivalent to a quarter of GDP and foreigners may end up owning
more than half the U.S. federal debt. If the capital inflows do not continue, the U.S. trade and
current account deficits of today will be unsustainable.
