|
Calling the provision as
"Bad for Jobs, Worse for Reputation",
the study warned "The negative job impact
of foreign retaliation against Buy American provisions
could easily outweigh the positive effect of the
measures on jobs in the US iron and steel sector
and other industries." "What should
be done?" the authors asked and suggested:
"The best result would be to simply delete
the Buy American provision in the House-Senate
conference."
Next best would be to keep
the House version, applying the Buy American restriction
only to iron and steel, but stating explicitly
- in either the statutory text or in the legislative
history - that the public interest waiver is intended
to be used to avoid violations of US trade obligations.
Under this option, Canada and Mexico would be
exempted due to the North American Free Trade
Agreement's (NAFTA) broad obligations regarding
federal procurement, as also signatories to World
Trade Organisation's Agreement on Government Procurement
(GPA).
But the restrictions would
bar the use of imported iron and steel from key
suppliers such as China, India, and Brazil, it
said. Consequently "it would likely encourage
those countries to adopt comparable policies that
discriminate against US suppliers for their own
public procurement and complicate US efforts to
work cooperatively to resolve the global financial
crisis," the study warned.
The third option is a presidential
statement - preferably before legislation is finalised
- that the US will respect its international obligations
when it applies the Buy American provisions.
The study estimates that
the additional US steel production fostered by
the Buy American provisions will amount to around
0.5 million tonnes. This in turn translates into
a gain in steel industry employment equal to roughly
1,000 jobs in the giant US economy with a labour
force of roughly 140 million people.
On balance the Buy American
provisions could well cost jobs if other countries
emulate US policies or retaliate against them.
Most importantly, it said, the Buy American provisions
contradict the G-20 commitment not to implement
new protectionist measures - a commitment that
was designed to forestall a rush of "beggar-thy-neighbour"
policies.
Top |