[This file includes the bibiograpgy and footnotes of Mr. Phllip Saunders' article: Most Favored Nation Status and China: An Economic Analysis of Linkage, which is carried on CCF 9425, May 22, 1994] Bibliography Agence France Presse. "U.S.- China trade war would cost Hong Kong 70,000 jobs: Patten," May 8, 1993. Associated Press. April 20, 1994, 20:12:30 EDT. Associated Press. April 23, 1994, 15:36:08 EDT. Baldinger, Pamela. "The Birth of Greater China." The China Business Review May-June (1992): 14. Chen, Shu-Ching Jean. "Debate on Chinese Trade Focuses on Who would be Hurt by Change." Washington Times 31 March 1994: A12. China Statistical Information and Consultancy Service Center. China Statistical Yearbook 1993. Beijing: China Statistical Information and Consultancy Service Center, 1993. Executive Order 12850, May 28, 1993. Friedman, Thomas L. "Democrats Push for a Compromise on Chinese Trade." New York Times 21 April 1994: A1. Friedman, Thomas L. "U.S. Signals China It May End Annual Trade-Rights Battles." New York Times 24 March 1994: A1. Garan, Edward A. "Gauging the Consequences of U.S. Spurning China." New York Times 21 March 1994: D5. Greenhouse, Steven. "Aide Says U.S. May Scrap Across-the-Board Penalty for China." New York Times 30 March 1994: A10. Harbrecht, Douglas and Amy Borrus. "China: Can He Save Face?" Business Week 18 April 1994: 56. Harding, Harry. A Fragile Relationship: The United States and China since 1972. Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1992. Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office. Possible Impact on HK if China lost MFN Status. March 7, 1994. International Business and Economic Research Corporation (IBERC). The Costs to the United States Economy that would result from Removal of China's Most Favored Nation Status. Washington: IBERC, 1993. Lippman, Thomas W. "White House Studies Selective Imposition of China Trade Restraints." Washington Post 18 March 1994: A4. Lord, Winston. Testimony before the East Asian And Pacific Affairs Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. March 24, 1994. National Trade Data Bank CD-ROM. "U.S. Total Exports and Imports to Individual Countries, 1980-92." January 27, 1994. Reuter, April 7, 1994, 13:33:19 EDT. Reuter. April 11, 1994, 11:39:48 EDT. Reuter. April 12, 1994, 14:07:05 EDT. Reuter. April 15, 1994, 18:19:55 EDT. Reuter. April 21, 1994, 10:46:50 EDT. Reuter. April 21, 1994, 19:40:07 EDT. Reuter. April 24, 1994, 20:44:07 EDT. Sands, David R. "U.S. Consumers Will Pay if China Loses Trade Status." Washington Times 17 April 1994: A12. Solomon, Richard H. "China and MFN: Engagement, Not Isolation, Is Catalyst for Change." Testimony before the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, June 6, 1990. U.S. Department of State Current Policy No. 1282. Washington: U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Public Affairs, 1990. Tyler, Patrick E. "Beijing Says It Could Live Well Even if U.S. Trade Was Cut Off." New York Times 21 March 1994: A10. U.S.-China Business Council. "The Case for China's MFN Status." The China Business Review July-August (1992): 16. Wang, Yangming. "The Politics of U.S.-China Economic Relations: MFN, Constructive Engagement, and the Trade Issue Proper." Asian Survey 33.5 (1993): 457. World Bank. China: Foreign Trade Reform. Washington: World Bank, 1994. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. This paper will not explicitly consider the impact of the Uruguay round tariff reductions, but the reader should note that the Uruguay round will lower MFN tariff rates substantially, increasing the spread between MFN and general tariff rates. The impact on China will be less than might be imagined, since tariff rates on the goods China imports to the United States were not dramatically reduced. 2. International Business and Economic Research Corporation (IBERC). "The Costs to the United States Economy that would result from Removal of China's Most Favored Nation Status," Washington D.C., April 1993, 5. 3. IBERC, 7. 4. The calculated non-MFN tariff rate does not account for the change in composition of imports due to higher tariff rates. IBERC, 8. 5. Richard H. Solomon. "China and MFN: Engagement, Not Isolation, Is Catalyst for Change," testimony before the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, June 6, 1990. U.S. Department of State Current Policy No. 1282 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Public Affairs, 1990), 5. 6. The World Bank. China: Foreign Trade Reform (Washington, D.C.: The World Bank, 1994), 155. Note that even if China joins GATT, as it plans to do, the United States could invoke the nonapplication clause in Article XXXV to make China's MFN status discretionary. 7. Harry Harding. A Fragile Relationship: The United States and China since 1972 (Washington D.C., The Brookings Institution, 1992), 96. 8. Harding, 96. 9. Harding, 247-269. 10. PRC Customs Figures. 1987-1990 figures are from Yangming Wang. "The Politics of U.S.-China Economic Relations: MFN, Constructive Engagement, and the Trade Issue Proper," Asian Survey, vol XXXIII, no 5 (May 1993), 457. 1991 and 1992 figures are from China Statistical Yearbook 1993 (Beijing: China Statistical Information and Consultancy Service Center, 1993), 581. 11. U.S. Customs figures are drawn from Jan 27, 1994 National Trade Data Bank CD-ROM U.S. Total Exports and Imports to Individual Countries, 1980-92. 1993 figures are from Tyler, Patrick E. "Beijing Says It Could Live Well Even if U.S. trade Was Cut Off," The New York Times, March 21,1994, A10. 12. Wang, 456. 13. Hong Kong Review of Overseas Trade, Census and Statistics Departments, Hong Kong 1992. Cited in the World Bank. China: Foreign Trade Reform, 265. 14. The U.S.-China Business Council. "The Case for China's MFN Status," The China Business Review (July-August 1992), 16. 15. See the IBERC study, 42-43. 16. Pamela Baldinger. "The Birth of Greater China," The China Business Review (May-June 1992), 14. 17. The World Bank. China: Foreign Trade Reform, 155-158 and 252-253. 18. IBERC, "The Costs to the United States Economy that would result from Removal of China's Most Favored Nation Status," Appendix B 1-18 and Appendix C 1-7. 19. The figures here differ slightly from the World Bank figures, because the World Bank used an estimate of $16.261 billion for 1990 imports from China instead of $15.237 billion. The IBERC study does not report total decline in imports from China, but these figures can be calculated by multiplying the decline in trade by the volume of imports from China. These calculations correspond closely with those obtained by scaling the "Change in Chinese imports" to account for the total volume of trade. 20. "Beijing Says It Could Live Well Even if U.S. Trade Was Cut Off." China's economy has consistently outperformed official growth targets in recent years. Meeting the official target of nine percent actually implies a GDP growth rate three to four percent lower that private estimates. 21. Shu-Ching Jean Chen. "Debate on Chinese Trade Focuses on Who would be Hurt by Change," The Washington Times, March 31, 1994, A12. 22. Ibid. 23. IBERC, 12. 24. It is also reasonable to assume that domestic distributors might absorb some of the costs of the higher tariffs rather than passing them on to consumers. This could be modeled by scaling up the costs to consumers by a factor lower than three. 25. IBERC, B15. 26. David R. Sands. "U.S. Consumers Will Pay if China Loses Trade Status," The Washington Times, April 17, 1994, A12. 27. The IBERC study is intended to emphasize the costs to U.S. consumers and does not present all the data needed to precisely calculate changes in domestic producer surplus and tariff revenue from other countries. Tariff revenues cited here do not appear in the IBERC study, but have been specifically calculated for this paper. 28. Estimated by Boeing, cited in Edward A. Garan. "Gauging the Consequences of U.S. Spurning China," The New York Times, March 21,1994, D5. 29. Douglas Harbrecht and Amy Borrus. "China: Can He Save Face?" Business Week, April 18, 1994, 56. 30. IBERC, 16-17. 31. IBERC, 15. 32. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Jobs Supported by Merchandise Exports, April 1992, cited in IBERC, 27. 33. IBERC, 32. 34. Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office. "Possible Impact on HK if China lost MFN Status," March 7, 1994. These figures assume an exchange rate of $HK 7.75 to $US 1. 35. Agence France Presse. "U.S.- China trade war would cost Hong Kong 70,000 jobs: Patten," May 8, 1993. 36. Thomas L. Friedman. "U.S. Signals China It May End Annual Trade-Rights Battles," The New York Times, March 24, 1994, A1. 37. "China: Can He Save Face?". 38. "U.S. Signals China It May End Annual Trade-Rights Battles." 39. Thomas W. Lippman. "White House Studies Selective Imposition of China Trade Restraints," The Washington Post, March 18, 1994, A4. 40. Steven Greenhouse. "Aide Says U.S. May Scrap Across-the-Board Penalty for China," The New York Times, March 30, 1994, A10. 41. "China: Can He Save Face?" 42. Thomas L. Friedman. "Democrats Push for a Compromise on Chinese Trade," The New York Times, April 21, 1994, A1. 43. "Democrats Push for a Compromise on Chinese Trade." 44. "Aide Says U.S. May Scrap Across-the-Board Penalty for China." The U.S. government has complained that Chinese firms regular mislabel textile exports in order to evade U.S. quotas. Chinese government enforcement has helped curb this practice, but the central government is highly unlikely to cooperate in enforcing U.S. sanctions against its state-owned industries. 45. Harding, 268-269, 278. 46. Harding, 260-265. 47. Harding, 279. 48. Executive Order 12850, May 28, 1993. 49. Winston Lord. Testimony before the East Asian And Pacific Affairs Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, March 24, 1994. 50. Reuter. April 11, 1994, 11:39:48 EDT. 51. Reuter. April 12, 1994, 14:07:05 EDT. 52. Associated Press. April 20, 1994, 20:12:30 EDT. 53. Reuter. April 21, 1994, 10:46:50 EDT. 54. Reuter. April 21, 1994, 19:40:07 EDT. 55. Reuter. April 24, 1994, 20:44:07 EDT. 56. Associated Press. April 23, 1994, 15:36:08 EDT. 57. For example, China sold nuclear power plants to Iran, Pakistan, and Algeria shortly before signing the NPT; it has also been accused of selling M-11 missiles to Pakistan. A Chinese foreign policy official recently stated in private conversation that China has sold "missile components" to Pakistan. 58. Reuter, April 7, 1994, 13:33:19 EDT. 59. Reuter. April 15, 1994, 18:19:55 EDT. --End of File--