© 2018 by Robert Person.  The views expressed on this website are my own and do not represent the official policy of the U.S. Army, Department of Defense, or U.S. Government.

Mar 25

Italy Signs on to the Belt and Road Initiative

0 comments

Edited: Mar 25

 

On the 23rd of March, Italy became the first developed economy to sign up for the Silk Road project or the Belt and Road Initiative. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), defined briefly in the article, is a Chinese project providing funds for major infrastructure projects throughout the world. Countries in Africa and South Asia who have joined the BRI were lucratively funded for the construction of trains, roads, and ports (BBC News). Italy’s deal with China is no different; during President Xi Jinping’s trip to Rome, a total of 29 deals amounting to 2.8 billion dollars were signed. Despite growing concerns from the West and citizens of funded countries that the BRI is merely geopolitical ploy by the Chinese, Italy signed the umbrella deal. The deal offers large Italian gas and energy and engineering firms entry into Chinese markets, while promising China’s Communications and Construction Company access to the ports of Trieste and Genoa (BBC News). This trade deal is potentially good for Italy, who’s economy slipped into a recession at the end of 2018. Additionally, Italian infrastructure is under strict scrutiny following the collapse of the Genoa Bridge last August and the BRI could help the country combat this issue by providing funds for infrastructure. Aside from access shipping ports, this deal with Italy is positive for China because it demonstrates that China has an important global role in the world economy (BBC News).

This article and deal is applicable to our economic development block because it deals with multinational corporations and foreign direct investment. The positive aspects of China’s foreign direct investment into Italy are that it will provide Italy with both fiscal and physical resources to construct better public infrastructure. Additionally, access for Italian corporations to Chinese markets will increase investment and help push the Italian economy out of recession. Despite these initial positive effects, granting China a geopolitical foothold in Italy through the Trieste and Genoa ports may hurt Italian political and economic relations with other Western countries. This is because many other Western nations view the BRI as a predatory deal and have refused to join. On the hand, Italy joining may reassure other countries in Europe. The difference between this deal and what we have discussed in class is that Italy, compared to countries in Africa or Latin America, is an advanced industrialized country. Allowing Italian multinational corporations to invest in Chinese markets may bring in technology and managerial expertise to China and vice versa, since Italy is allowing the Communications and Construction Company to invest as well. Conversely, multinational corporations can crowd out domestic investment by reducing the amount of funds available for investment in China and in Italy. In the examples of less industrialized countries, multinational corporations sometimes become extractive institutions, and hurt the host country. However, I believe that this is less likely with two advanced industrialized economies. Lastly, Chinese and Italian multinational corporations will potentially open marketing networks for both countries. In the future, foreign direct investment on behalf of both the Chinese government and multinational corporations on both sides will potentially allow local affiliates and domestic firms in both countries greater access to other global markets. Integration of these companies can create chances to export goods that would otherwise be unavailable to domestic producers.

 

BBC News. “Italy joins China’s New Silk Road project.” 23 March 2019. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47679760

New Posts
  • In his article for Foreign Affairs David Cohen talks about the Trump administration's policy towards sanctions. He talks about how the conditional sanctions the Trump administrations has placed on Iran and now Venezuela will be ineffective because the changes the administration is trying to coerce will essentially mean regime change for the two nations. Cohen goes on to state that these will be ultimately ineffective because the relative cost of the sanctions is lower than the cost of losing power. This means that the leaders of Iran and Venezuela are more willing to bear the pain of the sanctions than lose the regime. This goes along with the lesson we had on sanctions in a couple of ways. First we learned that sanctions are used either as a method of deterrence or coercion. This means that the sanctions inflict financial and economic pain to make the target of the sanctions take or not take an action. These sanctions are meant to cause political changes that will in essence mean a change of regime which is why they will fail. They are effective in causing pain; however, there is not enough sanctions in the world to make it worth losing power. Article link: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2019-04-29/sanctions-cant-spark-regime-change
  • https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/us/politics/china-trade-tariffs.html Just before a scheduled round of trade negotiations began on Friday, President Trump announced that he was still going to levy additional tariffs on Chinese imports valued at approximately $250 billion. President Trump claimed that these tariffs would bring billions of dollars back to US manufacturers, but the main focus seems to be inflicting pain on China, as opposed to bringing prosperity to the US. China and the US have not been able to reach an agreement that would minimize or end outright the "trade war" between the two, which stems from the Trump Administration's belief that China is not doing all it can to protect American investments and intellectual property in China, as well as the belief that a large trade deficit with China is inherently bad. The Trump Administration's use of tariffs as a negotiating tool is inelegant, but effective. Unilateral tariffs immediately affect the Chinese export industry, whose products become less competitive in US markets. While this inflicts pain on Chinese exports, whose largest market is the US, it also affects US consumers, who have to pay higher costs for consumer goods. Additionally, because China retaliates with target tariffs (on politically-relevant goods like Kentucky Bourbon and soybeans from the Heartland), US exporters are equally hurt by the trade war. The only immediate winner is the US, who collects revenue from the applied tariffs; however, long-term, US domestic industry should improve, as they will become more competitive when Chinese imports are more expensive. Slowly, we are starting to see this happen: Dan DiMicco, the chairman of a lobby group "Coalition for a Prosperous America," explained that American manufacturing is already experiencing gains in their domestic market shares.
  • https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/may/8/feds-release-168k-illegal-immigrant-family-members/ In Stephen Dinan's article in the Washington Times, he explains the unforeseen immigration due to illegal border crossings. ICE border patrol has released 168,000 illegal immigrant family members this fiscal year, and the number is expected to increase as the border situation increases in volatility (Dinan). Dinan reports that 87% of families in this new pilot program skip their court hearings, and with an ill-equipted government to track them down judges deport them in absentia (Dinan). Dinan argues that this increase in illegal immigration in family units is caused by a 2015 court ruling that stated parents who travel with children must be released in 20 days. Since this is too little time try them in court, the families are set free (Dinan). This article is very relevant to this block in IPE as it highlights a crucial phase that the world is going through. As policies towards free and open borders begin to gain more and more traction, we can expect the number of border crossings into the country to continue. As we talked in class, this may actually be a good thing for the economy, as low skill labor is substituted due to a higher rate of college attenuation and graduation. Dinan says that most migrants interviewed are not criminals, they are just seeking jobs, and know that if they bring children they will find asylum in the US (Dinan). One of the unintended consequences is that some of these migrants are being used to smuggle drugs and weapons into the country, and in some extreme cases, children are being sold to impersonate children of felons migrants of south american countries to gain access with ease. As globalization brings countries closer together and as the trend for free an open borders continues incentivizing cheap labor, it will be interesting to see the effects of these policies 10-15 years in time.