MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2758959039

The Prospects for U.S. Trade Policy under the Trump Administration

2017· article· en· W2758959039 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Beata Słomińska, Marek Jan Wasiński

Notice bibliographique

Revue˜The œPolish Quarterly of International Affairs · 2017
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueGlobal Political and Economic Relations
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPledgeCommercial policyInternational tradeAdministration (probate law)Free tradeBalance of tradePolitical scienceInternational free trade agreementGeneral partnershipEconomicsPublic administrationLaw
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

IntroductionAfter a long campaign, Donald Trump won the Republican Party presidential nomination in July 2016, and then on 8 November, defeated Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton in electoral votes, 306 to 232, despite lower popular support (63 million votes against 65 million cast for Clinton).1 One of Trump's major campaign rallying cries was the need to revise current U.S. trade policy, namely to re-negotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico; to withdraw the U.S. from the Transpacific Partnership (TPP); and to take retaliatory measures against trade partners engaging in unfair practices (with direct reference to China).2 Then, on 20 January 2017, in his Inaugural Address,3 the president reaffirmed the importance of trade policy to the agenda of the new U.S. administration, describing it as a priority area of his America First pledge and its principal goals, including the creation of 25 million new jobs.4 The new trade policy will rely chiefly on measures subject to his Buy American and Hire American5 principle and, on the one hand, promote businesses in the U.S. while, on the other, taxing U.S. production abroad, as well as targeting major trade partners to improve the trade balance.Trump's vision of trade policy diverges strongly from the Republicans' traditionally liberal course of expanding the free trade area, an integral component, based on bilateral, macro-regional (NAFTA, TTIP, TPP) and multilateral (World Trade Organisation, or WTO) agreements. It converges with the direction of a recent change in public perception of trade agreements. Pre-election polls reflected protectionist tendencies in American citizens' attitudes. A Politico-Harvard survey showed that 47% of the Republican electorate believed trade agreements entered into by the U.S. had adversely affected Americans' living standard in the past 10 years while 18% felt those treaties had contributed to an increase in welfare (among the Democratic electorate, the figures were 24% and 33%, respectively).6 An October 2016 Pew Research poll also confirmed the preponderance of anti-trade attitudes among the Republican electorate, with about 68% of these respondents stating free trade agreements were detrimental to the U.S. Scepticism about free trade ran the strongest amongst Trump supporters (67% in the primaries, according to polls conducted in March 20167 and 68% in August 20168 following Trump's nomination as the Republican candidate). This shiftin the preferences of the Republican electorate, a majority of whom as recently as in May 2015 had been in favour of entering into trade agreements with third countries (with barely 36% of respondents pronouncing such a policy unfavourable) was due, among other things, to the climate of opinion on trade agreements fostered by Trump as well as by Democratic candidates Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. However, the split over trade policy in the Republican camp already was increasingly noticeable towards the end of the TPP negotiations.Trade to the U.S. EconomyIn 2015, the U.S. was the world's greatest trade power, accounting for 12% of global trade in goods and services, slightly ahead of China, which ranked first in global exchange of goods.9 In 2016, the value of U.S. trade stood at $4.9 trillion, with imports of $2.7 trillion in excess of exports of $2.2 trillion.10 At 28%, trade's share of U.S. GDP is well below the global average of 58% (compared to 83% for the EU, 73% for Mexico, 65% for Canada, 41% for China, 36% for Japan). This reflects the strength of the American domestic market as the foremost driver of the economy, with exports accounting for 13% of GDP, compared to the global average of 30% of GDP.11Despite the strong position of the U.S. economy on the global market, the asymmetry in U.S. trade with its chief partners remains a problem. In 2016, the U.S. had the largest nominal trade deficit in the world, of $500 billion.12 However, the U. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: Théorique ou conceptuel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,024
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,066

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,009
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0110,006
Communication savante0,0170,006
Science ouverte0,0010,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0210,013
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0190,006

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,021
Tête enseignante GPT0,321
Écart entre enseignants0,299 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2017
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revue˜The œPolish Quarterly of International AffairsMême sujetGlobal Political and Economic RelationsTravaux en français237 207