Commentary: Don’t expect the G20 to end the trade turmoil

green and white leafed plantsTOKYO: Economists are fretting over the trade turmoil that currently roils the world economy.

Worst-case scenarios are now front and centre, including the prospect of a World Trade Organisation (WTO) minus one (the United States or China), or perhaps even the world minus the WTO.



The US–China trade war has significantly degraded the rules-based trading regime. The upcoming Osaka G20 summit over Jun 28 to 29 could send the global trade system either into intensive care or to the coroner.

We should not expect the G20 to end the turmoil. The two largest members of the G20, the United States and China, are talking past each other. One may even walk out of the meeting to make a statement over their unhappiness at discussions not going their way.

US President Donald Trump and China’s Xi Jinping could meet in June 2019 on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Japan for trade talks, says a top White House aide. (Photo: AFP/MANDEL NGAN, NICOLAS ASFOURI)



At a minimum, a success at the G20 would be to forge a common position in favour of supporting international trade for inclusive and sustained growth without losing anyone along the way.

Of course, on the sidelines, the United States and China may have informal meetings to make progress on their dispute. But even so, a bilateral deal that will still weaken the rules-based trading regime is likely.


In preparation for the G20, eight ministerial meetings have been held in various locations in Japan, including trade and digital ministers having their first joint meeting.

What can be concluded from the early June G20 Ministerial Statement on Trade and Digital Economy agreed in Tsukuba?

The Tsukuba Ministerial Statement selected its words carefully, particularly to avoid singling out any individual country for blame. The statement does not even directly challenge rising protectionism.

Instead, it states that “we strive to realise a free, fair, non-discriminatory, transparent, predictable and stable trade and investment environment, to keep our markets open”.

Japan’s Finance Minister Taro Aso and Bank of Japan Governor Haruhiko Kuroda attend a news conference of the G20 finance ministers and central bank governors meeting in Fukuoka, Japan June 9, 2019. (Photo: Eugene Hoshiko/Pool via REUTERS)

Nevertheless, the need for WTO reform was explicitly referenced.

Although the United States is not blamed for blocking the appointment of judges to the WTO’s Appellate Body, the statement affirms that “action is necessary regarding the functioning of the dispute settlement system”. And even though China is not explicitly mentioned, the industrial subsidy issue is.

Saving the WTO is particularly important for developing members of the G20.

Their dependency on the non-discrimination principle is profound. But they still do not have an adequate sense of urgency despite the looming prospect of a new trading regime dominated by power politics becoming entrenched.


As a conceptual framework, Data Free Flow with Trust (DFFT) is now being pushed, recognising the rising importance of data flow regulation.

Targeting both domestic and cross-border data management is an important step in organising the still fragmented collection of policies in the flow of data, especially with respect to data multi-national firms.

Analogous to the free trade of goods, it is logical to place the free flow of data as a starting point alongside achieving economic efficiency. But care must be exercised in managing the economic and social concerns over the flow of data, through introducing a suitable supporting framework of policies.

This raises the question of whether economic efficiency or privacy is more important. But this is poor framing of the available policy choices.

A journalist uses his mobile phone to take a picture of the 5G logo at the Bundesnetzagentur head quarters in Mainz, Germany, March 19, 2019. (File photo: REUTERS/Kai Pfaffenbach)

Both issues are important and the dilemmas between these values must be reconciled. An analogy can be drawn from past experience, for instance, in food safety standards where sanitary and phytosanitary clauses are embedded into agreements on free trade.

Cybersecurity should be pursued together with economic efficiency goals. By raising the profile of the free flow of data, values once seemingly at odds with economic efficiency can and should be harmonised.

It is also important to recognise the risk of market failure, particularly in global digital competition. Digital technology may generate network externalities or economies of scale.

But if giant internet platforms abuse their market power, appropriate competition policies must be enacted to mitigate the harmful effects of market domination.

Ultimately, large market shares by themselves are not necessarily a problem, so long as the potential for competition and further technological advancement are secure.

Too often, restrictions are imposed with the hidden intention of protectionism; the logic of any policy in support of the flow of data needs to be clearly set out.


The Ministerial Statement also shows support for electronic commerce under the WTO among like-minded countries, even though not all G20 countries are party to it.

FILE PHOTO: The logo of G20 Summit and Ministerial Meetings is displayed at the G20 Finance and Central Bank Deputies Meeting in Tokyo, Japan January 17, 2019. (Photo: REUTERS/Issei Kato/File Photo)

In addition, the statement adopts a G20 Artificial Intelligence (AI) principle, a non-binding commitment to the development of human-centred AI, which emphasises digital systems that extend rather than replace human intelligence.

This year’s G20 faces serious choices with much energy likely to be spent on just making sure it does not fall apart.

Promisingly, some signs of commitment and cooperation beyond individual countries’ interests are in evidence, particularly with respect to WTO reform as well as in the digital economy.

Dr Fukunari Kimura is Chief Economist of the Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA), Jakarta and Professor of Economics at Keio University, Tokyo. This commentary first appeared on East Asia Forum. Read it here.

You May Also Like

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *