Bill Overview
Title: To authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to the products of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan.
Description: This bill authorizes the President to extend nondiscriminatory treatment (i.e., normal trade relations treatment) to products of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan.
Sponsors: Rep. Suozzi, Thomas R. [D-NY-3]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals involved in trade and consumers connected to trade with Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan
Estimated Size: 3000000
- The bill primarily affects individuals and companies involved in trade relationships with Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan.
- Countries with normal trade relations benefit from reduced tariffs and fewer trade restrictions, which can enhance trade volumes.
- Businesses in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan that export products to the U.S. will be directly impacted by increased market access.
- Consumers in these countries may benefit from increased economic activity spurred by new trade opportunities.
- U.S. companies may have better market access for their imports from these countries, impacting their supply chains and cost structures.
- The broader population in these regions may experience economic impacts through increased job opportunities and broader economic growth.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily impacts individuals and businesses involved in trade with Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan. To simulate the interviews, I included profiles of business owners, workers in companies that rely on imports from these countries, and unaffected individuals to provide a complete view.
- The budget constraints restrict the scope of impact in the initial years, suggesting that significant benefits might accrue more towards the middle and end of the decade as trade relationships deepen.
- I included a diverse set of experiences ranging from business CEOs, middle-management employees, and individuals not connected to international trade to understand the broader economic and social implications.
Simulated Interviews
CEO of Import Business (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could significantly reduce tariffs, cutting down on costs and allowing my business to expand our product range.
- I believe increased trade with these countries will also foster better diplomatic relationships.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 6 |
Logistics Manager (Houston, TX)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Easier trade routes mean I can do my job more efficiently and may mean more jobs in my field.
- Better trade policies can lead to more predictable operations and career growth.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Consumer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I doubt this policy will make much difference to me directly, but if it keeps prices low, that's good.
- I support policies that generally strengthen economic ties.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Fashion Retailer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Sourcing unique products could become easier and cheaper with this policy.
- Broadening my supplier base is crucial, and this would facilitate that expansion.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Tech Industry Employee (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This might not influence me directly, but a robust economy benefits my investments.
- Open trade is positive for global business, even if it's indirect.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Retired (Miami, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While retired, I see economic ties as fostering cultural understanding.
- I have friends in the trade business who could be positively affected.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Freight Forwarder (Austin, TX)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Optimizing shipping costs and time due to this policy could boost my business prospects.
- As trade becomes easier, we may also see increased job security.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Regional Buyer for a Retail Chain (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 44 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Expanded import opportunities could lead to better pricing and inventory options.
- This helps strengthen long-term supplier relationships.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Academic Researcher (Denver, CO)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with my belief in globalized economic policies.
- Research opportunities related to trade dynamics may expand with policy implementation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Import/Export Consultant (Boston, MA)
Age: 53 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Clients could see lower costs and expand market footprints with this policy.
- Consulting opportunities may increase as more businesses look to benefit from the normalization.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Year 3: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Year 5: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Year 10: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Key Considerations
- Possible geopolitical changes could influence trade relationships and stability.
- Administration costs are negligible compared to potential economic benefits.
- Building trade volume and relationships takes time; immediate effects may be modest but grow over time.