Bill Overview
Title: Countering Economic Coercion Act of 2022
Description: This bill authorizes the President to take certain actions to assist foreign trading partners affected by economic coercion. Economic coercion refers to actions or threats undertaken by a foreign adversary to restrain, obstruct, or manipulate trade, foreign aid, investment, or commerce with the intent to cause economic harm or influence sovereign political actions. Specifically, the bill authorizes the President (upon a determination that a foreign trading partner is subject to economic coercion) to exercise specified authorities to support or assist the foreign trading partner. These authorities include, among others, decreasing duties or modifying tariff-rate quotas on imports from the foreign trading partner, requesting appropriations for foreign aid, and expediting export licensing decisions and regulatory processes. The President must consult with Congress prior to exercising any authority. Additionally, the President must publish notice in the Federal Register related to the exercise of such authority. Any determination of economic coercion must be revoked at the earliest of (1) two years from the date of determination, (2) upon a joint resolution of Congress, or (3) when the President revokes the determination. The bill also directs the President to endeavor to coordinate with other foreign trading partners to broaden economic support for the foreign trading partner.
Sponsors: Sen. Young, Todd [R-IN]
Target Audience
Population: Global individuals impacted by economic coercion and related economic disruptions
Estimated Size: 200000000
- The bill aims to assist foreign trading partners affected by economic coercion, which refers to foreign adversaries restraining or manipulating trade and economic relationships.
- Economic coercion can impact various sectors of a country's economy, including international trade and domestic businesses reliant on imports and exports.
- The global target population for this bill includes countries at risk of facing or currently facing economic coercion, potentially impacting their entire populations due to economic repercussions.
- The act intends to protect and possibly improve the economic well-being of these foreign trading partners by reducing US trade barriers and providing foreign aid.
- In a broader sense, global economic stability affects international markets and economies worldwide, indirectly impacting global populations.
- The goal of the bill is to deter economic attacks and support countries in maintaining trade sovereignty, ultimately affecting markets and trade partnerships globally.
Reasoning
- The Countering Economic Coercion Act of 2022 primarily targets foreign trading partners, hence the direct impact on U.S. citizens may be limited to specific sectors heavily reliant on international trade.
- Primary U.S. populations affected would be in sectors like export-focused industries, import-heavy businesses, and consumers buying imported goods.
- Considering the budget limitations, the policy may not manifest in significant tangible benefits for all U.S. residents; however, stabilizing trade partners could result in overall economic health improvements indirectly.
- There may be initial fluctuations in trade dynamics which could affect short-term wellbeing scores, with potential improvements over time as stability is achieved.
- To capture diverse perspectives, the interviews range from individuals in manufacturing and retail sectors to students and retirees to reflect varying levels of involvement in international trade.
Simulated Interviews
Small Business Owner (Portland, Oregon)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy helps stabilize my suppliers and brings some certainty to my business.
- Reduced tariffs would be a great relief; it's been tough managing costs with fluctuating duties.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Financial Analyst (New York, New York)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might mitigate some risks for my clients involved in international trade.
- Economic stability in afflicted regions will likely result in better investment outcomes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Oil Industry Worker (Houston, Texas)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hopefully, we will see reduced frictions in global trade; it's been rough seeing profits dwindle due to tariffs.
- Future job security might improve if international markets settle down.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Manufacturing Plant Supervisor (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If the policy can stabilize import component costs, it will help avoid layoffs here.
- The indirect impact of trade struggles on local jobs has been tough.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Retired (Miami, Florida)
Age: 61 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I can hope that the policy will help lower the prices of everyday goods; it's been tough.
- I've already adapted to buying less or choosing cheaper options.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Tech Executive (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This might open up smoother international partnerships and improve our market strategies.
- Tech industries thrive on stable global trade practices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Graduate Student (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The direct applicability of trade policies in academic research and real-world implications is fascinating.
- I believe this policy will serve as an interesting case study.
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 |
Auto Parts Supplier (Detroit, Michigan)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We desperately need some easing on import duties to stay competitive.
- Any relief on tariffs will be a direct help to my business.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Retail Manager (Atlanta, Georgia)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Stabilizing import costs would definitely help maintain our pricing strategy.
- I'd like to see more long-term solutions for international trade issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Farmer (Rural Kansas)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hoping this helps reduce the tariffs on our grains; it's been rough selling at lower prices.
- A reduction in trade barriers would be beneficial for my business.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $750000000 (Low: $500000000, High: $1000000000)
Year 2: $800000000 (Low: $500000000, High: $1100000000)
Year 3: $850000000 (Low: $550000000, High: $1150000000)
Year 5: $900000000 (Low: $600000000, High: $1200000000)
Year 10: $1000000000 (Low: $700000000, High: $1300000000)
Year 100: $1500000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $2000000000)
Key Considerations
- Policy costs can fluctuate annually based on geopolitical events and the frequency of economic coercion incidents.
- Coordination with international allies is crucial but might delay responses due to diverse geopolitical interests.
- The global economic landscape affects the scale of potential interventions needed under this policy.