Even academics are uncertain and swayed by partisan framing.
As electric vehicles (EVs) gain popularity in the U.S., a new political battle is brewing over the cost of going green. While the American firm Tesla has long been the dominant EV maker globally, Chinese firms – led by BYD – are growing rapidly. In May 2024, Pres. Joe Biden announced plans for a 100% tariff on Chinese EVs, citing U.S. concerns about unfair trade practices. On Aug. 26, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau followed suit.
What will these tariffs achieve? We polled international relations scholars to find out.
China’s EVs are a global success
Chinese automaker BYD recently overtook Tesla as the leader in the global EV market. BYD’s success is partially due to the ability to produce EVs at a fraction of the cost of its international counterparts. This success has fueled widespread concerns about overcapacity in a still-developing industry.
The Biden administration is weighing drastic measures to encourage domestic manufacturers’ continued investments in response to emerging “bad vibes” in the sector. The administration announced plans to quadruple the tariff on Chinese EVs, raising it to over 100%. Some Republicans, led by Donald Trump, have taken an even harder stance. After initially proposing a 100% tariff, Donald Trump announced that EV tariffs could exceed 200% if he returns to office.
The proposal has rekindled partisan clashes. Republican and Democratic supporters of the tariffs disagree on the policy goals. Democrats argue it’s a necessary step to safeguard American jobs and technological leadership in greening the economy. Republicans contend the tariffs aim to prevent China from flooding the market with cheap, government-subsidized vehicles. Among opponents of the tariffs, Democrats and Republicans alike highlight the potential damage from these tariffs. But they disagree on whether the main concerns are environmental or economic.
Economists don’t like tariffs
Conventionally, economists uniformly believe that tariffs are bad for the economy as a whole. For example, virtually all the economists in a Chicago Booth Review panel survey disagreed or strongly disagreed that the Trump administration’s steel and aluminum tariffs would improve Americans’ welfare. However, in a May 2024 Chicago Booth survey, economists seem to be breaking ranks on the question of tariffs and the environment. Nearly all the economists said they agreed (54%) or strongly agreed (24%) that tariffs would increase the cost of EVs in the United States. But they split on the effect on employment in domestic automotive industries: 41% of experts agreed that employment in domestic automotive industries would increase, 41% were uncertain, and 11% disagreed. Economists also split on the extent to which U.S. tariffs on EVs would slow the public adoption of green technologies – with 59% agreeing they would, 9% disagreeing, and 26% uncertain.
What do international relations scholars think about EV tariffs?
As part of the TRIP (Teaching, Research, and International Policy Project) election-focused Snap Poll XIX fielded in June and July 2024, we asked U.S.-based international relations scholars about their support for these tariffs and their beliefs about their economic and environmental effects. Of the 5,146 scholars across the United States that we contacted, over 700 responded (a response rate of approximately 14% for this set of questions).
Of these 700, over 500 participated in a survey experiment in which respondents randomly received true but different attributions of the political instigator of the 100% tariffs. Participants read one of the following: “The U.S. plans,” “President Biden plans,” or “If elected, Donald Trump plans.”
When the survey question called this “The U.S. plan,” the proposed tariffs received support from 28% of respondents and opposition from 59%. However, when framed as “President Biden plans,” support was higher (39%) and opposition lower (46%). In contrast, when framed as “Donald Trump’s plans” support was lower (22%), opposition was slightly higher (61%), and more respondents (17%) expressed uncertainty. The differences are all statistically significant and suggest that academics (like the U.S. public) are not immune to partisan framing.
Do tariffs help environmental goals?
Support and opposition to the tariffs also appear to correlate with beliefs about whether the tariffs will derail the country’s ability to meet environmental goals. Even more than the economists surveyed in May, international scholars differed on whether they thought that tariffs would increase or decrease EV purchases by U.S. consumers and whether they would decrease or increase the U.S.’s ability to meet its carbon emissions goals. On both questions, over a third of respondents selected “neither.”
Pooling across all three frames, we found that international relations scholars who oppose the tariffs are much more likely to answer that tariffs will decrease U.S. consumption of EVs (63%) and more likely to decrease the U.S. ability to meet emissions goals (59%). In contrast, those who support tariffs are more likely to believe that these tariffs will have no effect or a positive effect on consumption (64%) and no effect or a positive effect on meeting environmental goals (75%).
These findings suggest that even on a technical issue on which we might be more likely to expect agreement among elites, political and ideological differences may shape preferences and understanding of the effects of economic policy.
Anna Rowland is a graduating senior in the political science department at Temple University.
The post What do academics really think about Chinese EV tariffs? appeared first on Good Authority.