Handwringing over how to slice the pie when USTR should be focused on growing it

The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) recently released its report on the distributional effects of trade and trade policy on U.S. workers and “underrepresented and underserved communities.” The report catalogs a host of information gathered from a literature review and several roundtables on the adverse effects of U.S. manufacturing imports. But the report’s laser focus on manufacturing imports leaves a huge gap for readers interested in the distributional effects of trade. Manufacturing imports are an important part of trade, but they aren’t all of trade. Trade is imports and exports, goods and services, inputs and final goods. Trade is manufacturing, but it’s also agriculture and services. And you need to look at the full picture to understand the distributional impacts of trade and trade policy. While trade can mean wage or job loss for a worker with skills specific to an import-competing industry, it can mean other things, too. Trade can be the average American household’s budget going further at Christmastime. Trade can be importing the widgets that used to be made here and exporting new high-tech manufacturing goods that use those imported widgets. Trade is what has helped one mom from Lithonia, Georgia, start her own online accessory and consignment store. Trade is the lifeline for much of U.S. agriculture. But the ITC report focused narrowly on the workers competing with manufacturing imports.