Give a Gift

'Buy American' Limits Threaten Trade War

Congress and the states are bent on keeping jobs in the U.S., but their actions may have unintended consequences.

By Andrew C. Schneider, Associate Editor, The Kiplinger Letter

June 16, 2009
Text Size T T
  • Comments
  • Print This Article
  • Order a Reprint
  • Advertisement

Fears of a U.S.-Canadian trade war may be grossly understated. The stimulus plan's "Buy American" provision is already pushing the two nations in that direction. But far from trying to solve the problem, Congress seems determined to make it worse. House members have attached similar language to bills authorizing funds for school construction, repair of public buildings, purchases of health care technology and hybrid cars and, less surprisingly, procurement of a new plane for use as Air Force One.

The Obama administration is feverishly seeking a solution before tensions rise any higher. U.S. and Canadian businesses, along with the Canadian government, are lobbying Congress heavily to back off, pointing out the number of jobs that depend on cross-border trade. But it's far from clear such efforts will have any effect.

The Buy American language in the stimulus was meant to exempt trade with countries that had ratified the World Trade Organization's Government Procurement Agreement or NAFTA. NAFTA members are the U.S., Canada and Mexico. But those treaties fully bind the U.S. and Canada only at the federal level. No Canadian provinces participate. While 40 states observe the pacts, most have exceptions for sensitive goods. Few U.S. cities are covered by the deals.

Such distinctions made little difference before the stimulus bill became law. But now, fearing a loss of aid money, many U.S. state and local governments are going further than they need to and are rejecting contract bids from firms that use Canadian components.

Canada's local governments are already threatening retaliation. On June 5, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities passed a resolution requiring that members limit government procurement from abroad to countries that themselves do not bar Canadian companies from such competition. This would give European, Japanese, Chinese and Korean firms a leg up over U.S. competitors. The federation gave the U.S. 120 days to fix the problem before the decision takes effect.

There's a risk of long-term damage to North American supply chains. Much of U.S.-Canadian trade involves goods crossing the border multiple times before the products in which they're used are finally completed. Indeed, supply chain integration has long been one of the main benefits of NAFTA, given its role in increasing trade and lowering production costs. Makers of water and wastewater equipment, the manufacturers hit hardest by the stimulus bill's Buy American rules, accounted for $10 billion in cross-border trade last year. Other industries with North American supply chains will get dragged down, too, if they're unable to buy from Canada and Mexico.

Consider the case of IPEX, a Canadian-based manufacturer of thermoplastic pipe systems for the construction sector, to see how the problem is playing out on both sides of the U.S.-Canadian border. Before it can participate in a U.S. construction project, IPEX is now asked to sign a certificate affirming that all its products are made in the U.S. Since IPEX's supply chain is integrated across the border, its product load is invariably a mix of Canadian and U.S. parts. The result is that it is either unable to bid on the project or the parts are turned away if they have already been shipped to a construction site.

"Before Feb. 17, we had access to the U.S. market," says Veso Sobot, an IPEX engineer, referring to the date the stimulus bill became law. "Since Feb. 17, we have not." That's bad news for companies such as Westlake Chemicals. Westlake, based in Houston, manufactures the raw materials IPEX uses to make its pipes. IPEX's troubles in the U.S. market will force it to cut back production.

"America ships way more product into Canada than Canada ships into America," says Sobot. "If we injure either one of us, we're injuring ourselves collectively, and we won't be able to compete effectively on the world stage."

For weekly updates on topics to improve your business decisionmaking, click here.


DISCUSS

Permission to post your comment is assumed when you submit it. The name you provide will be used to identify your post, and NOT your e-mail address. We reserve the right to excerpt or edit any posted comments for clarity, appropriateness, civility, and relevance to the topic.
View our full privacy policy

Reader Comments (9)

Posted by: Nomen at 06/16/2009 09:43:03 AM

How far did you have to dig to come up with this example? Most of our trade problems come from American companies who have moved to countries such as Mexico or China to maximize profits on cheap labor and import their products back into the U.S. More American workers have lost their jobs to these unfair trade agreements over the past 20 years than to the current recession. Trade agreements were and are promoted as creating American job security but have been doing the exact opposite. Threats of a trade war are just scare tactics. Since we import much more than we export(remember the term trade deficit?), a trade war would hurt other countries far more than us. The U.S. is the only country in the world with little or no regard for it's own workers.

Posted by: Bob at 06/17/2009 08:19:27 AM

The USA has been subsidising the world and it is time for a change. The world is protectionest. Now the world will have to come to a new reality. We cannot throw away all the workers who are good with their hands. I believe that Airbus does not have to repay all the loans it accumulates from it's sponcering countries,while developing a new airbus until the project is profitable. Can you verify this? I believe that our standard of living is beginning to decline. The prospect of a better life for our children is declining. Bob

Posted by: Rodger Malcolm Mitch at 06/17/2009 08:24:03 AM

Apparently the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, a "buy American" law, which widely is credited with exacerbating the Great Depression, has taught our leaders nothing.

Posted by: Farmer at 06/17/2009 09:43:39 AM

How can you say foreign countries treat their worker than we treat ours. Obama just "gave" the American Auto Worker a major ownership stake in GM and Chrysler and left the stockholders hanging from a tree. American workers are the most coddler bunch of overpaid whiners and criers in the world. If it is so great to be a worker in a foreign countries why are there so many people from foreign countries trying to get into our country to work and live here!

Posted by: Jim at 06/17/2009 10:10:43 AM

To my knowledge there has never been a tariff used as a trade barrier has not had precisely the opposite effect. Jefferson nearly ruined the nation with tariffs, Smoot-Hawley is widely credited with making the depression much worse. Now we have the "Buy America" provision that will ensure other nations stop importing American goods. This will slow business and ensure layoffs in companies who depend on exports. Brilliant move Democrats. Risk many jobs to possibly protect a few, though that few contribute heavily to your campaign funds.

Posted by: M Baker at 06/17/2009 12:50:14 PM

My tax dollars are suppose to be used to put Americans back to work so I can get the $100,000.00 back that my house has lost and the 35% that my PSP has lost. I can't worry about the Canadians until I have mine back .

Posted by: Tom at 06/17/2009 01:42:04 PM

What a shame if we lose some business by backing away from NAFTA. My ... job went to china, I wasn't invited my replacement manager makes 20% of what I did. Dont believe this run-around trash. If things dont change SOON we will become a total service economy. Think of how sensitive THAT is to fluctuations in the market. I don't want my bellhop job going to china too.

Posted by: USAcitizen at 06/17/2009 01:51:02 PM

Canada has under both the WTO Government Procurement Agreement and NAFTA purposely left provinces and local governments off the lists effectively exempting them from these agreements. What exactly are you threatening to do, carry on the same as the last 13 years???? As the laws are right now, had Canada provided a similiar stimulus spending package, USA firms would not have an opportunity to bid on those procurment contracts. Quit crying the "innocent Canada" and open up your markets if you don't like the current process, practice what you preach.

Posted by: Lee Brewer at 06/17/2009 02:47:17 PM

Congress is scared and trying to show they have done something to help the economy. The problem is they are ignorant about how the US Canadian relationship works. They should stick to their debate about lots of nothings and not do something really harmful.



Featured Videos From Kiplinger





Connect With Kiplinger

E-mail Updates: Select the Kiplinger columns and topics to be delivered to your inbox.

email-sign-up

facebook
RSS