An Asian Look at the Evolving Global Textiles & Clothing Trade After
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of New South Wales University of New South Wales Faculty of Law Research Series 2009 Year 2009 Paper 16 The Statistics Tell a Story; An Asian Look at the Evolving Global Textiles & Clothing Trade after Quota Expiry Umair Ghori∗ ∗University of New South Wales This working paper is hosted by The Berkeley Electronic Press (bepress) and may not be commer- cially reproduced without the permission of the copyright holder. http://law.bepress.com/unswwps-flrps09/art16 Copyright c 2009 by the author. The Statistics Tell a Story; An Asian Look at the Evolving Global Textiles & Clothing Trade after Quota Expiry Umair Ghori Abstract Textiles and clothing is a sector of critical importance to developing and least developed countries in terms of employment and export earnings. Majority of these countries are forced to be over-reliant on this sector for lack of better al- ternatives. With the end of quotas in 2005 and the resulting increase in compe- tition, many countries are facing serious adjustment challenges including pref- erence erosion, loss of market share in the prime export markets of the US and EU, heightened competition from China and other countries possessing compar- ative advantage in this sector, reduction in average prices of exports (amongst others). There were numerous case studies that attempted to predict the effects of quota elimination. However, in light of the available statistics and figures, many of the pre-elimination predictions have proven to be inaccurate. Many countries that were predicted to be “winners” have not as successful as anticipated earlier and many countries that were predicted as “victims” have emerged as survivors and posted respectable growth rates. This article highlights the evolving global trade in textiles and assesses the pre-elimination estimates in light of the available statistics. “The Statistics Tell a Story; An Asian Look at the Evolving Global Textiles & Clothing Trade after Quota Expiry.” Umair Hafeez Ghori ∗∗∗ CONTENTS INTRODUCTION [2] I. BRIEF HISTORY LEADING UP TO QUOTA-EXPIRY [3] II. TRANSITION TOWARDS QUOTA ELIMINATION [5] III. OVERVIEW & SCOPE OF THE ARTICLE [10] IV. CASE STUDIES [13] i. China [13] (a) US-China [18] (b) EU-China [24] ii. South Asia/SAARC [29] (a) India and Pakistan [34] (b) South Asian LDCs [47] iii. Far-East/ASEAN [61] (a) Cambodia [68] (b) Indonesia [74] (c) Malaysia [81] (d) Philippines [87] (e) Thailand [93] (f) Vietnam [103] V. CONCLUSION [114] ABSTRACT Textiles and clothing is a sector of critical importance to developing and least developed countries in terms of employment and export earnings. Majority of these countries are forced to be over-reliant on this sector for lack of better alternatives. With the end of quotas in 2005 and the resulting increase in competition, many countries are facing serious adjustment challenges including preference erosion, loss of market share in the prime export markets of the US and EU, heightened competition from China and other countries possessing comparative advantage in this sector, reduction in average prices of exports (amongst others). There were numerous case studies that attempted to predict the effects of quota elimination. However, in light of the available statistics and figures, many of the pre-elimination predictions have proven to be inaccurate. Many countries that were predicted to be “winners” have not as successful as anticipated earlier and many countries that were predicted as ∗ Sessional Lecturer, University of New South Wales (e-mail: [email protected]). The author thanks Prof. Ross Buckley for his valuable guidance and support. All responsibility for views, omissions and errors rests solely with the author. Hosted by The Berkeley Electronic Press “victims” have emerged as survivors and posted respectable growth rates. This article highlights the evolving global trade in textiles and assesses the pre-elimination estimates in light of the available statistics. INTRODUCTION Textiles and agriculture represent key concerns of the developing countries and least developed countries (LDCs) in the WTO. Most such countries have traditional agrarian backgrounds and, unlike industrialized nations, rely on agricultural output for sustaining economic activity. Within these countries, the textiles sector engages large amounts of labor and, with low initial capital and relatively simple technology required, traditionally represents the first step on the road to industrialization.1 The global trade in textiles achieved a milestone in January 2005, with the abolition of quotas. This was a major shift in an area vital to the economies of the developing countries and LDCs as trade in textiles and clothing may offer the only feasible route to industrialization for many of these countries. These countries are vulnerable to changes in global financial and trading patterns and rely on textiles industries for providing employment to their populace. Most developing countries, particularly in Asia, are forced to be overly reliant on textiles industries due to economic constraints and for lack of better alternatives. The textiles and apparel sector has fewer barriers to entry and does not require huge capital investment or highly skilled workers. Yet, this sector has also been the subject of extensive protectionist policies since the beginning of the industrial revolution. 2 1 See Kitty G. Dickerson, Textile Trade: The GATT Exception , 11 St. John’s J. Legal Comment. 393, 393 (1996); Kitty G. Dickerson , Textiles and Apparel in the Global Economy 318–319 (2d ed. 1995); Michael Murawski, Lacking Support: China Suffers a Textiles Trade Let Down by Politics and Poor Preparation in the EU, 30 Suffolk Transnat’l L. Rev. 141, 144 (2006) ; Ratnakar Adhikari & Yumiko Yamamoto, The Textile and Clothing Industry: Adjusting to the Post-Quota World in Industrial Development for the 21st Century: Sustainable Development Perspectives 183– 184 (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2007). 2 The earliest recorded attempt at regulating textiles trade was in the late seventeenth century when the British prohibited Indian cloth from being imported in order to foster the rising English textiles industry. The industrialisation age saw the UK emerging as the undisputed leader in textiles production and in line with the prevalent economic policy of mercantilism, trade regulation assured that exports were higher than imports to increase national wealth (See: Dickerson , Id at 319; See also Pietra Rivoli , Travels of a T-Shirt in the Global Economy 152–156 ( 1st ed. 2005 ); Textiles and clothing assumed a symbolic status of independence, self-reliance, employment for the masses and progress. A very famous example is of Mahatma Gandhi (the founding father of India and the leader of the independence movement from the British). He followed his famous non-violent policies of civil disobedience and adopted the swadeshi policy which involved 2 http://law.bepress.com/unswwps-flrps09/art16 I. BRIEF HISTORY LEADING UP TO QUOTA-EXPIRY While the history of protectionism in textiles trade stretches back for centuries into the age of mercantilism, it is interesting to note that similar trends permeated global multilateral trade in the post-World War II period. Until 1 January 2005, trade in textiles and clothing was subjected to a sector-specific treatment in international trade law. The foundations for this “discrimination” were laid in the early 1950's with the Voluntary Export Restraints (VERs) imposed on Japan in the post-war years due to US concerns about the impact of cheaper Japanese exports on domestic manufacturers. 3 This was the genesis of the institutionalized protectionism in textiles and apparel trade which continued for the remainder of the twentieth century. The self-centered protectionist concerns voiced by the US and subsequently by European industry interests were about the threat to domestic textile industries from low-cost, low- wage competition from producers in developing countries. The constant demands by industry associations for protection manifested itself first in the Short-Term Agreement Regarding International Trade in Textiles (STA) 4 and then the Long-Term Arrangement Regarding Cotton Textiles (LTA) 5. The LTA was an enhanced reinforcement of the STA and represented the boycott of foreign-made goods, especially goods of British origin. Gandhi emphasized that khaddi (homespun cloth) should be adopted by all Indians as their dress instead of British-made textiles. 3 VER is an agreement whereby the exporting country agrees to limit / control exports so that the importing country does not impose restrictive trade measures like quotas, high tariffs etc. Martin Wolf writes that in the history of VERs, “Textiles appear to have been the leading sector” to cover “new exporters, new products and new fibres.” However, VERs have not just been limited to textiles and clothing but have also been employed as an export restraint measure on automobiles, steel and consumer electronics ( See Martin Wolf, Why Voluntary Export Restraints? An Historical Analysis, 12(3) the World Economy 286 (1989) . 4 The STA was effective from October 1961 to September 1962 and allowed one year restrictions on designated categories of cotton textiles. It is noteworthy that only cotton textiles were targeted in the STA (defined as a textile product in which 50% or more of the fibre content is cotton). Other textiles such as manmade fibres and wool did not fall within the ambit of the STA (Dickerson, supra note 1, at 406-407; See generally Vinod K. Aggarwal , Liberal Protectionism: The International Politics of Organized Textile Trade , (1st ed. 1985). 5 The LTA was concluded at the expiry of the STA and it came into force on 1 October 1962. The LTA went beyond the scope of the STA and its period of effectiveness was 5 years. It was renewed again in 1967 and in 1970. At each renewal, there was a progressive increase of restrictions encompassing a wide range of cotton products ( See Sanjoy Bagchi , International Trade Policy in Textiles – Fifty years of Protectionism 48 (1st ed.