Pela preservação do sistema multilateral de comércio- Anne Krueger, Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Abaixo um apelo da respeitada economista Anne Krueger para que todos os paises vítimas da ofensiva unilateral dos EUA de Trump se unam para constituir uma nova entidade internacional disposta a preservar o sistema multilateral de comércio, que está sendo destruído pelas atitudes atrabiliárias do presidente americano. Na verdade, todos os afetados pelas suas medidas unilaterais continuam a preservar entre si o respeito à cláusula de nação mais favorecida, mas recuaram temporariamente dela em face da violência do ataque americano, como se fossem obrigados a se submeterem às imposições de um violador da lei internacional. O Brasil deveria aderir a esse apelo e contatar o Canadá, UE, Japão, Coreia e outros países para uma possível reunião de coordenação na própria sede da OMC e emitirem uma declaração de defesa e manutenção do sistema multilateral de comércio.

Paulo Roberto de Almeida. 

The case for a Multilateral Trade Organization without America

Anne O. Krueger

Project Syndicate, October 28, 2025

US President Donald Trump’s divide-and-rule tactics have shattered the postwar multilateral order. To preserve open, rules-based commerce, America’s major trading partners must form a new coalition capable of upholding the principles that the World Trade Organization can no longer guarantee.

WASHINGTON, DC – Since January, the world has watched in shock as US President Donald Trump’s administration has undermined every pillar of the economic order that the United States helped build and proudly championed for much of the past century.

The principles of the postwar international economic order – non-discrimination among trading partners, fair treatment of foreign businesses in domestic courts, and adherence to the rule of law as enshrined in the World Trade Organization’s Articles of Agreement – laid the groundwork for eight decades of unprecedented prosperity and poverty reduction. While economists still debate whether trade was the primary engine of global growth or merely a key facilitator, few would dispute that the liberalization of trade played a central role.

Given this history, it is hardly surprising that the Trump administration’s sweeping, country-specific tariff hikes, which violate the tariff ceilings negotiated under the WTO, have shocked America’s allies. Trump’s invitation to individual countries to “negotiate” tariff reductions represents yet another breach of the multilateral rules-based system, given that these negotiations have been strictly bilateral. These actions violate the WTO’s most-favored-nation principle, which prohibits member states from applying different trade barriers to different countries except under formal free-trade agreements. By raising tariffs above the limits set in WTO agreements, the administration has injected enormous uncertainty into the global trading system.

Talks with South Korea, for example, began only once negotiations with Japan had apparently concluded. While the US agreed to cut the tariff on Japanese automobile imports to 15%, the rate for South Korean cars remains at 25% pending a final agreement. Even the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement offered no shield, as America’s regional partners were forced into separate negotiations.

The distortions don’t stop there. Beyond tariffs, the Trump administration demanded that negotiating partners commit to fixed levels of foreign direct investment in the US. Likewise, as a condition for approving the sale of US Steel to Japan’s Nippon Steel, the administration secured a “golden share,” granting the federal government veto rights over corporate decisions.

At its core, Trump’s trade strategy rests on divide-and-rule tactics. Faced with the threat of severe economic disruption, most national leaders have felt they had no choice but to negotiate and accept terms that heavily favor American interests.

All of this underscores the urgent need for WTO members to mount a coordinated response. To that end, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has proposed that the world’s largest trade blocs – most notably, the European Union and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) – join forces and form a new multilateral coalition. Acting collectively, such a group would command far greater bargaining power than any country could achieve on its own.

Carney’s proposal, however, would take time to implement, since the two major trading blocs operate under different rules and standards that would need to be reconciled. The CPTPP, formed by the original participants in the Trans-Pacific Partnership after Trump withdrew the US from it at the start of his first presidency, offers a useful model.

Alternatively, WTO members could create a new Global Trade Organization (GTO), adopting the WTO’s Articles of Agreement and incorporating existing mechanisms such as the Dispute Settlement Mechanism. Membership would be open to any country willing to abide by these rules. If EU and CPTPP countries signed on, others – including South Korea – would likely follow.

Critically, accession procedures should be kept simple, ensuring continuity of WTO rules. With most of the world’s trading countries banding together, much of the WTO’s practical value could be preserved until the US decides to change course.

There is already precedent for this kind of initiative. After the US blocked appointments to the WTO’s Appellate Body between 2017 and 2019, 47 members responded by forming the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement, which allows participating members to resolve disputes without US involvement.

The US accounts for about 10-12% of global exports, while China’s share is roughly 15%. If the GTO represented even 60% of international trade, its collective bargaining power would far exceed that of the US, rendering Trump’s divide-and-rule tactics ineffective. More importantly, such unity might eventually persuade American policymakers to return to rules-based cooperation.

To be sure, the WTO must be modernized, especially when it comes to e-commerce, subsidies, and services trade. But restoring the integrity of the global trading system is urgent. By embracing Carney’s initiative and forming a GTO, major economies can reaffirm their commitment to cooperation, stability, and shared prosperity, thereby keeping the spirit of multilateralism alive while paving the way for necessary reforms.

Governo Trump, desmantelador - Anne Krueger

Project Syndicate, Praga – 21.8.2019

Trump’s War on Evidence

^{US President Donald Trump has made no secret of his disdain for experts and evidence-based policymaking. Yet by attempting to gut the US Census Bureau and two key agencies within the Department of Agriculture, he is undercutting the data-gathering institutions upon which broad sectors of the US economy rely.}

Anne O. Krueger

Washington, DC -  Decision-making based on evidence rather than superstition was a driving force behind the Industrial Revolution, and the collection of statistics has, accordingly, become a hallmark of the modern age. In the twenty-first century, businesses and governments alike are finding that data are more valuable than ever.

There are cases where data should be – and, indeed, are – collected by the private sector. But given their broad applications, many data sets are public goods, and thus should be gathered by governments. One of the factors behind America’s economic dominance is that the US government has long collected statistics that are universally regarded as trustworthy and impartial. These data have played an indispensable role in driving innovations in technology, medicine, social policy, and many other fields.

US President Donald Trump’s administration, however, seems to believe that experts and evidence are irrelevant. For example, it has starved the US Census Bureau of funds, precisely when the agency is in the process of conducting the decennial census, as mandated by the US Constitution. An internationally respected institution, the Census Bureau usually benefits from a sharp funding increase in the years leading up to the census (followed by a decrease in the years immediately thereafter). But under Trump, the agency’s budget has been held relatively flat, leaving it without the means to test different survey questions or various cost-saving techniques.

The census is far too valuable to receive such short shrift. US businesses rely on the data collected by the Census Bureau to make decisions about future output, hiring, and investments. The government itself needs accurate and comprehensive census data to forecast future revenues and the costs of major programs such as Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. And independent researchers and academics use census data to improve our understanding of political, economic, and social behavior.

Sadly, the Census Bureau is not the only victim of the Trump administration’s war on evidence. Others include two highly respected agencies within the Department of Agriculture (USDA): the Economic Research Service and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture. In June, Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue announced that both the ERS and NIFA will lose their independent status within the department and be relocated from Washington, DC, to Kansas City.

The administration’s attack on these agencies will have far-reaching implications for the US economy. Farmers rely on ERS data to assess crop prospects, international market conditions, weather patterns, and problems stemming from pollution, soil runoff, and other factors. And NIFA is a major funder of agricultural and environmental research at US land-grant universities. Taken together, these two agencies – along with competition between states – are a major reason why US farmers are among the most productive in the world. And given the ongoing disruptions to agricultural exports as a result of Trump’s trade war, the analyses these agencies provide are needed even more now.

Make no mistake: by relocating the ERS and NIFA, the Trump administration is effectively gutting both agencies. Around 500 staffers have been told that their jobs are moving to the Midwest this year. The administration’s rationale for this decision – that the relocation will bring ERS and NIFA staff closer to their clients – beggars belief. Agriculture and research are nationwide activities, and ERS/NIFA staffers must interact closely with others at the USDA and abroad to furnish the reliable data upon which so many American farmers rely.

Most of the ERS/NIFA staffers who have been told to relocate are career civil servants, scientists, and researchers with roots in the Washington, DC, area. Although they have mortgages, working spouses, children in schools, and friends there, they were given just 33 days to decide whether they would move or quit. So far, about two-thirds have chosen the latter option. And those who have said they will move still do not know exactly where the new offices will be located.

Obviously, this is no way to treat employees, let alone run a government. But, as with so much else the Trump administration does, mis-governance seems to be the point. No private company would even contemplate a move of such magnitude without having more concrete plans in place, for fear of mass attrition and inflicting lasting damage on the firm’s ability to function. One cannot help but suspect that the Trump administration’s intent is simply to destroy the two agencies.

According to a recent report by the USDA’s Inspector General, the administration’s plans violate the 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act, because it has not obtained congressional budget approval to relocate the ERS and NIFA offices. Such legal questions will need to be resolved. But one hopes that, in the meantime, Trump will rethink and rescind a decision that will hurt American farmers even more than his trade war already has.

Anne O. Krueger, a former World Bank chief economist and former first deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund, is Senior Research Professor of International Economics at the School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, and Senior Fellow at the Center for International Development, Stanford University.

Anne Kruger: a derrocada venezuelana como tragedia social

O que a Venezuela tem pela frente

Anne Krueger

Valor Econômico, 16-17/02/2019

O mundo testemunhou muitos declínios econômicos ao longo dos anos, mas o da Venezuela é, certamente, um dos piores até o momento. O país vivenciou uma perda de PIB real (corrigida pela inflação) maior que a da maioria dos países devastados pela guerra durante a Segunda Guerra Mundial, e sua taxa de inflação deverá alcançar 10.000.000% neste ano. A muito mais de 100 vezes a taxa do mercado negro, a taxa de câmbio oficial se desvaloriza tão rapidamente que uma cotação, no momento em que é publicada, terá deixado de fazer sentido.

Sob essas condições, os alimentos - 90% dos quais têm de ser importados - são tão escassos que estima-se que o venezuelano médio tenha perdido 10,9 quilos); e estimados 3 milhões de venezuelanos (cerca de 10% da população) fugiram do país. Quedas de fornecimento de energia elétrica, escassez de água e de medicamentos e condições próximas da inanição têm sido características persistentes do domínio truculento e incompetente do presidente Nicolás Maduro.

Até a década de 1960, o PIB per capita da Venezuela era o mais elevado da América Latina, e equivalia aproximadamente a 80% do dos Estados Unidos. Atualmente, é inferior a 30% e está também bem abaixo dos de Chile, Brasil, México e Colômbia. Como base de comparação, em 1990, o PIB per capita da Colômbia correspondia mais ou menos à metade do da Venezuela.

Dona das maiores reservas de petróleo do mundo, mais de 90% da receita de exportação da Venezuela se deve aos hidrocarbonetos. Mas sua produção de petróleo caiu a partir de um pico de aproximadamente 3,5 milhões de barris ao dia, do final da década de 1990, para algo em torno de 1,3 milhão em 2018, e a previsão é de que recuará para 700 mil barris/dia nos próximos anos.

Na verdade, apesar de o preço do petróleo ter subido, a produção do país recuou, devido à falta de manutenção e de investimentos, a roubos de material, à nomeação, por Maduro, de aliados militares inexperientes como gerentes e à emigração de trabalhadores do setor petrolífero, que conseguem ganhar muito mais em outro país. Um trabalhador do setor petrolífero da Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), a petrolífera estatal, disse recentemente a "The Wall Street Journal" que ganha cerca de US$ 8 mensais, corrigidos por paridade de poder de compra.

O drama por que passa a Venezuela é, em grande medida, autoinfligido. Apesar do avanço dos preços do petróleo, o regime chavista permitiu que os déficits inflassem para 24% do PIB em 2014. E, desde que os preços do petróleo ainda estavam próximos de seu pico, naquele ano, esses déficits foram financiados pela impressão de dinheiro, o que levou à aceleração da inflação. Para piorar, o governo impôs controles de preços tão severos que os varejistas são obrigados a vender seus produtos com prejuízo.

Para além dessas tentativas desastradas de regulamentar a atividade econômica, as medidas restritivas cada vez mais violentas sobre a dissidência e a corrosão das instituições democráticas agravaram o quadro ainda mais. Sob a gestão de Maduro, os serviços básicos deixaram de funcionar. Em 2016, os servidores públicos foram orientados a comparecer ao trabalho por apenas dois dias por semana, a fim de conservar a energia elétrica; mesmo assim, o país sofreu apagões em massa.

Em tempos de guerra, a produção tende a cair porque o inimigo torna inoperantes as bases da infraestrutura. Na Venezuela é como se o país tivesse movido guerra total a si mesmo: centros vitais funcionam pessimamente porque a manutenção de rotina é negligenciada

Em janeiro, Maduro tomou posse pela segunda vez, após sair vencedor de uma eleição presidencial fraudulenta realizada em maio passado. Em reação, muitos países latino-americanos, juntamente com Canadá, EUA e alguns países da União Europeia (UE), reconheceram o presidente da Assembleia Nacional, Juan Guaidó, como o presidente legítimo da Venezuela, em consonância com a linha constitucional de sucessão do país. Além disso, os EUA, um dos mercados relevantes das exportações de petróleo venezuelanas, impôs sanções ao regime de Maduro, congelou suas contas bancárias e canalizou os pagamentos das empresas americanas por petróleo venezuelano para uma nova conta que será disponibilizada para Guaidó.

Diante das manifestações de massa, Maduro continuou a recorrer à intimidação, às detenções e à condenação à inanição de personalidades da oposição, ao mesmo tempo em que paga propina a dirigentes militares em troca de seu apoio. Mas a pergunta não é se Maduro conseguirá se manter no poder, e sim por quanto tempo. Seu regime não pode durar indefinidamente e, quando cair, a Venezuela apresentará necessidades prementes.

Para começar, o país precisará de ajuda humanitária em ampla escala. Os hospitais têm de ser reabastecidos, as escolas, reabertas e o transporte público e outros serviços essenciais, restabelecidos. E os alimentos têm de se tornar disponíveis para uma população gravemente subnutrida.

Ao mesmo tempo, a Venezuela terá de implementar reformas para pôr fim à violenta inflação, restaurar a estabilidade macroeconômica e revitalizar a atividade da economia. O país carecerá também de apoio financeiro para importar suprimentos e fazer reparos de maquinário e equipamentos. Isso não diz respeito apenas à produção petrolífera, mas a todos os setores da economia.

Reconstruir a Venezuela será um longo processo. Em tempos de guerra a produção tende a cair porque o inimigo torna inoperantes equipamentos fundamentais de infraestrutura, como entroncamentos ferroviários e centrais de geração de energia elétrica. Na Venezuela é como se o país tivesse movido guerra total a si mesmo: centros operacionais vitais estão funcionando pessimamente porque a manutenção de rotina é negligenciada e o investimento desestimulado há mais de uma década.

O desafio é reconstituir um ambiente macroeconômico e um clima para negócios estável, ao mesmo tempo em que se melhora a sorte dos cidadãos venezuelanos, para que eles continuem a apoiar reformas políticas. Isso não seria fácil mesmo num país muito menos destruído que a Venezuela.

Espera-se que os próximos dirigentes da Venezuela e a comunidade internacional entendam a natureza do desafio, e adotem as medidas necessárias para manter a paz social durante a reconstrução. Os venezuelanos podem finalmente ver luz no fim do túnel. Mas tempos difíceis os aguardam. (Tradução de Rachel Warszawski)

Anne O. Krueger, ex-economista-chefe do Banco Mundial e ex-vice-diretora executiva do Fundo Monetário Internacional, é professora pesquisadora-sênior de economia internacional da Faculdade de Estudos Internacionais Avançados da Universidade Johns Hopkins. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2019.