WEBINAR RECORDING · 2024-07
Trade in Electric Vehicles
In this conversation: Michael Gasiorek; moderator Michael Ferrantino; hosts Ben Shepherd and Hanna Norberg.
Michael Gasiorek uses EV trade patterns to question US and EU tariff rationales. Discussion examines preemptive protection, supply-chain adjustment and competing industrial and climate objectives. Audience questions expose data limits, while the closing exchange emphasizes consumer and environmental counterfactuals.
Session information draws on the recording and its original description. Affiliations and policy context refer to the time of the webinar.
FROM THE CONVERSATION
Three takeaways.
What they mean in practice.
Prepared from the session recording using automatic transcription and editorial review. Follow the timestamp links for the original wording and context.
Trade patterns change the policy question
Watch 14:12 ↗Gasiorek reports small direct Chinese EV shipments to the US in his data, unlike Europe. He interprets the US increase as potentially preemptive or political rather than a response to a large existing bilateral flow.
Policy interpretation: Establish baseline exposure and objectives; distinguish interpretations of motive from identified effects.
Final-vehicle protection can raise upstream costs
Watch 27:04 ↗Ferrantino asks about Chinese components and third-country assembly. Gasiorek discusses relocation, stricter origin requirements, input costs and retaliation. He distinguishes production location from producer ownership.
Policy interpretation: Trace components, ownership and export exposure; a bilateral vehicle tariff cannot summarize production responses.
Industrial and climate goals need a counterfactual
Watch 24:04 ↗Gasiorek identifies tensions among jobs, competitiveness, security and the green transition. Shepherd notes that attracting factories is not the whole welfare calculation: consumers may pay more and costlier EVs can slow adoption. Accepting cheaper imports is discussed as a deliberate option.
Policy interpretation: Compare instruments against each objective, including consumer costs and emissions; new production alone does not establish success.
From the discussion
Asked about diversion through Belgium or Mexico, Gasiorek says he does not know (44:08). Aggregate data cannot separate firm exit from distributor rerouting (45:24–47:16), motivating firm-level data access. Ferrantino also corrects the suggestion that company-specific countervailing duties are unusual (29:00).
