Connect to share and comment
It's about subsidies. But only on the surface.
BOSTON — Government subsidies.
The words sit uneasily on some American tongues like poison. Or worse, French.
Noxious or not (depending on your geography and point of view), the concept was the talk in global trade circles Friday as the World Trade Organization ruled that Airbus had received illegal subsidies from European governments.
Yes, folks, we've got a nasty fight on our hands.
Friday's preliminary ruling is a partial victory for Boeing (and by proxy the United States), which in 2005 charged that Airbus unfairly received billions of dollars from European governments from 1970 to 2004. The WTO ruling reportedly tossed out two-thirds of those claims.
But whatever the final outcome — and this spat is expected to drag out for a very long time — the Airbus-Boeing slugfest is a big, important and very complex case (the WTO decision ran to more than 1,000 pages).
There are many good reasons to pay attention to what's happening here:
So, yes, there's a lot at stake — from the health of the critical U.S.-EU trade relationship, to the future of a tepid global economic recovery that doesn't need trade friction right now, to the credibility of the World Trade Organization. (The Boeing-Airbus case is the biggest that Geneva's free trade referee has yet to tackle. All eyes are on it, particularly those in China, India and Brazil, which also want a piece of this growing aerospace pie.) But this tussle is about more than political power and corporate greed. At its heart, the Boeing-Airbus dispute represents something deeper: economic philosophy. More specifically, what is the appropriate role of government in managing an economy? Should it use its considerable resources and power to help its companies, or leave it to the free market?
Those are not simple questions. The idea of government protection of industry is the third rail of economic policy and practice, and has echoed down through the ages.