And What About the Chinese Banks?

002170192c4e0a5914cd02While we’re on the subject of China and trade policy, I wonder why more attention hasn’t been paid to China’s failure to live up to all of the commitments it made when it was admitted to the WTO back in 2001? As I calculate things China has yet to meet the obligations it made in freight, telecommunications, and, notably, banking, among others. All of these reforms were to have been completed by the end of 2006.

As I understand it China was to have introduced substantial transparency into its banking system, to have removed all barriers to foreign ownership in its banks, and actually to have a certain level of foreign ownership of its banks, all of which it has failed to meet. Instead China has retained limits on the foreign ownership of its banks and restricted foreign ownership to its least profitable areas.

If the intent of the recent tariffs on Chinese imports were to improve the U. S. position in trade negotiations with China, you’d think that more of these issues would have been raised publicly than they apparently have.

For more on China’s banking and more general trade obligations see here and here.

FILED UNDER: General, , , ,
Dave Schuler
About Dave Schuler
Over the years Dave Schuler has worked as a martial arts instructor, a handyman, a musician, a cook, and a translator. He's owned his own company for the last thirty years and has a post-graduate degree in his field. He comes from a family of politicians, teachers, and vaudeville entertainers. All-in-all a pretty good preparation for blogging. He has contributed to OTB since November 2006 but mostly writes at his own blog, The Glittering Eye, which he started in March 2004.

Comments

  1. James Joyner says:

    I haven’t figured this one out, either, Dave. China is benefiting tremendously by both getting the benefits of WTO membership and not actually playing by the rules. (By “China,” I mean the government and its macroeconomy. The Chinese people are, in the main, getting hosed as usual.)

    The soft bigotry of low expectations, perhaps?