Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
Veterinary deal would increase UK agrifood exports to EU by more than a fifth, research shows
A veterinary deal would increase agri-food exports from the UK to the EU by at least 22.5%, say researchers Agri-food exports overall are worth £25 billion to the UK economy, but the two years since the new trading rules were put in place have seen a fall of 5% in exports to the EU from 2019 levels, during a period where the sector has otherwise grown. Team from Aston University and University of Bristol have analysed trade deals and export figures worldwide to estimate impact of a new veterinary deal on UK–EU exports A veterinary deal with the European Union could increase UK agricultural and food exports by over a fifth, according to new research. The team, from Aston University’s Centre for Business Prosperity and the University of Bristol, analysed the agricultural and veterinary aspects of trade deals around the world to estimate their impact on exports. They then modelled the potential impact of different types of agreement on UK exports to the EU. Veterinary Agreements specifically focus on regulations and standards related to animal health and welfare, as well as to the safety of animal-derived products such as meat, dairy, and seafood. They aim to align, harmonise, or recognise veterinary requirements and certifications, and reduce the number of inspections between countries to facilitate the safe and efficient trade of live animals and animal products. The EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), implemented in January 2021, eliminates tariffs and quotas but does not remove non-tariff barriers to trade. These can be particularly burdensome for agricultural and animal-derived food (agri-food) exports, involving complex rules and requirements, production of extensive documentation and veterinary checks. The UK agri-food sector is a cornerstone of the UK economy, with exports worth £25 billion and employing 4.2million people. Although the sector is growing overall, exports to the EU shrank in 2022 by 5% compared to 2019, in part due to the new trade arrangements. This has led to calls for an EU–UK veterinary agreement from business and agri-food organisations, including the Confederation of British Industry, British Chambers of Commerce, UK Food and Drink Federation, Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and British Veterinary Association. Analysing data from the World Bank on 279 trade agreements and export statistics from over 200 countries, the researchers found that shallow agreements, that went little further than provisions already covered by World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, had significant negative impacts on agri-food exports. However, where trade agreements went beyond WTO provisions to include more commitments on sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures (which aim to protect countries against risks relating to pests, diseases and food safety) and were legally enforceable, they had a robust, positive impact on exports, particularly exports of animal products and food. Applying this to the UK–EU relationship, the team estimate that a veterinary agreement that went beyond the existing TCA provisions would increase agri-food exports from the UK to the EU by at least 22.5%. Imports from the EU would also increase by 5.6%. In the 203 countries studied for the research, positive effects of deep trade deals that included provisions on agriculture took between 10 and 15 years to manifest. But the UK might not have to wait so long, according to report co-author Professor Jun Du, Director of Aston University’s Centre for Business Prosperity. “There is no blueprint out there that mirrors the UK–EU relationship. Most veterinary agreements are agreed as part of a trade deal between countries that haven’t previously had close alignment and it takes a while for the benefits to take effect. “Until recently, the UK had frictionless agri-food exports to the EU, so it’s possible that a supplementary veterinary agreement to reduce some of the frictions created by Brexit could allow trade that previously existed to pick up again quite quickly.” However clear the economic arguments, the legal and political barriers to a veterinary agreement still remain. The researchers address these in their report, suggesting that the best format for the additional measures would be as a supplementary agreement to the TCA. The key question for the UK government in negotiating such an agreement would be what the EU demanded in return. “The closest model is the EU-Swiss relationship, which sees Switzerland largely follow EU law,” said report co-author from the University of Bristol, Dr Greg Messenger. “That’s unlikely to be an option for the UK. As we wouldn’t expect to eliminate all paperwork, we could both agree that our rules meet each other’s standard for phytosanitary protection. As most of our rules are still essentially the same as the EU, that wouldn’t require any major change, though we’d have to agree a greater level of coordination in relation to the development of new rules.” The report was written jointly by Professor Du, Dr Messenger and Dr Oleksandr Shepotylo, senior lecturer in economics, finance and entrepreneurship at the Centre for Business Prosperity, Aston Business School.
Brexit changes caused 22.9% slump in UK-EU exports into Q1 2022 - research
Researchers at Aston assessed the impact of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the EU and the UK UK exports fell by an average of 22.9% in the first 15 months following the deal Variety of UK products exported to EU down by 42% Research by the Centre for Business Prosperity at Aston University has shown that UK exports to the EU fell by an average of 22.9% in the first 15 months after the introduction of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, highlighting the continuing challenges that UK firms are facing. Building on earlier work funded through Aston University’s Enterprise Research Centre, the researchers found that a negative effect on UK exports persisted and deepened from January 2021-March 2022. According to the research, the UK has also experienced a significant contraction in the variety of goods being exported to the EU, with an estimated loss of 42% of product varieties. The researchers say this, combined with an increased concentration of export values to fewer products, has serious implications for the UK’s future exporting and productivity. The authors are calling for an urgent national debate from politicians about the UK’s post-Brexit trade arrangements. The researchers assessed the impact of the TCA, which allows goods to continue to be bought and sold between the UK and EU without tariffs in the wake of Brexit, by creating an ‘alternative UK economy’ model, based on the case that the UK had remained within the European Union. By comparing the model UK’s exports and imports with actual figures for the UK, they could accurately isolate the impact which the new trade rules were having. “What we are seeing is the effect of Brexit on exports; and that is persisting. It’s not diminishing, and exports have yet to show signs of recovering,” says Professor Jun Du of Aston University. “Until this serious problem with exports is openly acknowledged and discussed, we won’t see any necessary actions being taken.” Unlike exports, an initially significant drop on EU imports to Britain has recovered during the same period, suggesting that UK businesses and consumers have quickly adjusted to new rules. This stands in contrast to the persistent decline in UK exports, which the researchers believe is caused by more fundamental factors. Professor Du said: “It seems that the UK can buy, but it can’t sell – and that’s reinforcing the problem of Brexit. A reduction in import bottlenecks might help exports to rebound, but this recovery is likely to be offset by the rising costs of imports.” Researchers found that as many as 42% of the product varieties previously exported to the EU have disappeared during the 15 months after January 2021. This, they say, is principally caused by a large number of exporters simply ceasing to export to the EU, while the remaining exporters are streamlining their product ranges. Co-author, Dr Oleksandr Shepotylo, says: “The product varieties that have disappeared are mostly those with low export value – we know this because the average export value increased as the number of varieties declined. These products are the ones typically exported by small firms or new exporters, or are exported to new markets. And It’s those smaller businesses that would normally export much more in future, as they grow their volumes and products – so that’s the UK’s future export pipeline being affected, which has bleak implications.” Professor Du says: “The evidence we present here shows the real loss of Brexit, the overall competitiveness of the UK as a global trader. The considerable contraction of the UK trade capacity, combined with an increased concentration of export values to fewer products, signify some serious long-term concerns about the UK’s future exporting and productivity. Debate is essential so that the UK can start to address its current challenges. Of course, no one is suggesting going back into the EU, but there are collaborations, conversations and discussions that must be had. If the UK’s political leaders don’t acknowledge the facts, they are setting the course towards even longer-term problems.”
The EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement is costly, what does the UK need to do? | Aston Angle
As far as trade is concerned, the EU exit has been rather costly to the UK. At the Centre for Business Prosperity, we have been tracking the performance of UK trade in recent years. The UK’s trade dropped sharply during COVID. Like other nations, this was due to the global recession and supply chain disruptions. However, the UK failed to recover and enjoy the boom, despite the tariff-free terms of trade in goods set out in the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA). The UK now trades less with the EU, its largest trading partner, than in 2019. During the same period, Germany and the Netherlands grew trade with the EU by nearly a quarter, and US trade with the EU has also grown considerably. Reports suggest, including those from the British Chambers of Commerce, that exporting to the EU has become much more costly and in some cases, unviable. It appears that the “certainty” provided by the TCA has not reversed the declining trend of the UK-EU trade so far. Our new paper for the Enterprise Research Centre (ERC) has found that UK exports experienced a large, negative, statistically significant decline in 2021 at the end of the transition after the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) was put into force. We estimate that this amounts to a 22% reduction in exports to the EU and a 26% reduction in imports from the EU over the first half of 2021, relative to the counterfactual scenario of the UK remaining in the EU. How did this happen? After all, the TCA ensures that goods moving between the UK and the EU have no tariffs or quotas, so long as the rules of origin are complied with. Rules of origin help you work out where your goods originate from and which goods are covered in trade agreements. Our research found that non-tariff measures (NTMs) were responsible for the adverse TCA effect on UK trade with the EU and that the magnitude of loss was significant. It was equivalent to a reduction of £12.4 billion in UK exports over the first six months period of 2021. This equals 16% of UK total exports in the first half of 2019 and 70% of the documented total reduction in the EU exports in the same period. A number of factors can be attributed to the decline of UK exports to the EU. In particular, the increased trade frictions that occurred mainly due to sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) and technical barriers to trade (TBT) as a result of entering the TCA. Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures refer to the EU controls to protect animal, plant or public health. And technical barriers to trade (TBT) refers to mandatory technical regulations and voluntary standards that define specific characteristics that a product should have, such as its size, shape, design, labelling/marking/packaging, functionality or performance. On average, for the first six months of 2021, a 1% increase in SPS resulted in a 13–15% reduction in exports to the EU, most notably in the food and drink, wood and chemicals sectors. Furthermore, a 1% increase in TBT led to a 2–3% reduction in exports, especially in metals, equipment, machines and miscellaneous industrial products. What next? Since the post-Brexit dysfunctions are now diagnosed, in theory we could move on. The UK can directly tackle the trade challenges, so long as other things, such as politics, do not stand in the way. Fundamentally, what needs to happen is the removal or relief of the root causes coded by the TCA – the trade barriers newly erected. This is a key task; it is challenging but not impossible. Trade frictions due to the SPS measures are an acute problem of Brexit. Reducing some of the non-tariff measures between the EU-UK would help by exploring other mechanisms such as equivalent SPS measures or other ways to reduce businesses burden to a minimum. The technical barriers to trade are more complicated and challenging and they could potentially cause significant damage to the UK economy. Despite its limitation, maintaining and broadening the established arrangements of the current TCA provision, through some form of mutual recognition of specific practices or international regulations for selected sectors, should be the ambition of UK government to help ease the TBT trade barriers. Future EU-UK co-operation is critical and mutually beneficial but requires political will and strong leadership. In the short and medium term, supporting firms should be the priority, especially small- and medium-sized firms that are productive enough to have exported to the EU in the past, but now face hurdles to continue exporting. These firms tend to be limited on resource but have the infrastructure and ambition to internationalise. Targeted support for specific challenges could be also fruitful. The UK Department for International Trade Export Support Service, the British Chambers of Commerce and local growth hubs have the expertise and experience to help firms export. Therefore, resources should be made available to allow for customised and responsive support with exports, as well as taking advantage of technologies that can identify and reach businesses who require support. Provision should also be made to collect feedback on the quality of the support provided, to enable further improvement. Helping businesses continue to access EU markets, while enabling the economy to take advantage of welfare-enhancing benefits from trade, remains imperative. Given the economic benefits of the roll-out, the new free trade agreements are expected to be limited and effective only in the long term. UK domestic policies should be the focus to improve the competitiveness of exporters and their ecosystem. By Professor Jun Du Director of the Centre for Business Prosperity Professor of Economics, Finance and Entrepreneurship, Aston Business School Lecturer in Politics and International Relations School of Social Science and Humanities Dr Oleksandr Shepotylo Senior Lecturer, Economics, Finance and Entrepreneurship, Aston Business School
Has your cell phone data ever inexplicably slowed down? Worse still, perhaps you’ve had a mobile bill come in way higher than you expected. Keeping track of your data usage can be tough, especially when the billing mechanisms routinely deployed by digital service providers are often more complex than they seem. Things like three-part tariffs bundle a certain amount of “free” data or services into a fixed monthly fee, with an excess charge payable whenever you go over your allocation. These packages are usually marketed to consumers as being simple as well as attractive (who after all doesn’t love the sound of “free data?”) but in reality, they can be hard for people to manage—and failing to do so, punitive. Exceed your allotted data and you end up with subpar services or unwanted costs. Underutilize your allocation and you’re leaving money on the table. Meanwhile, in a world where we use digital services to do any number of things—from scrolling to streaming to storing and beyond—how can we accurately track just how much of our allowance we’re getting through? To address this, service providers are increasingly sending usage notifications to customers at different points of the billing cycle. These nudges are designed to help us to act in our own best interest: to take stock and modify our usage accordingly. But do they work? It depends, says Anandhi Bharadwaj, Vice-Dean for Faculty and Research at Goizueta. She and her colleagues have published a study that looks at the impact of these nudges, and they’ve found that they do help all customers adjust their behavior to stay within their allowance, irrespective of how attentive or inattentive they might be to their consumption speed in general. But there are provisos. First off, these consumption nudges seem to be significantly more effective with customers who have purchased higher data allowance than those who opt for low-capped packages. Then, the timing of nudges matters. When notifications arrive later in the billing cycle—right before a bill is due, say—they have significantly more impact across the board, says Bharadwaj. Companies should take note. “Ours is the first study to really unpack the efficacy of nudges in the digital services space, and it shows that who and when are important factors that service providers will need to take into account if they want to improve customer experiences.” Interested in knowing more - let us help. Anandhi Bharadwaj is an information systems expert bringing a wide range of development and executive training experience to the classroom. Her research examines the adoption, use, and impact patterns associated with technological change. Anandhi is available to speak with reporters - simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.
The three-way tug-of war between China, Canada and the United States
It’s a court trial in coastal Vancouver Canada that has gathered the attention of international media and plunged trade talks and international relations between America, China and America into tension, tariffs and a tug-of-war over one Chinese executive accused of fraud in in the United States. Here’s brief background courtesy of BBC: The Story in 100 Words Why is the US targeting Huawei, one of the world's largest smartphone makers, and executive Meng Wanzhou? Authorities claim they misled the US government about the company's business in Iran, which is under US economic sanctions. The US is also pursuing Huawei and Ms Meng in criminal charges including bank fraud and theft of technology. Both reject the claims. US officials want Ms Meng extradited from Canada to face the charges. Her arrest caused a diplomatic dispute between China and the US and Canada. The case against Huawei also comes as Western nations grow increasingly concerned about a possible spying risk related to the widespread adoption of the company's technology. So, is there any diplomatic resolution? What will happen if Meng Wanzhou is extradited to the United States? What will happen if she can return to China? Is Canada in a no - win situation? There are a lot of questions – and that’s where our experts can help. Dr. Glen Duerr's research interests include comparative politics, and international relations theory. Glen is available to speak to media regarding this topic– simply click on his icon to arrange an interview.
U.S. economy continues to expand, but at a slower pace, reaching about 2 percent growth in 2020
INDIANAPOLIS -- The U.S. economy will continue to expand for a 12th consecutive year in 2020, but by only about 2 percent and struggling to remain at that level by year's end. Indiana's economic output will be more anemic, growing at a rate of about 1.25 percent, according to a forecast released today by the Indiana University Kelley School of Business. Over the past year, political dysfunction and international trade friction have disrupted supply chains and eroded both consumer and business confidence. U.S. employment has grown during 2019 but will decelerate throughout 2020, well short of 150,000 jobs per month and possibly to about 100,000 by year's end. A tight labor market will continue to be an issue for many companies. "The total number of job openings in the economy peaked in late 2018," said Bill Witte, associate professor emeritus of economics at IU. "Average hours worked have been flat over the past year, and auto sales have been flat for nearly two years. Given the reliance of the U.S. economy on consumer spending, these are disturbing signs. But they are vague signs, and not enough to convince us that the end of the expansion is in sight. "We expect that growth will be weaker than in the past two years, and this outlook is likely a best-case outcome," he added. "There is massive uncertainty in the current situation." The Kelley School presented its forecast this morning to Indianapolis community and business leaders at IUPUI. The Business Outlook Tour panel also will present national, state and local economic forecasts in seven other cities across the state through Nov. 20. Indiana's more meager economic growth expected in 2020 can largely be attributed to the outsized presence of manufacturing and particularly tight labor markets, said Ryan Brewer, associate professor of finance at Indiana University-Purdue University Columbus and author of the panel's Indiana forecast. Manufacturing contracts more rapidly versus other areas of the economy, and tight labor markets limit employers' capacity to grow, he said. Expectations about business investment have fallen short, and corporations have been buying back stock instead of making capital investments. The trade war with China and slowing global expansion have also affected state manufacturers. The world is about to record its slowest economic growth since the financial crisis of 2009. Next year, global growth is projected at 3.4 percent, with downside risks continuing to build. China and the European Union each face structural issues amid tariffs imposed by the United States. Brexit remains unresolved. Recent data from the Institute for Supply Management showed that manufacturing activity has slowed to its lowest rate since the beginning of the Great Recession. Indiana has sought to diversify its economy in recent decades, but manufacturing output represents nearly 28 percent of gross state product. Indiana continues to lead the nation in manufacturing employment, with more than 17 percent of its jobs in that sector. "Constrained by a historically tight labor market, Indiana is expected to experience slow growth in jobs and gross output, along with the possibility for continued rising wages," Brewer said. "With fewer and fewer available people to hire, tightness of the Indiana labor markets will serve as a drag to output and employment growth." The outlook for the Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson metropolitan statistical area is slightly better, with expected growth between 1.5 and 2 percent. "Indianapolis continues to draw in talent and investment that should help it exceed the overall state level of growth," said Kyle Anderson, clinical assistant professor of business economics. "However, there is risk that weakness in the broader economy, and especially weakness in manufacturing, could make this forecast too optimistic." Other highlights from the forecast: The national and state unemployment rates will hold steady. The nation's rate could be below 4 percent by year's end, and the state will stay at or below full employment through 2020. Inflation will rise and end 2020 close to the Federal Reserve's 2 percent target. The stock market will struggle to get average returns with headwinds from trade, supply chain disruption and policy uncertainty. Earnings continue to exceed expectations, yet lack of definitive trade consensus continues to drive headwinds. Interest rates will remain low. The 10-year Treasury rate should stay below 2 percent and mortgages below 4 percent. Speculative grade bond yields have been rising, indicating increased risk of insolvency for marginal firms. Entry-level wage growth could cause costs to rise, earnings to fall and growth to stagnate for firms heading into 2020. Energy prices will be relatively stable, with average prices similar to those in 2019. Business investment will remain weak, although a little improved from this year. Housing will achieve a meager increase, ending two years of negative growth. Government spending will grow, but much more slowly than the past year, as the impact of the 2018 budget deal ends. The starting point for the forecast is an econometric model of the United States, developed by IU's Center for Econometric Model Research, which analyzes numerous statistics to develop a national forecast for the coming year. A similar econometric model of Indiana provides a corresponding forecast for the state economy based on the national forecast plus data specific to Indiana. A select panel of Kelley faculty members, led by Indiana Business Research Center co-director Timothy Slaper, then adjusts the forecast to reflect additional insights it has on the economic situation. A detailed report on the outlook for 2020 will be published in the winter issue of the Indiana Business Review, available online in December. In addition to predictions about the nation, state and Indianapolis, it also will include forecasts for other Indiana cities and key economic sectors. Presenting the forecast at the Indianapolis Business Outlook Tour event were Phil T. Powell, associate dean of Kelley academic programs at Indianapolis and clinical associate professor of business economics and public policy; Cathy Bonser-Neal, associate professor of finance; and Anderson.
Is the bubble bursting – and does America need to prepare for an economic slowdown?
With every news story about trade, tariffs, interest rates, global instability and political chaos…comes with it a hint that each incident could take a toll on America’s economy. And it seems that sub-plot may be slowly becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy for the current administration in Washington. A recent article in Forbes pointed out that most key indicators seem to be pointing down. Trump’s monthly job results are decelerating Trump’s job growth falling short of Obama’s last six years Wage growth is the lowest in a year September quarter GDPNow forecast lower than June’s 2.0% result It seems as if all of these ingredients combined, a slow down and potential recession or worse could be looming. Are you a journalist covering the short and long-term outlook of America’s economy? If so, let our experts help with your stories and coverage. Jeff Haymond, Ph.D. is Dean, School of Business Administration and a Professor of Economics at Cedarville and is an expert in finance and trade. Dr. Haymond is available to speak with media regarding this topic – simply click on his icon to arrange an interview.
What will the “new” NAFTA mean for business in Canada?
The "new" NAFTA - officially renamed as the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) in Canada, but is referred to as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) in the media - could be a benefit for businesses. While tariffs are being lifted and reduced trade talks thaw – it appears that the USMCA is a win/win/win for businesses on every side of the border. The new trade accord has free-trade when it comes to manufacturing, importing, exporting and resourcing. The USMCA sounds great, but will those rays reach areas like Northeastern Ontario? Will our resource and mining industries benefit? Also, what about our emerging technology sector? There is a lot to be figured out as this new trade deal goes through the approval process in Canada and America. Luckily, we have experts who can help! Marc Boivin, Manager at Freelandt Caldwell Reilly LLP, is an expert in the areas of organizational finance, assets acquisition, business valuation and transactions. Contact Marc to arrange an appointment regarding this topic by clicking the contact button below. Sources:
Expert perspective on a trade war with China and how it could impact a Trump presidency
Trade negotiations between the United States and China have continued to deteriorate over the last few weeks. In efforts to pressure the Chinese to make reforms to trade-related issues such as forced technology transfer and intellectual property rights, the United States has raised tariffs on nearly all Chinese exports. While there is a consensus among experts that these trade issues harm U.S. producers and must be dealt with, there is not universal agreement that a trade war is the best way to make it happen. Who will feel the effects? It is apparent that both consumers and producers in the U.S. will feel the effects of the trade war. Producers will not be able to absorb the increased costs from the raising tariffs and will need to pass them along to consumers. Consumers will begin to see the prices increase on a host of retail goods, such as clothing and apparel, toys, and home goods. Partners replaced? In addition, as the Chinese retaliate with increased tariffs on U.S. exports, such as agricultural goods, producers from other countries with lower tariffs are stepping in to take the place of the U.S. exporters. For example, Brazilian soybean producers are more than happy to sell their product to China at a lower cost. Once lost, it may be difficult for U.S. farmers to regain these important Chinese markets. A political price to pay? It appears that the effects of the trade war may hit the Trump administrations base, in agricultural and manufacturing regions, disproportionately. However, the administration may see the trade war as beneficial to Trump’s 2020 reelection campaign, as Trump is being perceived as being tough with the Chinese and holding them accountable to unfair trade practices. That appears to resonate with his base. However, it remains to be seen how long his base will continue to support this approach as both producers and consumers continue to feel the economic pinch of the growing trade war with China. There’s a lot to know about the short and long-term impacts of a trade war with China and that’s where or experts can help. Matt has taught business and marketing courses at Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota since 2008. Prior to Saint Mary’s, he worked in both the banking and the non-profit sectors, most recently with a non-governmental organization (NGO) with operations in more than a dozen countries. Matt is an expert in political and economic development and is available to speak with media. Simply click on his icon to arrange an interview.
Trump, tariffs and the long game
He said he’d get tough on China and make sure America was getting the better end of any trade deal – and President Trump seems bound and determined, despite the critics and advice from his own cabinet, that massive tariffs and a trade war with China is a good thing for America. Last week Trump more than doubled tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese goods. China reacted with tariffs on American agricultural and other products. The response, Trump is now looking at approximately $300 billion in import levies on more Chinese goods. As far as trade wars go, this one could be epic in its scale and economic proportions. But who will blink first, who will win and ultimately – who is paying the costs and taking on the burden of all the financial collateral damage at the end of the day? Is this a matter of short-term pain for long-term gain for America’s economy? Or is this political posturing that will at the end of the day hurt the country’s bottom line? There are a lot of questions to be asked and that’s where two of the experts from Cedarville can help. Dr. Glen Deurr's research interests include nationalism and secessionism, comparative politics, and international relations theory. Jeff Haymond, Ph.D. is Dean, School of Business Administration at Cedarville ad is an expert in finance and trade. Glen and are both available to speak to media regarding the current trade war with China – simply click on either expert’s icon to arrange an interview.