What’s the Difference?—Comparing U.S. and
Chinese Trade Data
Michael F. Martin
Specialist in Asian Affairs
May 4, 2015April 21, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RS22640
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
What’s the Difference?—Comparing U.S. and Chinese Trade Data
Summary
The size of the U.S. bilateral trade deficit with China has been and continues to be an important
issue in bilateral trade relations. Some Members of Congress view the deficit as a sign of unfair
economic policies in China, and have introduced legislation seeking to redress the perceived
competitive disadvantage China’s policies have created for U.S. exporters.
There is a large and growing difference between the official trade statistics released by the United
States and the People’s Republic of China. According to the United States, the 20142009 bilateral trade
deficit with China was $342.6226.8 billion. According to China, its trade surplus with the United States
was $237.0143.3 billion—$105.683.5 billion less.
This paper examines the differences in the trade data from the two nations in two ways. First, it
compares the trade figures at the two digit level using the Harmonized System to discern any
patterns in the discrepancies between the U.S. and Chinese data. This comparison reveals that
over 90%two-thirds of the difference in the value of China’s exports to the United States in 2014 wasis
attributable to five types of goods. Those five types of goods, in order of the size of the
discrepancy, were are electrical machinery; machinery; toys and sporting goods; machinery; footwear; and
leather articlesfurniture.
The second approach to examining the differing trade data involves a review of the existing
literature on the technical and non-technical sources of the trade data discrepancies. The literature
, including an
October 2009 joint China-U.S. report on statistical discrepancies in merchandise trade data. The
literature reveals that the main sources of the discrepancies are differences in the list value of shipments
shipments when they leave China and when they enter the United States, and differing
attributions of origin
and destination of Chinese exports that are transshipped through a third
location (such as Hong
Kong) before arriving in the United States.
Because of the differences in the official bilateral merchandise trade data, the U.S.-China Joint
Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT) established a statistical working group in 2004.
The working group has released two reconciliation studies (in 2009 and 2012) to identify the
causes of the statistical discrepancies. The adjustments contained in the two studies are not meant
to imply errors in the official statistics of either country Kong) before arriving in the United States.
The size of the U.S. bilateral trade deficit with China has been and continues to be an important
issue in bilateral trade relations. Some Members of Congress view the deficit as a sign of unfair
economic policies in China, and have introduced legislation seeking to redress the perceived
competitive disadvantage China’s policies have created for U.S. exporters.
This report is updated annually, after the release of official trade data by China and the
United United
States.
Congressional Research Service
What’s the Difference?—Comparing U.S. and Chinese Trade Data
Contents
Introduction..... ................................................................................................................................. 1
Comparison of U.S. and Chinese Trade Data .................................................................................. 1
Delving into the Data: Examining HS Code .................................................................................... 2
Explaining the Differences: Literature Summary .............Summary of the Literature ............................................................... 34
Technical Explanations .............................................................................................................. 4
Official Definitions of Exports and Imports........................................................................ 4
Definition of Territory ......................................................................................................... 4
Timing ................................................................................................................................. 4
Declaration of Country of Origin ........................................................................................ 45
Exchange Rates ................................................................................................................... 45
Non-Technical Explanations...................................................................................................... 5
Value Differences in Direct Trade ....................................................................................... 5
Under-Invoicing .................................................................................................................. 5
Intermediation ..................................................................................................................... 5
Joint China-U.S. Studies of Discrepancies ...................................................................................... 65
Implications for Congress ................................................................................................................ 6
Selected Bibliography on the Differences Between U.S. and Chinese Bilateral Trade
Figures .......................................................................................................................................... 7
Tables
Table 1. U.S. and Chinese Trade Figures, 2001-2014 2009..................................................................... 2
Table 2. Top Five10 Discrepancies for U.S. Imports from China, 20142009 .............................................. 3
Contacts
Author Contact Information ............................................................................................................. 87
Congressional Research Service
What’s the Difference?—Comparing U.S. and Chinese Trade Data
Introduction
The U.S. merchandise trade deficit with the People’s Republic of China (China) remains a major
source of
bilateral tension. Members of Congress and other U.S. government officials often point
to the
bilateral trade imbalance as evidence that China is not competing fairly in the global
market.1
Debate over this trade deficit is hampered bybecause of disagreement between the two countries on how
how large the deficit actually is. According to official U.S. figures, China has surpassed Canada
as the
largest supplier of U.S. imports, running up a bilateral trade surplus in 2014 of $342.6 billion.
2009 of $226.8
billion in the process. However, according to official Chinese figures, China’sthe Chinese, its trade surplus with the United States in
2013
in 2009 was only $237.0143.3 billion—$105.683.5 billion less than the U.S. figure (see Table 1).
The size of the bilateral trade deficit also has been an issue in proposed legislation addressing
trade relations with China. For example, the Emergency China Trade Act (H.R. 2909) introduced
during the 112th Congress would have revoked normal trade relations (NTR) status, also known as
most favored nation (MFN) trade status, for China and required the President to negotiate a trade
agreement with China that would “achieve and maintain balanced trade” between the two nations
within four years of the bill’s enactment. As of the time this report was released, no similar
legislation had been introduced by the 114th Congressinstance, the End the Trade Deficit Act (H.R. 1875) would
establish the Emergency Commission to End the Trade Deficit to “develop a trade policy plan to
eliminate the United States merchandise trade deficit by January 1, 2019.” Among the bill’s
findings is “The People's Republic of China, Canada, Mexico, and Japan account for one-half of
the [U.S.] trade deficit alone.” In addition, both versions of the Trade Enforcement Act of 2009
(S. 1466 and S. 1982) would have the U.S. Trade Representative include China-U.S. trade
relations among the factors to consider when setting U.S. trade enforcement priorities.
Comparison of U.S. and Chinese Trade Data
Table 1 lists the official trade statistics from the United States and China for the years 2001 to
20142009, using official trade data.21 According to both countries, the U.S. trade deficit with China is
large and, until last year, was growing. Where the two sides differ is how big the deficit is and
how fast it has grown.
From the U.S. perspective, its bilateral trade deficit with China more than quadrupled
trebled in value
over the last 13eight years, from just over $83 billion in 2001 to over $342266 billion in 2014
2008. However,
from the Chinese view, its bilateral trade surplus with the United States increased eight-fold, from
about $28 billion in 2001 to more than $237 billion in 2014.
Table 1 reveals that most of the discrepancy between the trade data from the two nations stems
from significantly different figures for China’s exports to the United States. While the difference
between the U.S. and Chinese figures for U.S. exports to China was generally less than $10
billion until 2011, China’s figures for its exports to the United States differed by $48.0 billion in
2001 and $96.0 billion in 2014. However, the discrepancy between U.S. export and Chinese
import figures for bilateral trade has been rising in recent years.
1
Both China and the United States have substantial trade surpluses with some trading partners and trade deficits with
other trading partners. Also, the phenomena of significant difference in the trade figures between two trading partners
is not uncommon. The size of the differential between China and the United States is particularly large.
2
China values its exports from the Chinese view, its bilateral trade surplus with the United States increased
more than six-fold over the last eight years, from about $28 billion in 2001 to nearly $171 billion
in 2008.
1
China values its export data using the “free on board,” or F.O.B. method and its imports are valued using the “cost,
insurance, and
freight,” or C.I.F. method. The United States values its exports using the “freight along side,” or F.A.S.
method and its
imports are valued using the “Customs value” method. The implications of the different evaluation
methods are discussed later in
the this report.
Congressional Research Service
1
What’s the Difference?—Comparing U.S. and Chinese Trade Data
Table 1. U.S. and Chinese Trade Figures, 2001-20142009
(billion U.S. dollars)
Chinese Trade Figures
U.S. Trade Figures
Year
Exports to
China
(F.A.S.)
Imports
from
China
(C.V.)Chinese Trade Figures
Trade
Balance
Exports
to
United
States
(F.O.B.)
Imports
from
United
States
(C.I.F.)
Trade
Balance
2001
19.235
102.280
-83.045
54.277
26.204
28.073
2002
22.053
125.168
-103.115
69.959
27.228
42.731
2003
28.418
152.379
-123.961
92.510
33.883
58.627
2004
34.721
196.699
-161.978
124.973
44.653
80.320
2005
41.837
243.462
-201.625
162.939
48.735
114.204
2006
55.224
287.773
-232.549
203.516
59.222
144.294
2007
65.238
321.508
-256.270
232.761
69.861
162.900
2008
71.457
337.790
-266.333
252.327
81.486
170.841
2009
69.576
296.402
-226.826
220.706
77.433
143.273
2010
91.878
364.944
-273.066
283.184
101.310
181.873
2011
103.879
399.335
-295.457
324.300
118.121
206.180
2012
110.590
425.644
-315.053
351.884
127.755
224.129
2013
122.016
440.434
-318.417
368.349
145.926
222.423
2014
124.024
466.656
-342.633
396.082
159.036
237.046
Source: China’s General Administration of Customs, Global Trade Atlas, U.S. International Trade Commission.
Note: China values its exports using the “free on board,” or F.O.B. method and its imports using the “cost,
insurance, and freight,” or C.I.F. method. The United States values its exports using the “free alongside,” or
F.A.S. method and its imports using the “Customs value” (C.V.) method.
Delving into the Data: Examining HS Code
The most widely used international system for classifying traded goods is the Harmonized
Commodity Description and Coding System, commonly referred to as the Harmonized System or
simply HS Year
Exports
to China
(F.A.S.)
Imports
from
China
(C.V.)
2001
19.235
2002
Source: World Trade Atlas, U.S. International Trade Commission.
Table 1 reveals that most of the discrepancy between the trade data from the two nations stems
from significantly different figures for China’s exports to the United States. While the difference
between the U.S. and Chinese figures for U.S. exports to China has been $10 billion or less over
the last nine years, China’s figures for its exports to the United States differed by $48.0 billion in
2001 and $75.7 billion in 2009.
Delving into the Data: Examining HS Code
The most widely used system for classifying traded goods is the Harmonized Commodity
Description and Coding System, commonly referred to as the Harmonized System or simply HS
Code. Every product traded is classified into a 10-digit code. The first two digits of the
products code correspond products
code corresponds to one of the 98 HS “chapters,” that classify all goods in general
categories. The
U.S. International Trade Commission maintains the U.S. version of the HS Code,
officially called
the “Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States,” or HTS. Since both the
United States and
China use the same HS chapters, it is possible to compare the trade data at this
level.
Table 2 lists in rank order the top five10 HS chapters according to the difference between the
figures figures
for U.S. imports from China and Chinese exports to the United States for 20142009. In all five
10 cases,
the U.S. import figures exceeded China’s export figures. The top five HS chapters—leather
articles (42), footwear footwear
(64), machinery (84), electrical machinery (85), furniture (94), and toys and sporting
goods goods
(95)—account for over 90%two-thirds (68.8%) of the difference between the U.S. and Chinese figures
figures. The top 10 chapters collectively account for 85.9% of the difference.
Congressional Research Service
2
What’s the Difference?—Comparing U.S. and Chinese Trade Data
Table 2. Top 10 Discrepancies for U.S. Imports from China, 2009
(billion dollars)
HS Chapter
U.S. Imports
from China
(U.S. data)
China’s Exports
to U.S.
(China Data)
Difference
Electrical Machinery (85)
72.945
51.000
21.945
Toys & Sporting Goods (95)
23.200
9.787
13.413
Machinery (84)
62.424
53.717
8.707
Footwear (64)
13.337
8.809
5.528
Furniture (94)
16.024
12.555
3.469
Woven Apparel (62)
12.903
9.577
3.326
Knitted Apparel (61)
11.458
8.483
2.975
Plastic (39)
8.032
5.761
2.271
Leather Goods (42)
5.993
3.796
2.197
Iron & Steel Products (73)
7.496
5.326
2.170
Source: Global Trade Atlas, U.S. International Trade Commission.
All 10All five of these chapters also ranked high according to both countries in terms of their absolute
value of trade. With the exception of leather articles, the other fourThey were amongalso the top five
10 ranked chapters in terms of the value of imports from
China, according to the United States, and
accounted for 60.178.9% of the total value of imports in 2014. Four of the sources of discrepancies—
electrical machinery, footwear, machinery, and toys and sporting goods—were among the top 10
2009. The first four sources for the discrepancies were also the top four sources of exports to the United States, according to China.
Table 2. Top Five Discrepancies for U.S. Imports from China, 2014
(billion dollars)
HS Chapter
U.S. Imports
from China
(U.S. data,
using C.V.)
China’s Exports
to U.S.
(China data,
using F.O.B.)
Difference
Electrical Machinery (85)
127.086
92.063
35.022
Machinery (84)
105.255
90.796
14.458
Toys and Sporting Goods (95)
22.597
13.195
9.402
Footwear (64)
17.066
13.859
3.218
8.537
6.838
1.699
Leather Articles (42)
Source: Global Trade Atlas, U.S. International Trade Commission.
United States, according to China. Of the 10 chapters listed in Table 2, nine were among the top
10 sources of China’s exports (leather goods ranked 13th).2 The 10 chapters listed above provided
74.1% of what China said it exported to the United States.
On the other side of the trade equation, there were five chapters where China’s imports exceeded
U.S. exports by more than $1 billion, and no chapters where U.S. exports exceeded Chinese
imports by more than $1 billion. China’s officially reported imports from the United States of
miscellaneous grains, seeds and fruits (12); organic chemicals (29); plastic (39); machinery (84);
electrical machinery (85chemical products (38); machinery (84); electrical machinery (85); non-railway
vehicles (87); and optical and medical equipment (90) were more than $1 billion
greater than the official
U.S. exports to China.
It is also worth noting that on both sides of the trade balance equation, two of the greatest
differences in the official trade statistics of the two nations occurred in the same HS chapters—
machinery (84) and electrical machinery (85). The discrepancies between the official trade
statistics for these two types of goods have been consistently large for flows in both directions
since 2001, indicating. This indicates a systemic difference in the evaluation of the bilateral trade of these goods.
Explaining the Differences: Literature Summary
goods.
2
According to China’s export figures, non-railway vehicles (chapter 87) ranked 10th among the chapters.
Congressional Research Service
3
What’s the Difference?—Comparing U.S. and Chinese Trade Data
Explaining the Differences: Summary of the
Literature
The question as to why China’s official statistics are routinely much lower in value than the
official U.S. trade statistics has been and continues to be the subject of analysis by scholars,
government officials, and other interested parties. The following is a short review of some of the
key explanations provided in this literature, categorized into “technical” and “non-technical”
explanations. “Technical” explanations refer to procedural or administrative causes for the
discrepancies; “non-technical” explanations include causes arising from non-procedural or nonadministrative sources.
Congressional Research Service
3
What’s the Difference?—Comparing U.S. and Chinese Trade Data
administrative sources.
Technical Explanations
Official Definitions of Exports and Imports
In its official statistics, China evaluates exports using the more commonly used “free on board,”
(F.O.B.) definition3 and the”
(F.O.B.) terms,3 and evaluates imports using “cost, insurance, and freight,” (C.I.F.) terms.4 The
definition4 to evaluate imports.
The United States, however, reports its exports using “free alongside” (F.A.S.) terms5 and values
evaluated by using the “freight along side”
(F.A.S.) definition5 and values imports using a customs definition. 6 As a result, official U.S. trade
data placeplaces a lower value on
both U.S. exports to China and imports from China than the official
Chinese data. In addition,
direct comparisons of the official U.S. and Chinese trade balances
reported in the media are
potentially misleading because the goods trades are being evaluated
using different methods. For
more accurate direct comparisons, the trade data for both nations
should be determined using the
same termsdefinition, such as the general international practice of convention of
F.O.B. for exports and C.I.F. for imports.
Definition of Territory
The United States includes Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands in its trade data; China does
not. China treats Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands as separate customs territories.
According to most studies, this is a comparatively minor source of difference in the trade
figures.
Timing
Because of the distance between China and the United States, it takes time between the export of
the goods from China and their import in the United States. Goods in transit at the end of the year
are counted as exports by China, but not as imports by the United States. However, the lag
between shipments occurs at the beginning and the end of the year, thus minimizing the effect of
timing on the overall trade balance difference.
Declaration of Country of Origin
The current practice of U.S. Customs is to rely on the declaration of the importer to determine the
country of origin. Some analysts believe that importers are misidentifying a significant amount of
imports as Chinese.
Exchange Rates
Because China’s currency, the renminbi, is allowed to fluctuate within a small range, the
exchange rate between the renminbi and the U.S. dollar changes over time.7 The value of a
3
3
4
“Free on board” includes the cost of getting the goods to port and loading them onto the ship; sometimes also referred
to as “freight on board.”
4.
The C.I.F. definition adds the cost of insurance and shipping (freight) to the value of the imported goods.
5
5
Unlike F.O.B., F.A.S. does not include the costs of clearingclear the goods for export and loading the goods. As a result,
the the
FAS value of a shipment is less than its FOB value.
6
The customs definition only includes the actual cost of the goods; it does not include the cost of insurance and freight.
As a result the customs value of a shipment is less than its CIF value.
7
Since June 2010, China has maintained what it calls a “managed floating exchange rate regime” that allows its
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
4
What’s the Difference?—Comparing U.S. and Chinese Trade Data
shipment may change between the date it leaves China and the date it arrives in the United States
due to changes in the exchange rate. Although the renminbi has appreciated against the U.S.
dollar over the last few years, exchange rate changes are not considered a major factor in the
Congressional Research Service
4
What’s the Difference?—Comparing U.S. and Chinese Trade Data
between shipments occurs at the beginning and the end of the year, and thus minimize the effect
of timing on the overall trade balance difference.
Declaration of Country of Origin
The current practice of U.S. Customs is to rely on the declaration of the importer to determine the
country of origin. Some analysts believe that importers are misidentifying a significant amount of
imports as Chinese.
Exchange Rates
Because China’s currency, the renminbi, is allowed to fluctuate within a small range against a
basket of foreign currencies, the exchange rate between the renminbi and the U.S. dollar may
change over time. 7 The value of a shipment may change between the date it leaves China and it
arrives in the United States due to changes in the exchange rate. Although the renminbi has
appreciated against the U.S. dollar over the last few years, exchange rate changes are not
considered a major factor in the discrepancy in the trade figures.
Non-Technical Explanations
Value Differences in Direct Trade
According to twoa joint China-U.S. studies (see “Joint China-U.S. Studies of Discrepancies”
below)study, about half of the merchandise trade discrepancy between
U.S. imports from China and
Chinese exports to the United States—or eastbound trade—is
attributable to changes in the values
of the export price in China and the import value in the
United States for goods shipped directly
between the two countries. Part of the difference may be
caused by mid-shipment transfers in
ownership resulting in the new owner adding a markup in
the price. Another possible explanation
is intentional under-invoicing of exports (see below).
Under-Invoicing
Some analysts believe that Chinese importers may intentionally under-value imports from the
United States to lower the import tariff due on the shipment. In addition, some analysts believe
that Chinese exporters may intentionally under-value exports to the United States to maximize
their net proceeds overseas for various tax and regulatory reasons. Due to the “hidden nature” of
under-invoicing, it is difficult to assess how much this may be contributing to the differences in
the trade data.
Intermediation
Although estimates vary, most analysts agree that a large portion of China’s exports arrive in the
United States via a third party,; Hong Kong being the most commonly identified location. 8 The
7
This remains China’s official exchange rate policy. However, since September 2008, the relative value of the
renminbi to the U.S. dollar has been comparatively constant after appreciating over 21% over the previous three years.
8
In a 2006 study, Fung, Lau and Xiong reduced the difference between the U.S. and Chinese trade deficit for 2005
from $87.4 billion to $26.5 billion by adjusting the trade data for Hong Kong re-exports. In a 2005 study, Tong
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
5
What’s the Difference?—Comparing U.S. and Chinese Trade Data
intermediation of shipments raises two sources of discrepancies. First, the exporter from China
may not know that the goods will eventually be shipped to the United States, and may therefore
list the third party (e.g., Hong Kong) as its destination, but U.S. Customs may list the source of
shipment as being China. Second, the value of the shipment may change—with or without any
actual change in the goods—between its arrival in and departure from the third location. The joint
China-U.S. study of discrepancies in merchandise trade statistics determined that value
differences account for about half of the differences between Chinese and U.S. trade statistics.
Implications for Congress
The release of the official U.S. annual trade figures has been frequently followed by expressions
of concern about the U.S. bilateral trade deficit with China. A recent study by the Economic
Policy Institute concluded that 2.4 million jobs were lost or displaced between 2001 and 2008 by
growing trade deficits with China.98 The
intermediation of shipments raises two sources of discrepancies. First, the exporter from China
may not know that the goods eventually will be shipped to the United States, and may therefore
list the third party (e.g., Hong Kong) as its destination, but U.S. Customs may list the source of
shipment as being China. Second, the value of the shipment may change—with or without any
actual change in the goods—between its arrival in and departure from the third location. The joint
China-U.S. study of discrepancies in merchandise trade statistics determined that value
differences account for about half of the differences between Chinese and U.S. trade statistics.
(...continued)
currency to fluctuate within a restricted range on a daily basis. For a more detailed discussion of China’s exchange rate
policy, see CRS Report RS21625, China's Currency Policy: An Analysis of the Economic Issues, by Wayne M.
Morrison and Marc Labonte.
8
In a 2006 study, Fung, Lau and Xiong reduced the difference between the U.S. and Chinese trade deficit for 2005
from $87.4 billion to $26.5 billion by adjusting the trade data for Hong Kong re-exports. In a 2005 study, Tong
estimated that adjustments for re-exports resulted in a $22 billion reduction in the trade balance difference for 2003. In
an August 2013 study, Hammer, Jones, and Wang calculated that intermediation by third countries other than Hong
Kong accounted for much of the remaining differences between Chinese and U.S. trade statistics after adjustments were
made for valuation systems. See selected bibliography at end of report for complete citations of these studies.
Congressional Research Service
5
What’s the Difference?—Comparing U.S. and Chinese Trade Data
Joint China-U.S. Studies of Discrepancies
In April 2004, the 15th JCCT established a statistical working group, with representatives of
China’s Ministry of Commerce and General Administration of Customs, and the U.S. Department
of Commerce and Office of the USTR. The initial focus of the working group was to examine the
“unusually large and growing statistical discrepancies in the bilateral merchandise trade data
officially published by [the] two countries.”9 It was subsequently decided to conduct a
reconciliation study to determine the causes of the discrepancies. However, it was agreed that the
results of the study were not intended to imply errors in either nation’s statistical systems and/or
methods of calculating official merchandise trade data.
Under the auspices of the U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT),
China’s Ministry of Commerce and the U.S. Department of Commerce and Office of the U.S.
Trade Representative (USTR) have conducted two studies to determine the causes of the
statistical discrepancies in the official merchandise trade data reported by both nations. The first
report was released in October 2009; the second in December 2012.
The main conclusions of the two studies are largely the same. The greatest discrepancy is in the
“eastbound trade” data, which accounts for 80%-90% of the overall difference in annual trade
balance. Roughly half of the “eastbound trade” data discrepancy can be attributed to goods that
“leave China, enter the commerce of intermediate countries or regions, and then [are] re-exported
to the United States.”10
Implications for Congress
The release of the official U.S. annual trade figures has been frequently followed by expressions
of concern about the size of U.S. bilateral trade deficit with China. According to official U.S.
trade figures, the bilateral trade deficit with China in 2014 was more than four times the size of
the next largest bilateral trade deficit (Germany, $73.7 billion) and greater than the sum of the
next seven largest bilateral trade deficits.11
China, however, does not accept the accuracy of the official U.S. figure for the Sino-U.S. trade
balance. In 2007, China’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Jiang Yu, said, “imbalances in ChinaU.S. trade are an objective fact, but this is also related to the two sides’ different statistical
methods.”1210
Also, when considering means or actions designed to reduce the U.S. trade deficit with China, it
is useful to know which goods are the main sources of discrepancies between Chinese and U.S.
trade figures, and how important they are in the overall trade flow between the two nations, so
9
Report of the Statistical Discrepancy of Merchandise Trade Between the United States and China, Hangzhou, China,
October 2009.
10
Ibid.
11
The next seven largest bilateral trade deficits in 2014, in order, were Germany—$73.7 billion; Japan—$67.0 billion;
Mexico—$53.8 billion; Canada—$33.9 billion; Saudi Arabia—$28.4 billion; Ireland—$ 26.2 billion; and South
Korea—$25.1 billion; for a total of $333.2 billion—$9.4 billion less than that of China.
12
Washington Trade Daily, February 16, 2007.
Congressional Research Service
6
What’s the Difference?—Comparing U.S. and Chinese Trade Data
that “trade remedies” may be better targeted at the perceived problem. According to this report,
the main problems appear to be in the trade figures for electrical machinery, machinery, and toys
and sporting goodstoys and
sporting goods, footwear, and furniture.
For those causes of the differences resulting from data compilation—such as misidentification of
value or country of origin of imports—Congress may choose through oversight or other means to
encourage the responsible U.S. agency to examine and adjust its procedures for compiling trade
data. In addition, Congress may decide to press or otherwise encourage China’s customs services
to conduct a similar review of its trade compilation procedures. to appropriate additional funding for
the responsible U.S. agency and/or provide for training or assistance to China’s customs services.
In other cases, more detailed
analysis of the trade data may be helpful in persuading China to
amend or alter its laws,
regulations, regulations and policies pertaining to the import or export of goods to the United States.
United States.
(...continued)
estimated that adjustments for re-exports resulted in a $22 billion reduction in the trade balance difference for 2003.
See selected bibliography at end of report for complete citations of these studies.
9
Robert E. Scott, Unfair China Trade Costs Local Jobs, Economic Policy Institute, EPI Briefing Paper #260,
Washington, DC, March 23, 2010.
10
Washington Trade Daily, February 16, 2007.
Congressional Research Service
6
What’s the Difference?—Comparing U.S. and Chinese Trade Data
Selected Bibliography on the Differences Between
U.S. and Chinese Bilateral Trade Figures
“Accounting for Discrepancies in Bilateral Trade: The Case of China, Hong Kong, and the United
States,” by Michael J. Ferrantino and Zhi Wang, China Economic Review, vol. 19 (2008), pp.
502-520.
Adjusted Estimates of United States-China Bilateral Trade Balances—An Update. K.C. Fung,
Lawrence J. Lau and Yangyan Xiong. June 2006. Stanford Center for International
Development, Working Paper No. 278.
Methodology of U.S.-China-Hong Kong Triangular Merchandise Trade Statistic Reconciliation.
Alexander Hammer, Lin Jones, and Zhi Wang. August 2013. Office of Economics Research
Note, U.S. International Trade Commission, No. RN-2013-08A.
Report on the Statistical Discrepancy of Merchandise Trade Betweenbetween the United States and
China,
Report by the Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade Statistical Working Group,
October 2009.
The Second Phase Report on the Statistical Discrepancy of Merchandise Trade between the
United States and China, Report by the Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade Statistical
Working Group, December 2012 October
2009.
Statistical Differences in Sino-US Trade Balance. February 12, 2007. China Online.
http://chinaculture.about.com/library/china/whitepaper/blstrade2.htm
The U.S.-China Bilateral Trade Balance: Its Size and Determinants. Robert C. Feenstra, Wen
Hai, Wing T. Woo, and Shunli Yao. May 1998. Paper presented at the UNDP-HIID
Conference on China’s Integration in the Global Economy, January 17, 1998.
The U.S.-China Trade Imbalance: How Big Is It Really? Sarah Y. Tong. March 2005. China: An
International Journal. Volume 3, No. 1, pp. 131-154.
Congressional Research Service
7
What’s the Difference?—Comparing U.S. and Chinese Trade Data
Author Contact Information
Michael F. Martin
Specialist in Asian Affairs
mfmartin@crs.loc.gov, 7-2199
Congressional Research Service
87