Order Code RS20210
Updated May 6, 2008
Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms:
Economic, Program, and Policy Issues
J. F. Hornbeck
Specialist in International Trade and Finance
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Summary
Economists generally agree that trade liberalization enhances the economic welfare
of all trade partners, but in compelling firms and workers to face stiffer global
competition, can also cause adjustment problems. Congress has responded by
authorizing three programs to assist trade-impacted workers, firms, and farmers.1 This
report focuses on the trade adjustment assistance (TAA) program for firms, which
provides technical assistance to trade-affected firms to help them develop strategies to
remain competitive in the changing international economy. TAA program authorization
lapsed on October 1, 2007 and was operating under a temporary extension through
December 31, 2007. The House passed a second three-month extension and a new
five-year reauthorization bill. Neither bill has been passed in the Senate. This report will
be updated periodically.
The Economics of Trade Adjustment
Economists tend to agree that in defining the rules of exchange among countries,
freer trade is preferable to protectionism. Insights from the theory of comparative
advantage point to freer trade providing mutual gains for countries because exchange
encourages specialization, where countries produce those goods at which they are
relatively more efficient, while trading for those at which they are relatively less so.
Evidence supports theory. Trade appears to “enable efficient producers within an industry,
and efficient industries within an economy, to expand,” leading to a reallocation of
resources that increases a country’s productivity, output, and income.2 Consumers (both
firms and households) also gain from a wider variety of goods at lower prices.
1 See also: CRS Report RL34383, Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for Workers: Current
Issues and Legislation, by John J. Topoleski.
2 On how trade affects total factor productivity based on U.S. manufacturing firm and plant level
data, see Bernard, Andrew B. and J. Bradford Jensen. Exporting and Productivity in the USA.
Oxford Review of Economic Policy, vol. 20, no. 3. 2004. pp. 343-344, 350, 352, and 356.

---

CRS-2
It is also true that increased competition from trade liberalization creates both
“winners and losers,” presenting adjustment problems for all countries. The more efficient
firms and plants may grow as they expand into overseas markets, the less efficient may
contract, merge, or perhaps even fail when faced with greater foreign competition. While
the adjustment process may be healthy from a macroeconomic perspective, much like
market-driven adjustments that occur for reasons other than trade (e.g., technological
change), it can be a harsh transition for some firms and their workers.3
Critics of free trade agreements often highlight the adjustment costs of reducing trade
barriers. To avoid business closures and layoffs, trade-impacted firms often seek to
weaken, if not defeat, trade liberalizing legislation. This makes economic sense from the
perspective of affected industries, firms, and workers, but economists argue that in the
long run it can be more costly for the country as a whole. The costs of protection arise
because competition is suppressed, reducing pressure on firms to innovate, operate more
efficiently, and become lower cost producers. The brunt of these costs falls to consumers,
both individuals and businesses, who must pay higher prices, but the national economy
is also denied higher standards of living because of forgone productivity gains.
One way to balance the broad-based gains from freer trade with the more highly
concentrated costs is to address the needs of firms negatively affected. This can be done
by legislating trade adjustment assistance (TAA). Supporters justify TAA policy on
grounds that (1) it helps those who are hurt by trade liberalization (the “losers”); (2) the
economic costs are lower than protectionism and can be borne by society as a whole (“the
winners”); and (3) given rigidities in the adjustment process, it helps redeploy economic
resources more quickly, thereby reducing productivity losses and related public sector
costs (e.g., unemployment compensation).
Firm and Industry Trade Adjustment Assistance
Congress first authorized TAA in Title III of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (P.L.
87-794) including a new firm and industry assistance program, which is administered by
the Economic Development Administration (EDA) of the U.S. Department of
Commerce.4 It provides technical assistance to help trade-impacted firms make strategic
adjustments that may allow them to remain competitive in a global economy. Originally,
firm TAA also included loans and loan guarantees, but Congress eliminated all direct
financial assistance in 1986 because of federal budgetary cutbacks and concern over the
program’s high default rates and limited effectiveness. The TAA for firms program was
reauthorized through FY2007 at an annual funding level of $16 million as part of the
Trade Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-210).
To receive assistance a firm must first be certified as eligible by demonstrating that
(1) a “significant” number or proportion of workers became or are threatened to become
totally or partially separated; (2) sales, production, or both decreased absolutely; and (3)
3 Both the benefits and costs of trade derive from resources moving from less to more productive
plants (intra-industry) and firms (inter-industry). Employment dislocation is the most noticeable
cost, giving rise to congressional interest in TAA programs. Ibid., pp. 345 and 356.
4 The TAA for firms program was originally administered jointly by the Tariff Commission
(predecessor to the USITC) and the Department of Commerce.

---

CRS-3
increased imports of competing articles “contributed importantly” to the decline in sales,
production, and/or workforce. Once certified, the firm has two years to apply for
assistance in developing and/or implementing its adjustment proposal. Approval depends
on EDA’s finding that the adjustment proposal: (1) is reasonably calculated “to materially
contribute” to the economic adjustment of the firm; (2) gives adequate consideration to
the interests of the firm’s workers; and (3) demonstrates that the firm will use its own
resources for economic development (adjustment).5
EDA can provide technical assistance to a firm for preparation of the petition for
eligibility certification and to a certified eligible firm for developing the economic
adjustment proposal or implementing the proposal. In practice, this technical assistance
is provided through one of the 11 Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers (TAACs), which
operate as non-federal consultants. They provide technical assistance to firms from the
initial certification process through implementation of the adjustment proposal.6 TAA
authorizations and appropriations for fiscal years 1999-2008 appear in Table 1.
Historically, appropriated funds have fallen short of authorized spending levels and
program authorization lapsed on December 31, 2008. All funds have been used to support
the TAACs, no funds go directly to firms.
Table 1. Firm TAA Authorizations and Appropriations, FY1999-2008
($ millions)
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Authori-
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
*
zations
Appro-
9.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.0
11.9
11.0
12.8
12.8
14.1
priations
Data Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. Economic Development Administration. * Authorization
lapsed on December 31, 2008.
The TAACs are staffed by professionals with broad business expertise who can help
firms develop “recovery strategies” and also identify financial resources. They are, in
effect, consultants specializing in business turnarounds. TAACs focus their efforts on
certifying eligible firms and devising targeted adjustment strategies, which are usually
implemented by private consultants on a contractual basis. EDA is statutorily restricted
to cover no more than 75% of adjustment proposal costs (development and
implementation), but beginning in FY1996, EDA reduced this portion to 50% for
implementation costs in excess of $30,000, capped at $75,000 per firm.7
TAACs help develop business recovery strategies specific to the needs of each firm,
which typically faces adjustments in many areas to compete with lower-priced imports.
First, since firms must be experiencing falling sales or declining production to participate,
TAACs often focus on marketing or sales strategies to identify new markets, new
5 P.L. 93-618, Sections 251 and 252, as amended, and 13 CFR 315.7.
6 P.L. 93-618, Section 253, as amended and U.S. Department of Commerce. Economic
Development Administration. [http://www.taacenters.org].
7 13 CFR 315.6 (c)(2) and EDA.

---

CRS-4
products, promotional initiatives, and export opportunities. Second, production
inefficiencies are corrected to reduce firm costs and improve price competitiveness. Third,
TAACs can develop debt restructuring strategies and frequently act as intermediaries in
finding new sources of business financing through either government agencies (U.S.
Small Business Administration) or private financial institutions.
Table 2 summarizes trade adjustment data for fiscal years 2002-2007, over which
an average of 146 firms were assisted each year. Most assisted firms are small to medium-
size manufacturing businesses, averaging $10.1 million in sales and 80 employees. The
Federal Government provided 52% of adjustment costs, the mean value of the trade
adjustment assistance provided by the TAACs was $50,329 per firm.
Table 2. Trade Adjustment Assistance, FY2002-2007
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Average
Number of Firms
141
162
177
132
137
126
146
Assisted
Avg Firm Sales
$11.7
$7.2
$11.6
$8.4
$10.6
$11.2
$10.1
(millions)
Avg Firm
102
68
88
64
91
68
80
Employees
Govt Share
$7.6
$8.1
$8.5
$5.9
$6.7
$7.1
$7.3
(millions)
Firm Share
$7.1
$7.4
$8.1
$5.4
$6.0
$5.9
$6.7
(millions)
Total TAA
$14.7
$15.5
$16.6
$11.3
$12.7
$13.0
$14.0
(millions)
Avg TAA Per
$53,900
$50,000
$48,023
$44,697 $48,905 $56,449 $50,329
Firm*
Data Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. Economic Development Administration.
* Government share of TAA Firm program divided by the number of accepted adjustment proposals.
Historically, program evaluation has been limited. EDA has no formal evaluation
process, although anecdotal evidence suggests that TAA has helped firms adjust to import
competition. The Urban Institute conducted the most comprehensive evaluation of the
program in 1998. It found the TAA program effective in helping “distressed
manufacturing enterprises respond to foreign imports.” Specifically, the study concluded
that five years after certification, eligible firms that sought TAA had a higher survival rate
(84%) than those eligible firms that did not ultimately pursue assistance (70%). This
amounted to a termination (firm either merged or failed) rate for assisted firms of about
half that of unassisted firms. Also, assisted firms on average added 4.2% more employees
and had sales growth of 34% compared to a 5.3% loss of employees and 16% sales
growth for eligible firms that had not received assistance.8
8 U.S. Department of Commerce. Economic Development Administration. Effective Aid to Trade-
Impacted Manufacturers: An Evaluation of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program. Prepared
by the Urban Institute, Washington, D.C., November 1998. pp. i, 8-14. The study, in praising the
firm TAA program, expresses a strong philosophical bias for assistance to trade-impacted firms,
(continued...)

---

CRS-5
This study was careful to include a control group in making comparisons. By
including data on those firms that entered the process and became eligible, but declined
the assistance, a comparison could be made between two similar groups of firms that took
different paths. This is a useful distinction and lends credibility to the study’s overall
positive conclusions. Still, given the financial commitment needed to participate, it is
likely that many eligible firms that did not pursue TAA may not have had the financial
ability to do so. If so, it is likely the control group may include a larger proportion of the
most financially distressed firms and even in this group, there was a 70% survival rate
after five years. This would suggest that the firm TAA program may help at the margin,
but without it, between 70% and 86% of firms would still adjust on their own.9
The Urban Institute report pointed to specific characteristics of the TAA program
that were particularly effective including its unbiased diagnostic approach and
competitive bidding process for consulting services, its success in targeting viable firms
and ensuring they are financially and managerially committed to the adjustment strategy,
and its customized, broad-based, and heavily subsidized assistance package. On the other
hand, the firm TAA program was criticized for not reaching all trade-impacted firms,
being limited and backlogged in responding to eligible firms by funding restrictions, and
having a stringent and cumbersome certification process that needed simplifying. Also,
TAACs were found to have inconsistent cost and fee structures and were encouraged to
leverage other business assistance services.10
A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report points to similar problems in its
own evaluation of the TAA for firms program. It highlights the inability of EDA to
monitor and evaluate the performance of either firms assisted (after leaving the program)
or the TAACs themselves. GAO also cites the small federal funding levels as reason for
a backlog of unfunded projects and the small portion that federal assistance constitutes
of the total firm adjustment project costs.11
Economic and Policy Issues
By any measure, firm and industry trade adjustment assistance is a small federal
program; it remains, nonetheless, controversial. Critics point to fundamental arguments
opposing TAA that have been debated since before the program was initiated in 1962.
First, if competition resulting from trade liberalization is not considered “unfair trade,”
why should the federal government be involved? Second, why should federal assistance
8 (...continued)
even to the point of considering increasing tariffs or other trade limiting remedies. See p. 57.
9 The study also attempts to control for industry, regional, and national economic conditions that
can be factors affecting firm recovery or failure. Ibid., pp. 13-17. The Government Accountability
Office (GAO) was even more critical of this study, citing the “selection bias” issue, as well as
failure to test for other explanatory variables. See U.S. GAO. Trade Adjustment Assistance:
Impact of Federal Assistance to Firms Is Unclear. Report GAO-01-12. Washington, DC.
December 2000. pp. 19-20.
10 For more details on cost-benefit analysis and program design improvements, see Urban
Institute, op. cit., pp. iv-vi, 8-9, and 32-48.
11 GAO, op. cit., pp. 13 and 18.

---

CRS-6
be necessary for adjustment to trade competition when there is no similar assistance for
adjustment to domestic competitive pressures? Third, should not this adjustment process
simply be accepted as part of a dynamic market economy working to allocate resources
more efficiently and in a way that is in the country’s long-term interests?
Proponents of the program argue that TAA is only modestly funded and provides
benefits to firms, owners, managers, and workers that are many times the value of the
federal expenditures. Also, if changes in national trade policy have altered the rules under
which businesses compete, does not the federal government have some responsibility for
assisting firms that bear the costs of adjustment? Finally, a point in favor of firm TAA is
that it focuses on adjustment, not long-term financial assistance. Firms must commit their
own resources and have every incentive to make adjustment to ensure their very survival.
They are not faced with the potential for dependency on long-term cash payments, which
critics charge is a problem with some federal assistance programs.
In addition to the economic reasoning, political considerations also surround the
TAA debate. Historically, Congress has accepted, with some reservations, that freer trade
is in the long-term interests of the United States. While those skeptical of trade
liberalization may support TAA for the assistance it provides to affected workers and
firms, proponents of freer trade may embrace TAA for its political expedience. To the
extent that firm and industry TAA can address some of the concerns of adversely affected
firms, it may support trade liberalization as a continuing foundation of U.S. trade policy
and temper calls for relief through increased tariffs, quotas, or other restrictions on trade.
Advocates of trade liberalization may find support for firm TAA as compelling from a
cost-benefit perspective if it leads to broader acceptance of trade opening legislation.
The 110th Congress
TAA is part of the debate on how to make trade liberalization work better for all
segments of the U.S. economy. Congress approved a three-month extension of all TAA
programs through December 31, 2007 (P.L. 110-89). The House has also passed by voice
vote another three-month extension, and by formal vote, a five-year reauthorization bill
(H.R. 3920). The Senate has yet to act on a TAA bill.
Representative Rangel introduced the Trade and Globalization Act of 2007 (H.R.
3920). Following committee markup, the House passed the bill by a vote of 264 to 157.
Major changes to the firm TAA program would include adding services firm eligibility,
expanding the eligibility criteria, reauthorizing the program through FY2012 at $50
million per year, and creating a small- and medium-sized manufacturing demonstration
project. A new manufacturing redevelopment zone program would be added. The House
defeated a Republican alternative by a vote of 196 to 226. It reflected an emphasis on cost
and effectiveness issues, did not address services firms, and would have required more
stringent performance measures and reporting requirements.
Senator Baucus introduced the Trade and Globalization Adjustment Assistance Act
of 2007 (S. 1848) on July 23, 2007. It also would make services firms eligible to receive
benefits and reauthorize the program through FY2012 at $50 million.
crsphpgw

---