What’s the Difference?—Comparing U.S. and Chinese Trade Data

April 10, 2007 – May 20, 2020 RS22640

What’s the Difference?—Comparing U.S. and
Chinese Trade Data
Updated May 20, 2020
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
RS22640

What’s the Difference?—Comparing U.S. and Chinese Trade Data

Summary
The size of the U.S. bilateral trade deficit with the People’s Republic of China (China) has been
and continues to be an important issue in bilateral trade relations. President Trump and some
Members of Congress view the deficit as a sign of unfair economic policies in China. In the 116th
Congress, the Fair Trade with China Enforcement Act (H.R. 704 and S. 2) and the United States
Reciprocal Trade Act (H.R. 764) mention U.S. trade deficits as a reason for the proposed
legislation.
The escalation of the Sino-U.S. trade tensions and both sides’ imposition of tariffs on one
anothers’ trade since spring 2018 contributed to a significant decline in bilateral merchandise
trade in 2019, and the corresponding merchandise trade balance. According to the U.S.
International Trade Commission, the 2019 bilateral merchandise trade deficit with China was
$345.6 billion, down from $419.2 billion in 2018. According to China’s General Administration
of Customs, China’s trade surplus with the United States in 2019 was $295.5 billion, a decline of
$27.9 billion from 2018. The difference between the officially reported trade balances of the two
nations was less than $55 billion for the first time in 20 years.
This report examines the differences in the trade data reported by the Chinese and U.S.
governments in two ways. First, it compares the trade figures using the Harmonized Commodity
Description and Coding System (Harmonized System) to discern any patterns in the discrepancies
between the U.S. and Chinese data. This comparison reveals that 96% of the difference in the
value of China’s exports to the United States in 2019 arises primarily from differences in the
reported values for four types of goods. Those four types of goods, in order of the size of the
discrepancy, were electrical machinery, toys and sporting goods, machinery, and footwear; all
four have been major sources of the discrepancy for over a decade.
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
reveals that the leading sources of the discrepancies are differences in the list value of 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.
In light 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 released two reconciliation studies in 2009 and 2012 to identify the causes of
the statistical discrepancies. The JCCT has not met since May 2016.
This report is updated annually, after the release of official trade data by China and the
United States.
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.1 Some Members of Congress and the Trump Administration point to
the bilateral trade imbalance as evidence that China is not competing fairly in the global market.2
On March 31, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13786, which states:
Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce and the United States
Trade Representative (USTR), in consultation with the Secretaries of State, the Treasury,
Defense, Agriculture, and Homeland Security, and the heads of any other executive
departments or agencies with relevant expertise, as determined by the Secretary of
Commerce and the USTR, shall prepare and submit to the President an Omnibus Report
on Significant Trade Deficits (Report).3
The report was reportedly submitted to the White House for review in June 2017, but the contents
of the report have not been made public.4
President Trump also issued Executive Order 13796, “Addressing Trade Agreement Violations
and Abuses,” on April 29, 2017, which, among other things, requires the Secretary of Commerce
and the USTR to “conduct comprehensive performance reviews” of “all trade relations with
countries governed by the rules of the World Trade Organization with which the United States
does not have free trade agreements but with which the United States runs significant trade
deficits in goods.”5 China is one such country.
In late 2017, China and the United States entered into a bilateral trade dispute that subsequently
saw both nations impose higher tariffs on goods imported from the other nation.6 Since spring
2018, the United States has imposed increased tariffs on more than $360 billion of goods
imported from China, and China has imposed increased tariffs on more than $110 billion of goods
imported from the United States.7 According to some economists, the higher tariffs resulted in a
significant amount of trade diversion away from direct Sino-U.S. bilateral trade flows toward an
increase in merchandise trade with other nations, such as Mexico and Vietnam.8 According to the

1 Other trade issues also contribute to this bilateral tension. For more about U.S. trade relations with China in general,
see CRS In Focus IF11284, U.S.-China Trade and Economic Relations: Overview, by Karen M. Sutter.
2 Both China and the United States have substantial trade surpluses with some trading partners and trade deficits with
other trading partners. Also, the phenomenon 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.
3 Office of the President, “Omnibus Report on Significant Trade Deficits,” 82 Federal Register 16721, March 31, 2017.
4 “Commerce Dept.: Trade Deficits Report Under Review by the White House,” Inside U.S. Trade, June 29, 2017; and
“Presidential Directives Demanding Trade Actions Have Yet to Produce Tangible Outcomes,” Inside U.S. Trade,
December 29, 2017. The Department of Commerce and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative held a public
hearing on the subject of the report on May 18, 2017 (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/04/17/2017-
07827/public-comments-and-hearing-regarding-administration-report-on-significant-trade-deficits).
5 Executive Office of the President, “Addressing Trade Agreement Violations and Abuses,” 82 Federal Register 20819,
April 29, 2017.
6 “A Quick Guide to the US-China Trade War,” BBC, January 16, 2020.
7 CRS Report R45949, U.S.-China Tariff Actions by the Numbers, by Brock R. Williams and Keigh E. Hammond.
8 For more about the trade diversion effects of the Sino-U.S. trade dispute, see Abdul Abiad, Kristina Baris, and John
Arvin Bernabe, et al., The Impact of Trade Conflict on Developing Asia, Asian Development Bank, ADB Economics
Working Paper Series #566, December 2018; and Alessandro Nicita, Trade and Trade Diversion Effects of United
States Tariffs on China, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, UNCTAD Research Paper No. 37,
November 2019.
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 5 link to page 5 What’s the Difference?—Comparing U.S. and Chinese Trade Data

official trade statistics of both countries, the U.S. merchandise trade deficit with China increased
in 2017 and 2018, but fell in 2019. The Sino-U.S. trade dispute was a contributing factor in a 15%
decline in total bilateral merchandise trade between 2018 and 2019, according to both official
Chinese and U.S. trade statistics. The trade dispute also was a contributing factor in the reduction
of the bilateral trade balance by 9% and 18%, according to Chinese and U.S. trade figures
respectively.
Comparison of U.S. and Chinese Merchandise
Trade Data
Table 1 lists the official trade statistics from the United States and China for the years 2001 to
2019, using both countries’ official trade data.9 From the U.S. perspective, its bilateral trade
deficit with China more than quadrupled in value over the last 19 years, from just over $83 billion
in 2001 to over $345 billion in 2019. However, from the Chinese view, its bilateral trade surplus
with the United States increased more than 10-fold, from about $28 billion in 2001 to more than
$295 billion in 2019. For the first time in 19 years, the difference between the official
merchandise trade balances of the two nations is just over $50 billion.
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. China’s figures for its
exports to the United States differed from U.S. figures by $48.3 billion in 2001 and $34.5 billion
in 2019. The difference between the U.S. and Chinese figures for U.S. exports to China was
generally less than $10 billion until 2011, after which the discrepancy rose until 2019, when it
returned to below $10 billion.
Table 1. U.S. and Chinese Merchandise Trade Figures, 2001-2019
(billions of dollars)

U.S. Trade Figures
Chinese Trade Figures
Imports
Imports
Exports to
from
Exports to
from
United
United
China
China
Trade
States
States
Trade
Year
(F.A.S.)
(C.V.)
Balance
(F.O.B.)
(C.I.F.)
Balance
2001
19.396
102.570
-83.174
54.277
26.204
28.073
2002
22.317
125.498
-103.181
69.959
27.228
42.731
2003
28.646
152.974
-124.328
92.510
33.883
58.627
2004
34.833
197.456
-162.623
124.973
44.653
80.320
2005
41.874
244.699
-202.825
162.939
48.735
114.204
2006
54.813
289.246
-234.433
203.516
59.222
144.294
2007
64.313
322.975
-258.662
232.761
69.861
162.900
2008
71.346
339.581
-268.235
252.327
81.486
170.841

9 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 along side,” or F.A.S. method and its
imports using the “Customs value” method. The implications of the different evaluation methods are discussed later in
the report.
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 7 What’s the Difference?—Comparing U.S. and Chinese Trade Data

U.S. Trade Figures
Chinese Trade Figures
Imports
Imports
Exports to
from
Exports to
from
United
United
China
China
Trade
States
States
Trade
Year
(F.A.S.)
(C.V.)
Balance
(F.O.B.)
(C.I.F.)
Balance
2009
70.636
297.872
-227.236
220.706
77.433
143.273
2010
93.059
366.126
-273.067
283.184
101.310
181.873
2011
105.445
400.632
-295.187
324.300
118.121
206.180
2012
111.855
426.792
-314.937
351.884
127.755
224.129
2013
122.827
441.621
-318.794
368.349
145.926
222.423
2014
124.747
467.940
-343.193
396.082
159.036
237.046
2015
116.817
484.371
-367.554
409.648
148.736
260.912
2016
115.775
462.813
-347.038
388.617
132.394
256.223
2017
130.370
505.597
-375.227
429.758
153.943
275.815
2018
120.341
539.503
-419.162
478.423
155.096
323.327
2019
106.627
452.243
-345.616
417.771
122.303
295.468
Source: China’s General Administration of Customs, Global Trade Atlas, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
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 Code. The first two digits of the product’s code correspond 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 four HS chapters where the value of U.S. imports from China
exceeds the value of Chinese exports to the United States for 2019. The top four HS chapters—
footwear (64), machinery (84), electrical machinery (85), and toys and sporting goods (95)—
account for more than 96% of the difference between the U.S. and Chinese figures for U.S.
imports from China (or Chinese exports to the United States).
All four of these chapters also ranked high according to both countries in terms of their absolute
value of trade. Machinery (84), electrical machinery (85), and toys and sporting goods (95) were
among the top five ranked chapters in terms of the value of imports from China, according to the
United States; footwear (64) ranked 8th. The four chapters combined accounted for 56.7% of the
total value of imports in 2019. Machinery (84), electrical machinery (85), and toys and sporting
goods (95) were among the top five sources of exports to the United States, according to China,
and accounted for 50.7% of the total value of exports in 2019.
Congressional Research Service

3

What’s the Difference?—Comparing U.S. and Chinese Trade Data

Table 2. Top Four Discrepancies for U.S. Imports from China, 2019
(billions of dollars)
China’s
U.S. Imports
Exports
from China
to U.S.
(U.S. data,
(China data,
HS Chapter
using C.V.)
using F.O.B.)
Difference
Electrical Machinery (85)
125.4
106.2
19.2
Toys and Sporting Goods (95)
25.4
19.1
6.3
Machinery (84)
92.0
86.5
5.5
Footwear (64)
13.4
11.5
1.9
Source: China Customs, U.S. International Trade Commission.
In addition, China’s export value for four chapters exceeded U.S. import value by more than $1
billion (in order): knit apparel (61) - $3.418 billion; woven apparel (62) - $1.402 billion; and
railway equipment (86) - $1.138 billion; and furniture and bedding (94) - $1.053.
On the other side of the trade equation, there were 5 chapters where China’s imports exceeded
U.S. exports by more than $1 billion: plastic (39); machinery (84); electrical machinery (85); non-
railway vehicles (87); and optical and medical equipment (90). In two chapters—miscellaneous
grains, seeds, and fruit (12); and railway equipment (86)—U.S. exports exceeded Chinese imports
by more than $1 billion.
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 a systemic
difference in the evaluation of the bilateral trade of these goods.
Explaining the Differences: Literature Summary
The question as to why China’s official trade 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. Nor is the issue unique to the United States;
Canada also reports bilateral trade statistics that differ significantly from China’s reported figures,
and has investigated the reasons for those differences.10
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 non-administrative sources.

10 For example, the Canada-China bilateral merchandise trade balance for 2016 differed by $23.8 billion ($32.8 billion
trade deficit according to Canada; $9.0 billion trade surplus according to China). In January 2016, Canada requested
that the two nations conduct a joint study on the differences or asymmetries of their trade statistics. For more about that
study, see China-Canada Joint Working Group on Trade Statistics Reconciliation, Comparing Canada’s and China’s
Bilateral Trade Data, August 29, 2018, at https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/13-605-x/2018001/article/54962-
eng.htm.
Congressional Research Service

4

What’s the Difference?—Comparing U.S. and Chinese Trade Data

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.) terms,11 and evaluates imports using “cost, insurance, and freight” (C.I.F.) terms.12 The
use of F.O.B. for exports and C.I.F. for imports is a common, but not universal, international
practice.13 The United States, however, reports its exports using “free alongside” (F.A.S.) terms14
and values imports using a customs definition.15 As a result, official U.S. trade data place 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 evaluated using
the same terms. According to the World Bank, the difference between the F.O.B. value and the
C.I.F. value may vary between 10% and 20%.
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. A standard shipping container may
take 13-40 days to travel between the two nations. 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.

11 “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.”
12 The C.I.F. definition adds the cost of insurance and shipping (freight) to the value of the imported goods.
13 The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Statistics Division, for example, recommends this
practice. See “International Merchandise Trade Statistics: Concepts and Definitions,” paragraph 116
(http://unstats.un.org/unsd/publication/SeriesM/SeriesM_52rev2E.pdf). Several countries, however, do not follow this
recommendation, according to the United Nations International Trade Statistics Knowledgebase (http://unstats.un.org/
unsd/tradekb/Knowledgebase/Trade-valuation).
14 Unlike F.O.B., F.A.S. does not include the costs of clearing the goods for export and loading the goods. As a result,
the FAS value of a shipment is less than its FOB value.
15 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 C.I.F. value. The U.S. Census Bureau does release
import data using the C.I.F. definition, but like the Bureau of Economic Analysis, reports exports using the F.A.S.
definition.
Congressional Research Service

5

What’s the Difference?—Comparing U.S. and Chinese Trade Data

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 U.S. importers are misidentifying a significant
amount of imports from Hong Kong as coming from China.
Exchange Rates
Most of U.S. trade with China is denominated in U.S. dollars, but a small percent of the bilateral
trade is conducted in China’s currency, the renminbi (RMB). Because the RMB is allowed to
fluctuate within a small range, the exchange rate between the RMB and the U.S. dollar changes
over time.16 As a result, the value of a 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. Exchange rate changes
are generally not considered a major factor in the discrepancy in the trade figures.
Non-Technical Explanations
Value Differences in Direct Trade
According to two joint China-U.S. studies (see shaded text box, “Joint China-U.S. Studies of
Discrepancies,” below), 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 or over invoicing of exports (see below).
Under and Over Invoicing
Some analysts believe that Chinese importers may intentionally undervalue imports from the
United States to lower the import tariff due on the shipment, while others maintain the Chinese
companies may overvalue imports to secure additional foreign exchange. In addition, some
analysts believe that Chinese exporters may intentionally undervalue exports to the United States
to maximize their net proceeds overseas for various tax and regulatory reasons. Bilateral trade
figures may also be distorted by “phantom goods” shipments from China to the United States
(and other locations) used to disguise attempts to move financial capital offshore.17 Due to the
“hidden nature” of under and over invoicing, it is difficult to assess how much, if at all, this may
be contributing to the differences in the trade data.
Intermediation
Although estimates vary, many analysts agree that a portion of China’s exports arrive in the
United States via a third party, Hong Kong being the most commonly identified location.18 The

16 Since June 2010, China has maintained what it calls a “managed floating exchange rate regime” that allows its
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.
17 Enda Curran, “Phantom Goods Disguise Billions in China Illicit Money Flows,” Bloomberg, March 8, 2016.
18 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
Congressional Research Service

6

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 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, based on U.S. laws and regulations. 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.
A 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
(see text box). Separate U.S. and China government studies of the trade data conducted in 2009
and 2012 under the auspices of the U.S.-China JCCT found that the greatest discrepancy is in the
“eastbound trade” data, which accounts for 80%-90% of the overall difference in the 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.”19
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.”20 The Working
Group subsequently decided to conduct a reconciliation study to determine the causes of the discrepancies.
However, the Working Group stated 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.
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 2019 was more than three times the size of
the next largest bilateral trade deficit (Mexico, $101.8 billion) and greater than the sum of the
next four largest bilateral trade deficits.21
For a number of years, China did not accept the “accuracy” of the official U.S. figure for the
Sino-U.S. trade balance. A 1997 White Paper issued by China’s State Council, “On Sino-US
Trade Balance,” states, “Statistics and analyses prove it true that Sino-US trade has been in favour
of China in recent years, but it is obvious that the size of the US deficit has been largely

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.
19 Ibid.
20 Report of the Statistical Discrepancy of Merchandise Trade Between the United States and China, Hangzhou, China,
October 2009.
21 The next four largest bilateral trade deficits in 2019, in order, were Mexico—$101.8 billion; Japan—$69.0 billion;
Germany—$67.2 billion; and Vietnam—$55.8 billion.
Congressional Research Service

7

What’s the Difference?—Comparing U.S. and Chinese Trade Data

exaggerated by the US side.”22 In 2007, China’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Jiang Yu, said,
“imbalances in China-U.S. trade are an objective fact, but this is also related to the two sides’
different statistical methods.”23 Such criticisms of U.S. trade statistics seems to have subsided,
possibly due to the joint studies conducted under the JCCT.
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
that any proposed “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 goods.
For those causes of the differences resulting from data compilation—such as differences in
assessing product value or determining the country of destination and/or origin—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. In other cases, more detailed analysis of the trade data may be helpful in
persuading China to amend or alter its laws, regulations, and policies pertaining to the import or
export of goods to the United States.
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, by K.C. Fung,
Lawrence J. Lau and Yangyan Xiong, Stanford Center for International Development,
Working Paper No. 278, June 2006.
Comparing Canada’s and China’s Bilateral Trade Data, China-Canada Joint Working Group on
Trade Statistics Reconciliation, August 29, 2018.
Methodology of U.S.-China-Hong Kong Triangular Merchandise Trade Statistic Reconciliation,
Alexander Hammer, Lin Jones, and Zhi Wang, U.S. International Trade Commission, Office
of Economics, Research Note No. RN-2013-08A, August 2013.
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,
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.

22 Information Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China, On Sino-US Trade Balance, March 1997,
at http://www.chinaembassy.lt/eng/zt/zfbps/t125247.htm.
23 Washington Trade Daily, February 16, 2007.
Congressional Research Service

8

What’s the Difference?—Comparing U.S. and Chinese Trade Data

The U.S.-China Bilateral Trade Balance: Its Size and Determinants, by 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?” by Sarah Y. Tong, China: An
International Journal, vol. 3, no. 1, March 2005, pp. 131-154.

Author Information

Michael F. Martin

Specialist in Asian Affairs

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
RS22640 · VERSION 27 · UPDATED
9

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

May. 20, 2020

HTML · PDF

Mar. 20, 2019

HTML · PDF

2% changed

Apr. 23, 2018

HTML · PDF

6% changed

Apr. 17, 2017