6.4 The Economic Effects of an Import Tariff – The Small-Country Case
Kenrick H. Jordan
One of the key ideas that we have seen with regard to international trade is that it affects different groups in the society differently. Therefore, in our analysis we will identify the effects on domestic consumers and domestic producers. We will measure the economic well-being of these groups using the notion of economic surplus – consumer surplus for consumers and producer surplus for producers, respectively.
Consumer surplus is equal to the difference between what consumers are willing to pay (i.e., the value they put on the product) and what they actually pay for a product (i.e., the market price). Graphically, consumer surplus is equal to the area below the demand curve – which reflects the highest price that consumers are willing to pay for particular amounts of the product – and the equilibrium price in a competitive market. A fall in the market price increases consumer surplus and an increase in price reduces it.
In a similar way, producer surplus is equal to the difference between the minimum price that producers are willing to accept (i.e., the marginal cost of producing particular amounts of the product) and the price they actually receive. Graphically, producer surplus is the area above the supply curve and below the equilibrium price. An increase in the market price raises producer surplus, while a fall in the market price reduces it.
We are now ready to examine the effects of an import tariff on consumers, producers, and the nation. We will see that the effects of a tariff are different for a small nation, which has no influence over the world price, from those of a large nation, which is able to influence the world price for the product as a result of its buying power. We will begin by considering the case of a small country.
A small country imports a small proportion of the world supply of the product and is, therefore, unable to influence the world price for the product. As a price-taker, the world price for the imported product is constant from the standpoint of the importing country. In reality, many countries have little or no influence over world product prices. Graphically, we represent the constant world price using a horizontal line in the demand and supply model.
Figure 6.1 represents the domestic market for a product before trade by the intersection of the domestic supply ([latex]\text{S}_{d}[/latex]) and demand ([latex]\text{D}_{d}[/latex]) curves. We determine equilibrium in the domestic market by the intersection of the demand and supply curves at point [latex]\text{E}[/latex]. If the economy is opened to international trade, it can import an unlimited amount of the product at the going world price. That is, the supply of imports is constant at the world price, shown as a horizontal line lying below the domestic equilibrium market price before trade. At the world price, the domestic market equilibrium shifts from Point E to Point F, where the demand curve intersects the world price line, [latex]\text{W}_{p}[/latex]. At this point, the total quantity of the product that is purchased is [latex]\text{Q}_{D0}[/latex], and the quantity supplied by domestic producers is [latex]\text{Q}_{S0}[/latex].
Compared with the situation before trade, domestic consumption increases as a result of the lower world price while domestic production falls. Thus, imports emerge, and the quantity of imports is equal to the difference between [latex]\text{Q}_{S0}[/latex] and [latex]\text{Q}_{D0}[/latex]. With international trade, consumers are better off since they are able to consume more and pay a lower price. Meanwhile, producers experience a decline in their well-being as they supply less at the lower world price. The domestic industry is, therefore, hurt by international competition as production and employment fall.
Suppose the national government gives in to political pressure from domestic producers to provide tariff protection to their industry! Since the world price remains unchanged in the case of a small country, the price on the domestic market rises by the full amount of the tariff – it now becomes [latex]\text{W}_{p}+\text{t}[/latex], where [latex]\text{t}[/latex] is the import tariff. As a result, consumers cut back on purchases of the product to [latex]\text{Q}_{D1}[/latex], as they bear the full burden of the tariff; producers expand their production to [latex]\text{Q}_{S1}[/latex] due to the protective effect of the tariff; and the quantity of imports fall from their pre-tariff levels to the difference between [latex]\text{Q}_{S1}[/latex] and [latex]\text{Q}_{D1}[/latex]. The tariff reduces imports and encourages domestic production. In summary, consumer surplus declines by the sum of areas [latex]\textit{a}+{b}+{c}+{d}[/latex]. Producer surplus rises by area [latex]\textit{a}[/latex].
The loss of consumer surplus is more than the gain in producer surplus – consumers have to pay the price mark-up on both domestic production and imports while producers gain the price mark-up only on domestic production. However, some of what consumers lose in economic surplus is transferred to producers – the loss of area [latex]\textit{a}[/latex] by consumers is redistributed to producers – and therefore is not a loss to the nation. Some of what consumers lose is also transferred to the national government as tariff revenue. As long as the tariff is not high enough to block out all imports, the tariff will generate government revenue equal to the tariff multiplied by quantity of imports, i.e., [latex][(\text{Q}_{S1}-\text{Q}_{D1})*\text{t}][/latex]. While tariff revenue represents a loss to consumers, it is not a loss to the nation as there is a transfer of surplus from consumers to the national government. The tariff revenue is captured by area [latex]\textit{c}[/latex] in 6.3 Figure 1.
If we combine the effects of the tariff on consumers, domestic producers, and the national government, we could determine the net impact of the tariff on the nation (see Table 6). If we value each dollar of economic gain or loss the same regardless of the group to which it accrues, we could add the gains and losses to consumers, producers, and government to find the overall effect on the nation.
| Item | Gain/Loss |
|---|---|
| Producer surplus gain or loss | [latex]+\textit{a}[/latex] |
| Consumer surplus gain or loss | [latex]-\textit{a}-{b}-{c}-{d}[/latex] |
| Government revenue | [latex]+\textit{c}[/latex] |
| National well-being | [latex]-\textit{b}-{d}[/latex] |
The net national loss of economic well-being in the case of a small country is the sum of areas [latex]\textit{b}[/latex] and [latex]\textit{d}[/latex] . Area [latex]\textit{b}[/latex] is called the production effect (or protective effect) of the tariff. This represents the fact that some consumer demand is shifted from less expensive imports to more expensive production by domestic suppliers. It captures the additional cost of switching consumption to less efficient domestic production and represents the cost of supporting domestic producers. It is part of what consumers pay, but since neither producers nor the government get this surplus, it is a deadweight loss. Area [latex]\textit{d}[/latex] is called the consumption effect of the tariff. This reflects the loss to consumers stemming from the fall in consumption due to the higher after-tariff price. Area [latex]\textit{d}[/latex] is a deadweight loss because consumers lose surplus without any other group getting it. These deadweight losses are real costs to the nation.

Image Descriptions
Figure 6.1: The Economic Effects of a Tariff.
The image is a graph with the x-axis labelled "Quantity" and the y-axis labelled "Price." Two intersecting lines form an X in the graph: the downward-sloping line is labelled "Dd," and the upward-sloping line is labelled “Sd.” The point where Sd and Dd intersect is marked with the letter "E," signifying the equilibrium. A horizontal line below the equilibrium point is labelled "PW+t." Below it, another horizontal line is labelled "PW" The intersection of Dd and PW is labelled F. Four points on the quantity axis are labelled from left to right as "QS1," "QS0," "QD1," and "QD0.” At each intersection of supply, demand, and the world price with and without tariffs are horizontal lines down to the points on the quantity axis.
There is a double-sided horizontal arrow between the two world price lines. A double-sided horizontal arrow labelled "m1" is between the dotted lines of QS1 and QD0, and a double-sided horizontal arrow labelled "m2" is between the dotted lines of QS0 and QD1.
Area a is above the intersection of Sd and PW and below PW+t. Area b is the triangle formed by Sd, PW and QS0. Area c is the rectangle in the middle formed by QS0, PW, QD1 and PW+t. Area d mirrors b, formed by QD1, PW, and Dd.
[back]
Media Attributions
- 6.4 Figure 1: The Economic Effects of a Tariff. © Kenrick H. Jordan is licensed under a CC BY-NC-SA (Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike) license
Abstract
This study aims to quantitatively evaluate the influence of primary sourcing factors on fashion companies’ determination of apparel sourcing destinations. The results show improving the performance in stability and quality can help a country enhance its attractiveness as an apparel sourcing base. However, fashion companies’ current sourcing model does not provide substantial financial rewards encouraging better performance in sustainability. Further, price, tariffs and production capacity have no statistically significant impact on a country’s apparel export volume. findings of the study suggest that fashion companies’ sourcing decisions today appear to be more complicated and subtle than what is revealed by the existing literature and the public perception. The findings also call our attention to the significant impact of non-economic factors on companies’ sourcing decisions, particularly the perceived political risks.
Keywords: apparel sourcing, sourcing factors, sustainability, stability
Today, fashion companies consider a long list of factors when deciding where to source their apparel products, ranging from cost, speed to market, flexibility to the risk of social and environmental compliance (Ha-Brookshire, 2017). This study aims to quantitatively evaluate the influence of primary sourcing factors on fashion companies’ determination of apparel sourcing destinations. The findings will fulfill a critical research gap and enhance our understanding of fashion companies’ sourcing criteria and their sourcing behaviors in today’s business environment. The results will also offer valuable new perspectives to understand the secret of becoming a preferred apparel sourcing base.
A review of the existing literature suggests that fashion companies typically consider two groups of factors when deciding where to source their apparel products. One group is the perceived sourcing benefits, such as low sourcing cost, fast delivery, good quality of products, and access to new markets (Uluskan, Godfrey & Joines, 2017). The other group is the perceived risks or additional costs involved in sourcing, such as the risk of complying with labor or environmental regulations, political instability, and supply chain disruptions caused by trade barriers (Lu, 2020; Arrigo, 2020). However, researchers couldn’t conclude whether any particular sourcing factor is more or less important than the other. The quantitative relationship between sourcing factors and the sourcing volume is also unclear (Jin & Farr, 2010; Winter & Lasch, 2016).
For the study, we collected the detailed evaluation of the world’s 27 largest sourcing destinations in 2019 against 15 specific performance indicators from GlobalData, one of the most popular sourcing analytics tools (GlobalData, 2020). The evaluation uses a 5-point rating scale for each performance indicator (1=poor and 5=best).
Because some of these 15 performance indicators measure similar items, we first conducted an exploratory factor analysis, which reduced these indicators to five principal sourcing factors (all with an eigenvalue>1.2; cumulative total variance explained =75.9%) based on their correlation matrix scores (Ho, 2013). These five principal sourcing factors cover the following themes:
-
Capacity: It covers seven performance indicators that measure a sourcing destination’s capabilities (including flexibility and lead time) of providing apparel products and other value-added services.
-
Price & Tariff: It covers two performance indicators that measure the financial implications of sourcing from a particular destination, including eligibility for preferential import duties.
-
Stability: It covers two performance indicators that measure a sourcing destination’s macro-business environment, specifically sourcing-related political and economic climates.
-
Sustainability: It encompasses all social and environmental compliance issues related to apparel production and sourcing.
-
Quality: It covers two performance indicators that measure whether a sourcing destination obtains skilled workers and the overall quality of its products.
Next, we calculated the 27 apparel exporting countries’ average scores of these five principal sourcing factors. Based on the results, we further conducted a multiple regression analysis to evaluate the impact of the five principal sourcing factors on the value of these 27 countries’ apparel exports to the U.S., EU, and Asia in 2019, respectively. These three regions combined accounted for more than 80% of world apparel imports that year; however, fashion companies in each area are suggested to have unique sourcing preferences (GlobalData, 2020). The trade data came from UNComtrade, the most authentic source available (UNComtrade, 2020).
The regression models were statistically significant at the 99% confidence level (p<0.01; R2 larger than 60%), suggesting that U.S., EU, and Asian fashion companies overall consider these five principal sourcing factors when deciding how much to source from a particular sourcing destination (Wooldridge, 2010). Regarding the effect of specific sourcing factors:
First, the result suggests that improving the performance in Stability and Quality can help a country enhance its attractiveness as an apparel sourcing base in the U.S. and Asia markets (p<0.01), but not so much in the EU market (p>0.05).
Second, a higher score for the factor Sustainability does not result in more sourcing orders at the country level in all three markets examined (p<0.01). It seems fashion companies’ current sourcing model does not provide substantial financial rewards encouraging better performance in sustainability. It is also likely that sustainability and compliance are treated more as pre-requisite criteria instead of determining the volume of the sourcing orders.
Third, the impact of Price & Tariff and Capacity on the value of apparel imports is not statistically significant in any of the three markets examined (p>0.05). This result does NOT necessarily mean price and production capacity is irrelevant. Instead, the result implies that fashion companies’ sourcing decision today is not merely about “chasing the lowest price.” Meanwhile, due to concerns about supply chain risks, even the most “economically competitive” sourcing destination won’t receive all the sourcing orders (Lu, 2020).
The findings of the study suggest that fashion companies’ sourcing decisions today appear to be more complicated and subtle than what is revealed by the existing literature and the public perception. Notably, the findings present different views from previous studies regarding how sourcing cost and sustainability affect fashion companies’ selection of sourcing destinations (Uluskan, Godfrey & Joines, 2017). The findings also call our attention to the significant impact of non-economic factors on companies’ sourcing decisions, particularly the perceived political risks. This result explained why fashion companies had quickly reacted to the recent forced labor concerns in Xinjiang, China, and the military coup in Myanmar and halted sourcing from the regions (USFIA, 2021).
Given the sweeping impact of COVID-19, it will be meaningful to continue to interpret and decode fashion companies’ sourcing behavior in the post-Covid world in response to consumers’ shifting shopping behavior, the dynamics of primary sourcing destinations, and the new trade policy environment. It may also be interesting to explore whether fashion companies apply different sourcing criteria for any specific categories of apparel products.
References
Arrigo, E. (2020). Global sourcing in fast fashion retailers: Sourcing locations and sustainability considerations. Sustainability, 12 (2), 508.
GlobalData (2020). Sourcing criteria database. https://apparel.globaldata.com/HomePage Ha-Brookshire, J. (2017). Global sourcing in the textile and apparel industry. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
Handfield, R., Sun, H., & Rothenberg, L. (2020). Assessing supply chain risk for apparel production in low cost countries using newsfeed analysis. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal. 25(6), 803-821.
Hasan, R., Moore, M., & Handfield, R. (2020). Addressing social issues in commodity markets: Using cost modeling as an enabler of public policy in the Bangladeshi apparel industry. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 56(4), 25-44.
Ho, R. (2013). Handbook of univariate and multivariate data analysis with IBM SPSS. CRC press.
Jin, B., & Farr, C. A. (2010). Supplier selection criteria and perceived benefits and challenges of global sourcing apparel firms in the United States. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 39(1), 31-44.
Lu, S. (2020). 2020 Fashion industry benchmarking study. United States Fashion Industry Association. Washington, D.C. http://www.usfashionindustry.com/pdf_files/20200731- fashion-industry-benchmarking-study.pdf
Su, J., Dyer, C. L., & Gargeya, V. B. (2009). Strategic sourcing and supplier selection in the US Textile—Apparel—Retail supply network. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 27(2), 83-97.
Uluskan, M., Godfrey, A. B., & Joines, J. A. (2017). Impact of competitive strategy and cost- focus on global supplier switching (reshore and relocation) decisions. The Journal of The Textile Institute, 108(8), 1308-1318.
United States Fashion Industry Association, USFIA (2021). Sourcing trends & outlook 2021. Washington, D.C.. http://www.usfashionindustry.com/membersonly/20210302-usfia- sourcing-trends&outlook-report.pdf
UNComtrade (2020). International trade statistics. https://comtrade.un.org/
Winter, S., & Lasch, R. (2016). Environmental and social criteria in supplier evaluation–Lessons from the fashion and apparel industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 139, 175-190.
Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT press.
How to Cite:
Lu, S. & Davis, E., (2022) “Which Apparel Sourcing Factors Matter?”, International Textile and Apparel Association Annual Conference Proceedings 78(1). doi: https://doi.org/10.31274/itaa.13467
Published on 2022-09-23
References
Carbaugh, R.J. (2015). International economics, (15th ed.). Cengage Learning, 2015.
Pugel, T. A. (2020). International economics, (17th ed.). McGraw-Hill, 2020.