Have you ever wondered why former President Donald Trump prefers tariffs over quotas to restrict Chinese imports? While both are tools of trade policy, their economic implications are markedly different. This article explores the underlying theory and practical consequences of using tariffs versus quotas, drawing insights from foundational economic literature and current U.S. trade realities.
The classic debate over the use of tariffs versus quotas dates back to Bhagwati’s seminal 1965 contribution, where he introduced the idea of tariff-quota equivalence under conditions of perfect competition. According to his framework, if a government sets an import quota to match the volume of imports reduced by an equivalent tariff, the overall impact on trade and welfare should theoretically be the same. However, Bhagwati also observed that this equivalence collapses in the presence of imperfect competition, particularly when domestic production is monopolized.
Panagariya (1980) echoed this conclusion, emphasizing that under perfect competition across all markets, policymakers could use either instrument interchangeably—as long as they are applied uniformly. But when a domestic monopolist dominates supply, tariffs and quotas diverge in effect. A tariff forces the monopolist to absorb part of the tax burden, typically by expanding supply and reducing prices to stay competitive. In contrast, a quota allows the monopolist to restrict output and raise prices without constraint, worsening consumer welfare and reducing market efficiency. This distinction is particularly important in assessing trade strategies in sectors where domestic monopolies or oligopolies exist.
Moreover, when quotas are applied in monopolistic markets, they can improve the terms of trade—defined as the ratio of export prices to import prices—because the resulting scarcity inflates domestic prices. Conversely, a tariff may deteriorate the terms of trade unless exports are price elastic. Whether stronger or weaker terms of trade are preferable depends entirely on policy objectives. If the primary goal is to reduce the inflow of cheap imports, policymakers may favor weaker terms of trade, accepting higher domestic prices in exchange for import suppression. If the goal is to increase government revenue, weaker terms of trade are still beneficial if the demand for U.S. exports is elastic. However, if export demand is inelastic, improving terms of trade becomes more desirable to extract higher returns from fewer trade volumes. Given the global competitiveness of U.S. exporters, it is unlikely that their goods face inelastic demand, thereby limiting the effectiveness of a tariff strategy that relies on this assumption.
From a welfare economics perspective, tariffs tend to outperform quotas in most scenarios. When domestic production is monopolized, quotas exacerbate welfare losses by enabling the monopolist to charge higher prices, thereby reducing consumer surplus. Tariffs, on the other hand, cap the ability of the monopolist to raise prices indefinitely, as price-sensitive consumers may shift toward substitutes or reduce consumption. In markets with perfect competition, tariffs allow imported and domestic goods to compete on a level playing field, enabling consumers to maximize utility by choosing the cheaper alternative. Over time, increased demand for domestic goods can even raise their prices toward the tariff-inclusive level, reducing deadweight loss.
Another useful framework is to consider tariffs and quotas in environments where one or both are already in place. Suppose the U.S. maintains an import quota on Chinese goods. Reducing that quota would likely enhance consumer welfare by lowering prices and increasing availability. On the flip side, raising tariffs in this context would raise prices, shielding domestic producers but harming consumers. Colden and Falvey (1985) argued that quota relaxation improves welfare under quota-only regimes, but under pre-existing tariffs, welfare gains from tariff reduction depend on how the reductions are distributed across competing countries. In short, a unilateral cut in tariffs on Chinese goods may not yield positive welfare outcomes unless accompanied by broader trade liberalization.
Beyond theoretical discussions, real-world policy preferences are also shaped by administrative considerations. Quotas are rigid—they impose hard ceilings on imports and often result in scarcity, higher prices, and inefficient allocation. Tariffs, by contrast, are more flexible; they can be adjusted in response to changing economic conditions and can generate fiscal revenue for the government. If the primary objective is protecting sensitive domestic industries, quotas may be more effective. But if revenue generation is the goal, tariffs are the better choice. This practical distinction explains why the World Trade Organization (WTO) encourages the use of tariffs over quotas to prevent trade distortions and retaliatory conflicts.
All of this brings us back to the original question: Why is Trump using tariffs instead of quotas? The answer lies in his dual objectives—boosting government revenue and curbing the influx of low-cost Chinese goods. Unfortunately, economic theory suggests that a single instrument cannot effectively achieve both goals. Tariffs can raise revenue, but they may not sufficiently reduce import volumes if demand for Chinese goods is inelastic. Quotas, meanwhile, can strictly limit imports but offer no revenue benefits unless auctioned or accompanied by a tariff-rate quota system. Thus, the choice between tariffs and quotas is not merely a technicality—it is a strategic trade-off.
In the current context, with U.S. exporters facing elastic global demand and operating in competitive markets, tariffs might help fill government coffers but fall short of discouraging Chinese imports. If Trump pivots toward quotas, he would forgo revenue but might gain greater control over import volumes. The crux of the matter is that trade policy is not a one-size-fits-all tool—it must be tailored to the objective at hand. And as the theory shows, the instruments used matter just as much as the intentions behind them.
Written by Michael Ogunremi
Featured image credit – Pexels