Tag: competition

Posted on

Who pays Trump’s tariffs?

Three recent reports (see links below) have suggested that US consumers and businesses pay most of the tariffs imposed by the second Trump administration. The percentage varies from around 86% to 96%. US customs revenue surged by approximately $200 billion in 2025, but this was a tax paid almost entirely by US consumers and businesses. Foreign suppliers largely maintained their (pre-tariff) prices. They took a hit in terms of reduced volumes rather than reduced pre-tariff prices.

The incidence of a tariff between consumers, domestic importers and overseas producers will depend on price elasticities of demand and supply. The following diagram shows a product where the importing country is large enough to have a degree of market power, which will normally be the case with the USA. The greater its buying power, the flatter will be its demand curve, showing that the foreign supplier will have little influence on the price. With no tariff, the equilibrium price paid by importers will be at point a, where demand equals supply. Q1 would be imported at a price of P1.

Imposition of a tariff will shift the supply curve upwards by the amount of the tariff. The new equilibrium price paid by importers will be at point b, where the new supply curve crosses the demand curve. Importers thus now pay a post-tariff price of P2: an effective rise in price of P2 minus P1. Foreign exporters receive P3, which is what they are paid by importers after the tariff has been paid.

The consumer price will be above P2 as that includes a mark-up by US businesses on top of the price they pay to import the product. Importers may bear some of the increase in price and not pass the full amount onto consumers, depending on competition and their ability to absorb cost increases.

President Trump argued that there would be very little rise in price from the tariffs and that overseas suppliers would bear the brunt of the tariffs. Indeed, recently he has argued that this must be the case as US inflation has been falling. In response, critics maintain that the rate of inflation would have fallen more without the tariffs and that current prices would be lower than they are. Also, if US importing firms or retailers bear some of the increased cost, even though this helps to dampen the price rise, their lower profits could damage investment and employment.

The Reports

The first report is from the New York Fed (one of the regional branches of the Federal Reserve Bank). It examines the effect of tariffs imposed in 2025, over three periods: (i) January to August, (ii) September to October, and (iii) November. In the first period, 94% of the tariffs were paid by US importers and 6% by foreign exports; in the second period, the figures were 92% and 8% and in the third period, 86% and 14%.

The second report is The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2026 to 2036 from the Congressional Budget Office. Box 2-1 notes that, as of November 2025, ‘the effective tariff rate was about 13 percentage points higher than the roughly 2 percent rate on imports in 2024’. Its analysis suggests that 95% of the tariffs will be borne by importers. Of these higher import prices, 30% will be borne by US businesses, largely through reduced profit margins, and 70% by consumers through higher prices. This will also allow many businesses which produce goods that compete with foreign imports to ‘increase their prices because of the decline in competition from abroad and the increased demand for tariff-free domestic goods’.

The third report is from the Kiel Insitut. In its Policy Brief, Americaʼs Own Goal: Who Pays the Tariffs?, it finds that US importers and consumers bear 96% of the cost of the 2025 tariffs, with foreign exporters absorbing only about 4%. It bases it findings on shipment-level data covering over 25 million transactions valued at nearly $4 trillion. This also shows that exports to the USA declined as foreign exporters preferred to reduce volumes rather than absorbing the tariffs.

The tariffs raised some $200 billion in 2025, around 3.8% of Federal tax receipts. But, as we have seen, this was paid largely by US consumers and business. It goes some way to offsetting the annual cut in tax revenues of around $450 to $520 billion per year from the tax cuts, largely to the better off, in Trump’s ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’.

Reports

Aricles

Questions

  1. Summarise the findings of the three reports (but just Box 2-1 of the Congressional Budget Office one).
  2. Assess the argument that protectionism leads to inefficiency in the protected industries.
  3. Under what circumstances would exporters to the USA absorb a high percentage of tariff increases? Consider questions of elasticity.
  4. Can tariffs ever be justified on efficiency grounds?
  5. Can tariffs be justified as a bargaining ploy? Can they be used as a means of achieving freer and fairer trade?
  6. Read the blog, President Reagan on tariffs and summarise President Reagan’s arguments. Are they still relevant today?
  7. Consider the arguments for and against the EU raising tariffs on US goods.
Posted on

The 4Ps approach to merger policy in the UK

The approach towards mergers remains the most controversial area of competition policy. Some argue that policy makers in both the UK and EU have been too easily persuaded by the arguments put forward by firms and so have allowed too many mergers to proceed. Others claim that the opposite is true and that merger policy has prohibited mergers that should have been allowed to proceed. This, then, has a negative impact on investment, innovation, productivity and growth.

In recent years there has been more specific criticism of merger policy in the UK. The government has indicated that it wants the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to be less interventionist and take a more pro-growth approach.

In February 2025, in response to this criticism, the CMA launched its new ‘4 Ps’ approach to merger policy: Pace, Predictability, Proportionality and Process. Various changes to the investigation process have been proposed in the past 12 months using this framework.

Pace. The time taken by the CMA to initially assess a merger before deciding whether a Phase 1 investigation is necessary (i.e. the pre-notification procedure) was reduced from 65 to 40 working days. Also, the target to complete straightforward Phase 1 investigations was reduced from 35 to 25 days.

Predictability. The proposed merger guidelines, published in October 2025, provide more detail on (a) what criteria will be used to measure market shares when applying the ‘share of supply test’ (this is where the combined UK market share of two merging businesses is at least 25%, provided one business has a UK turnover of at least £10 million), and (b) the factors that are likely to lead to the competition authorities concluding that one business has gained ‘material influence over another’. Businesses had complained that there was too much uncertainty about the way the share of supply test and material influence were applied. The CMA is also considering greater alignment with other international regulators over decision making rather than its previous policy of acting independently. All these measures should increase the predictability of the investigation process.

Proportionality. Proportionality refers to the objective of addressing any competition issues in merger cases in a way that places the minimum burden on the businesses involved. To improve proportionality, the CMA has indicated that in future cases it will be more willing to use behavioural remedies – requiring firms to take or desist from certain actions. New draft guidelines identify more situations where the use of behavioural remedies may be appropriate. However, they also show that the CMA still views structural remedies (e.g. preventing the merger or requiring firms to demerge or to sell certain assets) as more effective in many situations. Another important measure to improve proportionality is the introduction of a new ‘wait and see’ approach to global mergers. The CMA will now wait to see if the actions taken by other competition authorities in global cases address any concerns in the UK market before deciding whether to launch a review.

Process. To improve the process, the CMA has announced plans to engage with businesses at a much earlier point in the process. For example, it has pledged to share its provisional thinking in the early stages of an investigation by implementing new ‘teach-in’ sessions and having more regular update meetings. Much earlier meetings that focus on possible remedies will also take place. This may make it possible for the CMA to assess the suitability of more complex remedies during a Phase 1 investigation rather than having to wait for a longer and more costly Phase 2 review. Phase 2 reviews will also no longer be managed by panels of independent experts. This role will now be carried out by the internal CMA board.

Some critics argue that the CMA has not fully considered the potential benefits of mergers in many cases. For example, a merger could (a) have procompetitive effects, known as rivalry enhancing efficiencies (REEs) and/or (b) benefits for consumers outside of the relevant market, known as relevant customer benefits (RCBs). In response to this criticism, the CMA is currently reassessing its approach to including evidence on REEs and RCBs.

The CMA is still currently consulting with interested parties about many of these proposed changes. It will be interesting to see what final decisions are made in the next couple of years.

Articles

CMA documentation

Questions

  1. Of all the mergers considered by the CMA in 2024/25, find out what percentage were formally investigated. How many were blocked from taking place? Do you believe that this indicates that merger policy is too weak or too strong?
  2. What three criteria must be met for a business arrangement to be classed as a ‘relevant merger situation’ by the CMA?
  3. Identify some different methods that one business could use to gain material influence over the way another company operates.
  4. Outline the ‘turnover test’, the ‘share of supply test’ and the ‘hybrid test’.
  5. Discuss the potential advantages of using behavioural remedies as opposed to structural remedies in merger cases. Why has the CMA still preferred the use of structural remedies in most situations?
Posted on

New UK trade deals

The UK signed three trade deals in May – one with the USA, one with India and one with the EU. It is hoped by the government that these trade deals will provide a welcome boost to the UK economy.

The deal with the USA reduced tariffs on UK car exports to the USA from 27.5% to 10%, and on steel and aluminium exports from 25% to 0%. Pharmaceutical exports would also get more favourable treatment and there would be ‘reciprocal market access on beef’ (but with no lowering of food standards). Nevertheless, President Trump’s baseline tariff of 10% on most goods remains, as with other countries. However, a ruling by the US Court of International Trade has found that the Trump’s use of emergency powers to justify the sweeping use of tariffs is wrong. The Trump administration is appealing against the ruling and until the appeal is heard, the tariffs have been reinstated. Also, on May 30, the Trump administration announced that tariffs on steel and aluminium imports would rise from 25% to 50%. It remained to be seen whether this would affect the deal to reduce the rate to zero for British steel and aluminium imports.

The deal with India involves a reduction in tariffs on UK exports – some to zero – and simplified trade rules, faster customs clearance, less paperwork and the freedom for UK businesses to provide telecommunications and construction services. In return, tariffs will be reduced to zero on 99% of Indian exports to the UK. The UK government estimates that deal will result in trade between the two countries increasing by over 30%, with the UK’s GDP expanding by around 0.1 percentage points per year.

UK-EU trade

Perhaps the most significant new trade deal, however, is with the EU. This is a major advance on the current post-Brexit Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA). Under the TCA, there are no tariffs or quotas on UK goods exports to the EU or EU goods exports to the UK. However, to ensure that it is EU and UK business that benefits from these ‘trade preferences’, firms must show that their products fulfil ‘rules of origin’ requirements.

Under rules of origin requirements, when a good is imported into the UK from outside the EU and then has value added to it by processing, packaging, cleaning, remixing, preserving, refashioning, etc., it can only count as a UK good if sufficient value or weight is added. The proportions vary by product, but generally goods must have approximately 50 per cent UK content (or 80 per cent of the weight of foodstuffs) to qualify for tariff-free access to the EU. As a result, many goods exported to the EU with a proportion of imported components face tariffs.

Also, the TCA does not include free trade in services. The UK is a major exporter of services, including legal, financial, accounting, IT and engineering. It has a positive trade in services balance with the EU, unlike its negative trade in goods balance. Although some of the barriers which apply to other non-EU countries have been reduced for the UK in the TCA, UK service providers still face barriers which impose costs. For example, some EU countries limit the time that businesspeople providing services can stay in their countries to six months in any twelve. Also, since Brexit, UK artists and musicians have faced restrictions when touring and working in the EU. They can only work up to 90 out of every 180 days. This causes problems for longer tours and for musicians and crew who work in multiple bands or orchestras.

Perhaps the greatest barrier to trade under the TCA has been the large range of non-tariff measures (NTMs), such as customs checks, rules-of-origin and other paperwork, meeting various regulations and standards, and sanitary and phytosanitary checks on foodstuffs, plants and animals. Both the OBR and the Bank of England estimate that these post-Brexit trade restrictions are reducing UK GDP by around 4% and will continue to do so unless trade with the EU becomes freer.

The new UK-EU trade deal

The deal struck in mid-May reduces many of the administrative barriers to trade. Perhaps the most significant are the border checks on food, animal and plant shipments to and from the EU. Many of these checks will be scrapped. The new sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement allows many UK food products to be exported that previously were banned or proved too administratively costly. To achieve this free movement, the UK will generally follow EU standards, or similar standards so as to avoids harming EU trade. UK food exporters have generally welcomed the deal.

British steel exports to the EU will be protected from new EU rules and tariffs. This should save UK steel some £25m per year. Also, the EU has agreed to recognise UK carbon emissions caps, meaning that UK exports to the EU will avoid around £800m of carbon border taxes.

The post-Brexit fishing deal between the UK and EU, which saw a reduction of 25% in EU fishing quotas in UK waters, will be extended for another 12 years. Many UK fishers, however, had hoped for scrapping EU access to UK waters. The deal also allows various sea foods, including certain shellfish, to be exported to the EU for the first time since Brexit.

Other elements of the deal include a new security and defence partnership, the use of e-gates for UK travellers to the EU and an agreement to work towards a young person’s mobility scheme, allowing young people from the UK/EU to work and travel freely in the EU/UK again for a period of time.

The elements of the deal concerned with trade represent freer trade, but not totally free trade. The UK is not rejoining the customs union or single market. Nevertheless, strong supporters of Brexit have criticised the deal as a movement towards greater alignment of standards and thus a dilution of UK sovereignty. Supporters of greater alignment, on the other hand, argue that the deal does not go far enough and that even freer trade and less red tape would bring greater benefits to the UK.

Articles

UK-US trade deal

UK-India trade deal

UK-EU trade deal

Questions

  1. Outline the main elements of (a) the UK-US trade deal, (b) the UK-India trade deal and (c) the UK-EU trade deal. How much is it claimed that each deal will add to UK GDP?
  2. What trade barriers remain in each of the three deals?
  3. What elements are missing from the UK-EU trade deal that campaigners have been pushing for?
  4. Under what circumstances do free trade deals lead to (a) trade creation; (b) trade diversion?
  5. Would you expect the UK-EU trade deal on balance to lead to trade creation or trade diversion? Explain why.
Posted on

President Reagan on tariffs

In a 1987 address to the US nation, Republican President Ronald Reagan discussed the question of tariffs. His message was clear.

You see, at first, when someone says, ‘Let’s impose tariffs on foreign imports,’ it looks like they’re doing the patriotic thing by protecting American products and jobs. And sometimes for a short while it works – but only for a short time. What eventually occurs is:

First, homegrown industries start relying on government protection in the form of high tariffs. They stop competing and stop making the innovative management and technological changes they need to succeed in world markets.
 
And then, while all this is going on, something even worse occurs: high tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars. The result is more and more tariffs, higher and higher trade barriers, and less and less competition. So, soon, because of the prices made artificially high by tariffs that subsidise inefficiency and poor management, people stop buying.
 
Then the worst happens: markets shrink and collapse; businesses and industries shut down; and millions of people lose their jobs.
 
The memory of all this occurring back in the thirties made me determined when I came to Washington to spare the American people the protectionist legislation that destroys prosperity.
 
Now, it hasn’t always been easy. There are those in this Congress, just as there were back in the ’30s, who want to go for the quick political advantage, who will risk America’s prosperity for the sake of a short-term appeal to some special interest group, who forget that more than five million American jobs are directly tied to the foreign export business and additional millions are tied to imports.
 
For those of us who lived through the Great Depression, the memory of the suffering it caused is deep and searing. And today, many economic analysts and historians argue that high tariff legislation, passed back in that period called the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, greatly deepened the Depression and prevented economic recovery.

He returned to the topic of tariffs in November 1988, when he reflected on the benefits of free and fair trade and the dangers of protectionism.

Here in America, as we reflect on the many things we have to be grateful for, we should take a moment to recognize that one of the key factors behind our nation’s great prosperity is the open trade policy that allows the American people to freely exchange goods and services with free people around the world. The freedom to trade is not a new issue for America.

In 1776 our Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence, charging the British with a number of offenses, among them, and I quote, ‘cutting off our trade with all parts of the world’.
 
And that same year, a Scottish economist named Adam Smith launched another revolution with a book entitled ‘The Wealth of Nations’, which exposed for all time the folly of protectionism. Over the past 200 years, not only has the argument against tariffs and trade barriers won nearly universal agreement among economists but it has also proven itself in the real world, where we have seen free-trading nations prosper while protectionist countries fall behind.
 
America’s most recent experiment with protectionism was a disaster for the working men and women of this country. When Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley tariff in 1930, we were told that it would protect America from foreign competition and save jobs in this country – the same line we hear today. The actual result was the Great Depression, the worst economic catastrophe in our history; one out of four Americans were thrown out of work. Two years later, when I cast my first ballot for President, I voted for Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who opposed protectionism and called for the repeal of that disastrous tariff.
 
Ever since that time, the American people have stayed true to our heritage by rejecting the siren song of protectionism. In recent years, the trade deficit led some misguided politicians to call for protectionism, warning that otherwise we would lose jobs. But they were wrong again. In fact, the United States not only didn’t lose jobs, we created more jobs than all the countries of Western Europe, Canada, and Japan combined. The record is clear that when America’s total trade has increased, American jobs have also increased. And when our total trade has declined, so have the number of jobs.
 
Part of the difficulty in accepting the good news about trade is in our words. We too often talk about trade while using the vocabulary of war. In war, for one side to win, the other must lose. But commerce is not warfare. Trade is an economic alliance that benefits both countries. There are no losers, only winners. And trade helps strengthen the free world.
 
Yet today protectionism is being used by some American politicians as a cheap form of nationalism, a fig leaf for those unwilling to maintain America’s military strength and who lack the resolve to stand up to real enemies – countries that would use violence against us or our allies. Our peaceful trading partners are not our enemies; they are our allies.
 
We should beware of the demagogs who are ready to declare a trade war against our friends – weakening our economy, our national security, and the entire free world – all while cynically waving the American flag. The expansion of the international economy is not a foreign invasion; it is an American triumph, one we worked hard to achieve, and something central to our vision of a peaceful and prosperous world of freedom.
 
After the Second World War, America led the way to dismantle trade barriers and create a world trading system that set the stage for decades of unparalleled economic growth. And in one week, when important multilateral trade talks are held in Montreal, we will be in the forefront of efforts to improve this system. We want to open more markets for our products, to see to it that all nations play by the rules, and to seek improvement in such areas as dispute resolution and agriculture. We also want to bring the benefits of free trade to new areas, including services, investment, and the protection of intellectual property. Our negotiators will be working hard for all of us.
 
Yes, back in 1776, our Founding Fathers believed that free trade was worth fighting for. And we can celebrate their victory because today trade is at the core of the alliance that secure the peace and guarantee our freedom; it is the source of our prosperity and the path to an even brighter future for America.

The questions below address whether these radio addresses by President Reagan are relevant in today’s context of the imposition of tariffs by President Trump.

Videos of Radio Addresses

Articles and postings

Questions

  1. Summarise Ronald Reagan’s arguments.
  2. How would Donald Trump reply to these arguments?
  3. Can tariffs ever be justified on efficiency grounds?
  4. Can tariffs be justified as a bargaining ploy? Can they be used as a means of achieving freer and fairer trade?
  5. Find out why the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was introduced in 1930 and what were its consequences.
  6. How does the World Trade Organization seek to promote freer and fairer trade? How does it resolve trade disputes?
Posted on

From swiping right to swiping out: the economics of the dating app decline

According to Ofcom’s November 2024 Online Nation report (see report linked below), UK adults are falling out of love with dating apps. Use of the top three platforms in the UK (Tinder, Hinge, and Bumble) is declining, even though most users are juggling multiple apps at once. So, what’s going on? Economics may have some valuable insights to help explain the decline.

Too much choice

First, dating platforms don’t function like typical commodity markets, where prices adjust until supply and demand balance. Instead, dating can be seen as what economists call a ‘matching market’, where success depends on mutual interest, not on a specific price. So even with thousands of potential matches, forming actual connections remains difficult, and more choice doesn’t necessarily translate into better outcomes.

In fact, more choice can backfire. The paradox of choice, a behavioural economics concept, suggests that too many options can lead to choice paralysis. Instead of feeling empowered by an abundance of potential partners, users can feel overwhelmed, unsure, and often less satisfied with whatever choice they end up making (if they make one at all).

So, while we often think of dating apps, like many other platforms, benefiting from positive network effects, where more users increase the platform’s value by offering more potential matches, this can also have negative effects. Swiping through endless profiles and repeating the same small talk, can turn dating into a chore rather than an exciting opportunity.

Adverse selection

What makes this even harder is that users can’t easily distinguish between who’s genuinely looking for the same thing you are, and who’s just there to pass the time. This information asymmetry leads to the adverse selection problem – a concept famously explored by economist George Akerlof in his 1970 paper ‘The Market for Lemons’ (see link below). He showed how lack of information about product quality can cause high-quality sellers to exit, resulting in market failure where the market becomes dominated by low-quality goods (i.e. ‘lemons’).

A similar dynamic can play out on dating apps. If users believe most profiles are unserious or not genuine, they become less willing to engage, or even stay on the platform. Meanwhile, the most genuine users may give up altogether, worsening the quality of the pool and discouraging others.

In economics, there are some well-known ways in which the problem of adverse selection could be overcome. One such possibility is through signalling, where the more informed person tries to reveal important information to the uninformed person. Indeed, platforms have experimented with signalling mechanisms, like verification tools for example. Paid subscriptions have also been implemented, which could help to some extent (assuming that those who are willing to pay are those who are genuine and serious about finding a match). But these solutions only go so far, and with fewer users paying to signal intent, the problem persists.

Lack of innovation

This ties into the wider revenue model of dating apps. Unlike many apps that rely on revenue from advertising on one side of the market to offer the app free to consumers on the other side, dating platforms often rely more on revenue through monthly subscriptions and paid upgrades. But with fewer users willing to pay, these platforms may be under pressure. This financial pressure may also affect their ability to innovate or improve the service.

In fact, in the dating app world, there is another reason why platforms may not be innovating as much as they should, aside from simply trying to convince their users to pay for a better service. While it seems like there’s endless choice in the dating app world, much of the market is controlled by a single company, InterActiveCorp (IAC), which owns Tinder, Hinge, Match.com and more. With limited competition, there’s less incentive to compete on quality.

Worse still, dating apps face a unique business problem: if their service works too well, users leave and delete the app. So, there may be a built-in tension between helping users succeed and keeping them swiping.

The outlook for dating apps

So, is the decline in dating app use just temporary, or the start of something bigger? Time will tell. However, from an economics perspective, there is a noticeable shift in demand towards substitutes, such as organised in-person social events and activities, which encourages more and more of these opportunities to emerge. This shift may reflect changing preferences and the costs (in terms of time and emotional energy) that users are willing to invest in online dating.

At the same time, AI already plays a key role in dating apps, and new possibilities seem to be emerging. For example, we could see a bigger rollout of AI-driven chatbots that facilitate conversations or even interact on behalf of users. This could make it easier to connect with potential matches and might help in addressing some of the other issues discussed above.

Articles

Video

Report

Questions

  1. How might ‘signalling’ and ‘screening’ be used to create new features or services that could help overcome the adverse selection problem in this market?
  2. Can you think of any other ways in which the adverse selection problem could be overcome in this context?
  3. Draw a diagram to illustrate the two-sided nature of the dating app market, making clear where there may be positive or negative network effects.
  4. How else might dating app platforms be making revenue that allows them to offer the app to users at no charge?
  5. Is the dating app market competitive? You might consider factors such as the availability of substitutes, barriers to entry and innovation.