ABSTRACT
How do we make sense of this trade conflict? A society-centered approach suggests that we should look at the political influence of the industries concerned. And indeed, there is little doubt that Boeing has substantial influence in American politics. In 2004, the then president, George W. Bush, acknowledged this influence when he promised Boeing workers that he would end EU subsidies to Airbus. Such influence persists today-in the first year of the Trump administration, Boeing management began direct conversations with the president. Yet, the Boeing-Bombardier conflict also raises issues that are not readily incorporated into the society-centered approach. In particular, this isn’t an instance of conflict between an American import-competing industry and a foreign export-oriented industry. Instead, the conflict is between two export-oriented firms battling over global market share. Moreover, the conflict
does not revolve around one government’s use of tariffs to protect domestic producers from foreign competition, but instead focuses on retaliation for one state’s use of government subsidies to support the domestic firm as it competes for global market share. To fully understand the trade conflict in the commercial aircraft industry, therefore, we have to broaden our understanding of the economics, and perhaps also the politics, of international trade.
