Hey,
I need your help. I have a text from the Economist which I need to analyse.
By succumbing to domestic pressures, America has started an alarming trade row with China
IN RAW economic terms Barack Obama’s imposition of tariffs on Chinese tyres hardly registers. The number of jobs affected is barely a rounding error in measurements of the mighty American workforce. The cost to consumers is also slight. But in geopolitical terms, it is a whopper. Mr Obama’s most overtly protectionist decision so far has triggered a predictably angry reaction from China, which threatened to retaliate against American chickens and car parts and to haul America before the World Trade Organisation. The Global Times, a newspaper that often reflects the views of hardline nationalists in China, ran a front-page headline saying “America has erred before the world”.
The tit-for-tat dispute casts a pall over the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh on September 24th and 25th where Mr Obama will play host to Hu Jintao, China’s president. Warnings of a trade war have multiplied. There have even been comparisons to America’s infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which deepened the Depression.
Some of this is hyperbole. ... (Reasons stated) ... and Mr Obama’s are mild by comparison. “On the broad canvas of presidential trade policy, Obama’s decision is unexceptional,” says Doug Irwin, a trade historian at Dartmouth College. ...
But the decision does come at a risky time. Protectionist actions, in particular against China, have been multiplying in recent years (see chart) ...
Until now Mr Obama has tried to allay fears that he is a bit of a protectionist by ... (reasons stated) Even now Mr Obama insists he is “committed to pursuing expanded trade and new trade agreements”, and this week he defended his action as nothing more than the enforcement of trade laws.
That, however, is a stretch. Mr Obama had no obligation to act. Under the terms of joining the WTO, China gave other countries the right until 2013 to impose temporary “safeguards” against surges of Chinese imports. In America the relevant law, Section 421 of the Trade Act, does not require proof that China has broken international trade rules against subsidising or dumping goods ...
Politically, Mr Obama may have felt he had little choice. The United Steelworkers union filed the complaint in April and the law required Mr Obama to decide by September 17th. Having promised repeatedly to enforce trade laws more vigorously than Mr Bush, Mr Obama presumably felt he needed to do something. The economic benefits to those who lobbied for protection, however, are minuscule ...
China also bears some blame. American negotiators were ready to withhold the tariffs if China made concessions, but to no avail. Mr Obama’s defenders note that China would not have gained entry to the WTO without the “safeguard” provisions, which bought political support among its trading partners. And voters and Congress might be less likely to support future trade agreements if the safeguards in existing agreements are never used.
Still, Mr Obama’s imposition of tariffs will tempt more industries and unions to seek similar relief, and he will have to decide whether this decision is a template or an exception. (Examples ...)
China itself faces a delicate balancing act. On September 15th more than 300 of the Communist Party’s top officials began a four-day annual meeting in Beijing where ... And Mr Hu will not want a breakdown of commercial ties with America ahead of the G20 and Mr Obama’s visit to China in November.
But nor can he let Mr Obama entirely off the hook. Having announced an investigation into America’s alleged dumping, it will be hard to back away. Indeed, the spat will awaken unpleasant memories of the controversy over China’s accession to the WTO. China agreed to the safeguards clause in 2001 with gritted teeth, in part because its reformists saw WTO entry as a useful tool for encouraging market-oriented reforms. China’s prime minister at the time, Zhu Rongji, was subjected to harsh criticism from conservatives at home for pressing so hard for WTO entry. Times are more difficult now than they were back then, so expect a few more fireworks.
Since I'm not allowed to post the entire article here, I've shortened it a bit (the words in parenthesis are how the text continuous).
Now, I need to find out to which genre the text belongs, which function the dominant is and whether it is a good example of its genre.
As regards genre, I thought it is an economic newspaper article (are there any other genres that are more fitting?).
Concerning the function, I'm sure that it is informative and it has expressive elements. Furthermore, I think the author analyses quite a bit (is this normal for a newspaper article?). But is the text also argumentative? Depending on your viewpoint, I think it might be.
Furthermore, is it more subjective or objective? I feel it is more objective because the author provides evidence for his claims and does not really evaluate Obama's action as good or bad, but just states positive and negative factors about it, or am I wrong here?
And my last problem: Is it a good exemplar of its genre? Since I'm not really sure about the genre of the text, I can't really answer this. The parallel texts I have read about this topic are either editorials (very subjective - too much compared to this text, I think) or "real" news articles, which provide more information (also background info), objective and less evaluative.
I'd really appreciate your help. Thanks a lot in advance.
I need your help. I have a text from the Economist which I need to analyse.
By succumbing to domestic pressures, America has started an alarming trade row with China
IN RAW economic terms Barack Obama’s imposition of tariffs on Chinese tyres hardly registers. The number of jobs affected is barely a rounding error in measurements of the mighty American workforce. The cost to consumers is also slight. But in geopolitical terms, it is a whopper. Mr Obama’s most overtly protectionist decision so far has triggered a predictably angry reaction from China, which threatened to retaliate against American chickens and car parts and to haul America before the World Trade Organisation. The Global Times, a newspaper that often reflects the views of hardline nationalists in China, ran a front-page headline saying “America has erred before the world”.
The tit-for-tat dispute casts a pall over the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh on September 24th and 25th where Mr Obama will play host to Hu Jintao, China’s president. Warnings of a trade war have multiplied. There have even been comparisons to America’s infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which deepened the Depression.
Some of this is hyperbole. ... (Reasons stated) ... and Mr Obama’s are mild by comparison. “On the broad canvas of presidential trade policy, Obama’s decision is unexceptional,” says Doug Irwin, a trade historian at Dartmouth College. ...
But the decision does come at a risky time. Protectionist actions, in particular against China, have been multiplying in recent years (see chart) ...
Until now Mr Obama has tried to allay fears that he is a bit of a protectionist by ... (reasons stated) Even now Mr Obama insists he is “committed to pursuing expanded trade and new trade agreements”, and this week he defended his action as nothing more than the enforcement of trade laws.
That, however, is a stretch. Mr Obama had no obligation to act. Under the terms of joining the WTO, China gave other countries the right until 2013 to impose temporary “safeguards” against surges of Chinese imports. In America the relevant law, Section 421 of the Trade Act, does not require proof that China has broken international trade rules against subsidising or dumping goods ...
Politically, Mr Obama may have felt he had little choice. The United Steelworkers union filed the complaint in April and the law required Mr Obama to decide by September 17th. Having promised repeatedly to enforce trade laws more vigorously than Mr Bush, Mr Obama presumably felt he needed to do something. The economic benefits to those who lobbied for protection, however, are minuscule ...
China also bears some blame. American negotiators were ready to withhold the tariffs if China made concessions, but to no avail. Mr Obama’s defenders note that China would not have gained entry to the WTO without the “safeguard” provisions, which bought political support among its trading partners. And voters and Congress might be less likely to support future trade agreements if the safeguards in existing agreements are never used.
Still, Mr Obama’s imposition of tariffs will tempt more industries and unions to seek similar relief, and he will have to decide whether this decision is a template or an exception. (Examples ...)
China itself faces a delicate balancing act. On September 15th more than 300 of the Communist Party’s top officials began a four-day annual meeting in Beijing where ... And Mr Hu will not want a breakdown of commercial ties with America ahead of the G20 and Mr Obama’s visit to China in November.
But nor can he let Mr Obama entirely off the hook. Having announced an investigation into America’s alleged dumping, it will be hard to back away. Indeed, the spat will awaken unpleasant memories of the controversy over China’s accession to the WTO. China agreed to the safeguards clause in 2001 with gritted teeth, in part because its reformists saw WTO entry as a useful tool for encouraging market-oriented reforms. China’s prime minister at the time, Zhu Rongji, was subjected to harsh criticism from conservatives at home for pressing so hard for WTO entry. Times are more difficult now than they were back then, so expect a few more fireworks.
Since I'm not allowed to post the entire article here, I've shortened it a bit (the words in parenthesis are how the text continuous).
Now, I need to find out to which genre the text belongs, which function the dominant is and whether it is a good example of its genre.
As regards genre, I thought it is an economic newspaper article (are there any other genres that are more fitting?).
Concerning the function, I'm sure that it is informative and it has expressive elements. Furthermore, I think the author analyses quite a bit (is this normal for a newspaper article?). But is the text also argumentative? Depending on your viewpoint, I think it might be.
Furthermore, is it more subjective or objective? I feel it is more objective because the author provides evidence for his claims and does not really evaluate Obama's action as good or bad, but just states positive and negative factors about it, or am I wrong here?
And my last problem: Is it a good exemplar of its genre? Since I'm not really sure about the genre of the text, I can't really answer this. The parallel texts I have read about this topic are either editorials (very subjective - too much compared to this text, I think) or "real" news articles, which provide more information (also background info), objective and less evaluative.
I'd really appreciate your help. Thanks a lot in advance.
Last edited: