FACT: WTO members will decide whether to preserve “duty-free cyberspace” by February 29.
THE NUMBERS: Internet users as a share of the worldwide population –
2024: 67%
2018: 49%
2012: 34%
1998*: 3%
The WTO membership approved ‘duty-free cyberspace’ in May 1998.
WHAT THEY MEAN:
In PPI’s latest policy paper, Tech Policy Director Malena Dailey and Ed Gresser urge the World Trade Organization members to support music lovers, heed Taoist policy advice, encourage teenage influencers, and help small businesses participate in trade, by continuing their 25-year practice of not taxing flows of information over the internet. By way of background:
On February 26, the WTO will meet in Abu Dhabi for “MC-13” (the group’s 13th Ministerial Conference; the first was in 1996). Their docket extends from the seas (fisheries subsidies), to the land (agricultural stockpiling), the lab (medicines and medical technology intellectual property post-COVID pandemic), and the law (revival of the Dispute Settlement system). The sky is not absent: one of the marquee MC-13 decisions is whether the members will extend the “moratorium” they imposed on applying tariffs to electronic transmissions, “duty-free cyberspace” for short, at “MC-2” in the spring of 1998. The 14-word moratorium is one of the simplest and most easily understood of all trade agreements, reading as follows:
““Members will continue their current practice of not imposing customs duties on electronic transmission.”
Dailey and Gresser call up Taoist sage Lao Tzu, not always a perfect guide to policymaking, but quite right in this case:
“Those who would gain all under heaven by tampering with it — I have seen that they do not succeed. Those that tamper with it, harm it; those that lose it.”
Translating this into data-flow and taxation, internet transmissions are fundamentally ways to exchange information. Allowing people and businesses to exchange information without taxing them for it will encourage them to exchange more. Taxing this flow of ideas and knowledge, meanwhile, will mean they exchange less of it. The analogous if more prosaic present-day economist’s saying about this sort of situation is “don’t just do something, stand there.”
That’s essentially what WTO members have done for the last generation. Over their 25 years of refraining from grabbing and tampering, benevolently standing there, and maintaining the “duty-free cyberspace” principle, trade has visibly ‘democratized’ as electronic commerce has boomed and barriers to small business and individual participation in exports have diminished. Some figures illustrate:
* Massive growth in internet access and use: The world internet user population has grown from 150 million, mostly in the U.S. and other wealthy countries in 1998, to a third of the world’s people by 2012, half by 2019, and 5.4 billion or two-thirds of the world’s people (and 79% of the world’s young people, according to the International Telecommunications Union).
* High-tech infrastructure boom: The infrastructure necessary to serve this large number of users has grown, in the case of submarine fiber-optic cables from 84 in the late 1990s to 574 of much better quality as 2024 begins; in the case of satellites, from under 1,000 birds then to nearly 8,000 now.
* Data flow: The volume of data traversing these wires and beams, as calculated by Cisco in their fondly remembered “Visual Networking Index,” had by 2017 risen from the trillions of bytes to the quintillions before it became too hard to count.
* Electronic commerce: Much of this data has commercial as well as intellectual or entertainment purposes: the value of electronic commerce just within the United States, according to the Commerce Department, has risen 50-fold from $700 billion to $36 trillion, about 40% above the U.S.’ $26 trillion GDP.
* “Democratization” of trade and small business exporting (U.S.): As the price of finding overseas customers has dropped, the Census Bureau’s count of exporting American small businesses has grown from about 170,000 to 250,000. This is likely a large understatement, as the Census counts only “goods” exporters of things like farm products and manufactured goods. They are not yet able to tally services exporters such as musicians, Instagram influencers, clinics supplying telemedicine, artists and comedians, distance educators, and other large and active Internet users.
* “Democratization” of trade and small business exporting (developing countries): And similar booms spring up around the world. Dailey and Gresser cite Indonesian musicians, Bangladeshi web-site designers, Albanian social media account managers, and more, as examples of the way the falling costs of communications help small firms and entrepreneurs find potential partners, suppliers, and customers around the world.
In sum, the ‘foundational’ WTO decision 25 years ago to leave the Internet tariff-free, refrain from tampering and grabbing, stand there, etc.,* has worked very well. Good job. Keep it up.
* Asterisk: Note of course that this approach isn’t always best. Lao Tzu points out after all in Chapter 1 that “the Way is not an unvarying way.” Per Dailey and Gresser, while it’s best to refrain from taxation and tariffs, it’s also important to have active policies for privacy protection and law enforcement, to have appropriate content moderation, and to ensure access for the 2.5 billion people worldwide, including about 25 million Americans, who don’t now have the connection they want.
FURTHER READING
Dailey and Gresser on duty-free cyberspace.
PPI’s digital policy project.
At the creation:
Then-U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky set out digital trade policy in 1998. Core graph, with the foundational value of duty-free cyberspace the “do-something” policy agenda in privacy, security, access, and so forth both still very current:
“Moving on from the foundational commitment we won from the WTO members in 1998 on the principle of “duty-free cyber-space” – that is, ensuring that electronic transmissions over the Internet remain free from tariffs – we are moving on to a longer-term work program. Its goals include ensuring that our trading partners avoid measures that unduly restrict development of electronic commerce; ensuring that WTO rules do not discriminate against new technologies and methods of trade; according proper application of WTO rules to trade in digital products; and ensuring full protection of intellectual property rights on the Net. At the same time, we are working with individual trading partners on a series of related questions – for example, on privacy issues where we have worked closely with the European Union to create a model that both protects consumer privacy and prevents unnecessary barriers to transatlantic economic commerce.”
… and now:
The White House’s “Declaration for the Future of the Internet,” signed by the U.S. and 61 other countries, sketches out an agenda for privacy, law enforcement and public-interest regulation, universal access, and encouragement for growing data transfer.
The WTO on digital trade as a development tool.
The Joint Initiative on electronic commerce.
… and on this topic, a highly concerned & critical PPI look at the U.S.’ sudden and mysterious loss of direction on data flow and related issues.
Data:
ITU counts Internet users, end 2023.
And a counterpoint:
Why, with all this in mind, would someone want to breach the moratorium? Proposals, mainly from India and South Africa, rest on the idea that refraining from tampering and grabbing means that developing countries lose tax revenue. A UNCTAD staff paper of 2018 to this effect argues current tariff rates in developing countries, if imposed on digital products, could yield about $10 billion in tax money is a frequent point of reference. (India is the paper’s top hypothetical tax recipient at about $400 million.) Dailey and Gresser note (a) that this sort of thing — taxing music downloads? who pays? the artist? the platform? the submarine cable or fiberoptic owner? — not only may fail in practice, but (b) that the money involved in UNCTAD’s speculation is pretty trivial, and (c) the arithmetic almost certainly works against governments considering this sort of thing:
* For India, the $400 million high-end estimate would be about 0.1% of that year’s ~$324 billion in Indian government revenue. This is almost certainly well below the losses the Indian Finance Ministry would incur as other governments tax and shrink India’s services export industries, and VAT and other income tax receipts accordingly fall.
* For “developing countries” generally, also about 0.1%.
Not at all a good exchange. See pp. 8-12 on the folly of putting small revenue gains above large GDP, technological, and employment advances.
The UNCTAD staff paper is here.
And the India/South Africa submission.
And last:
Lao Tzu (Waley translation); see Chapter 29 for the grabbing and tampering piece, and Chapter 1 as a caution against over-reliance on policy minimalism.
ABOUT ED
Ed Gresser is Vice President and Director for Trade and Global Markets at PPI.
Ed returns to PPI after working for the think tank from 2001-2011. He most recently served as the Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Trade Policy and Economics at the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). In this position, he led USTR’s economic research unit from 2015-2021, and chaired the 21-agency Trade Policy Staff Committee.
Ed began his career on Capitol Hill before serving USTR as Policy Advisor to USTR Charlene Barshefsky from 1998 to 2001. He then led PPI’s Trade and Global Markets Project from 2001 to 2011. After PPI, he co-founded and directed the independent think tank ProgressiveEconomy until rejoining USTR in 2015. In 2013, the Washington International Trade Association presented him with its Lighthouse Award, awarded annually to an individual or group for significant contributions to trade policy.
Ed is the author of Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Global Economy (2007). He has published in a variety of journals and newspapers, and his research has been cited by leading academics and international organizations including the WTO, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund. He is a graduate of Stanford University and holds a Master’s Degree in International Affairs from Columbia Universities and a certificate from the Averell Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union.
