Social Science Review

 

The United States and China Trade War: Impacts on Bangladesh   Foisal Ahmed1,[*], Sumaya Akhter Nishat1, Md. Sohanur Rahman1   1Department of Political Science, Gopalganj Science and Technology University

 

Keywords		Abstract
Trade War, Tariffs, Global Economy, China–US Relations, Realist Trade Theory		The trade war between America and China is not just a new one, but it has been observed for the first time since the Trump government came to power. Small countries are facing various problems due to the trade war between these two superpowers. It is very important to research what kind of problems they are facing because small countries can take necessary steps for them. We see from various research papers that some research papers are seen on the impact of the trade war between America and China on other countries such as Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, but not much research paper has been published on the impact of this trade war on Bangladesh. Therefore, this research paper is filling the knowledge gap. As a methodology, two types of qualitative and quantitative methods have been used, but the research paper has been arranged with various information from secondary data. The research paper shows that although America and China are dependent on each other, they have to enter into a trade war due to political reasons. And their trade war has created both opportunities and concerns for Bangladesh because Bangladesh is a neutral country. It is actually a matter of concern which side Bangladesh will take? Because America and China, two superpowers, are involved in various development activities in Bangladesh.

 

Introduction

A trade war represents an economic conflict wherein nations impose tariffs or other trade barriers on each other in retaliation for perceived unfair trade practices (Corporate Finance Institute, n.d.). These disputes often arise when a country seeks to protect its domestic industries by restricting imports, leading to retaliatory measures from its trading partners. While intended to safeguard local economies, trade wars can escalate tensions, disrupt global supply chains, and have far-reaching consequences, including recessions and supply chain disruptions (Fajgelbaum & Khandelwal, 2021). Historically, trade wars have significantly affected the global economic landscape. For example, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 led to retaliatory tariffs from other countries, which exacerbated the Great Depression (World Trade Organization, 2025). 

 

Recently, the US-China trade war that began in 2018 has had a profound impact on international trade dynamics, economic growth, and market stability (Anwar, 2021). These conflicts highlight the complex interdependencies within the global economy and the potential for widespread disruption when major economies adopt protectionist measures (S&P Global Market Intelligence, 2025). The US-China trade war, which intensified in 2018 is considered one of the most significant trade disputes in recent history. The United States initiated it in response to concerns about trade deficits and alleged unfair trade practices by China, and the conflict quickly escalated with both countries imposing tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars are worth of goods (Yale Jackson School of Global Affairs, 2025). The intensity of this hostility has not only strained bilateral relations but has also shaken the global economy, affecting supply chains, commodity prices, and investment flows (Fazgelbaum and Khandelwal, 2021). In South Asia, the impact of the US-China trade war is particularly evident. Countries such as India and Vietnam have experienced changes in trade patterns as businesses seek alternative production bases to avoid tariffs (The Diplomat, 2025). Bangladesh, with its export-oriented economy, has also been significantly affected. The country's ready-made garments (RMG) sector, which accounts for approximately 80% of its total exports, found both challenges and opportunities amid the trade tensions (Anwar, 2021). While some manufacturers faced increased competition, others capitalized on new market opportunities as global retailers sought to diversify their sourcing away from China (The Daily Star, 2025). Additionally, Bangladesh’s ability to provide competitive labor costs and maintain favorable trade agreements positioned it as a viable alternative manufacturing hub (LightCastle Partners, 2025).  

 

We notice there is a huge knowledge gap in this sector. Some articles show from others’ perspectives. There is a small amount of research that has been conducted from a Bangladeshi perspective. Therefore, this study aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the impacts of the U.S.-China trade war on Bangladesh's economy. By examining trade patterns, export performance, and the overall economic landscape, this research seeks to elucidate how Bangladesh has navigated the challenges and opportunities arising from this significant geopolitical event. The findings will contribute to a deeper understanding of the broader implications of global trade conflicts on developing economies and inform policy strategies to enhance economic resilience.

 

Objectives

The US and China have been fighting for a long time economically. They want to show their power and influence. There should be one particular area for research goals. Objectives state the factors we want to find. This is one of the main points of the study. Here in the Objective, 

• To examine the root causes of the US-China trade War.
• To evaluate the impact of the US-China trade war on Bangladesh.

 

Literature Review

The literature review provides us with precious insights to understand the main factors and research gaps. Here is a literature review:

Liu & Woo (2018) wrote in their “Understanding the U.S.-China trade war.” The trade war between the United States and China is about three main concerns: China sells far more to the United States than it buys, which could hurt U.S. jobs; they could use covert means to get U.S. technology; and U.S. security concerns. Both countries have trade issues that need to be resolved so they can be fair to each other. This paper aims to help everyone understand the trade war between the United States and China. It looks at the issues and concerns that come with this situation. But it addresses analytical confusion over basic economic concepts and the impact of trade with China on U.S. national security. Basic economic concepts are undermined here.

 

Guo et al. (2023) stated in “The influence of trade friction on the stability of stock market: Evidence from China,” how news of trade issues can change how much money people make from buying and selling stocks in China. The study also found that small stock trades are more affected by these trade issues, while large businesses are affected differently. The researchers think it is important for those in charge to help keep everyone calm about trade news so that the stock market remains stable. This paper identifies the weaknesses of current approaches to analyzing trade friction events. In particular, it highlights the limitations of traditional event study approaches, which cannot accurately measure multiple events and different types of events.

 

Y. Zhang & Zhu (2023) highlighted in “Analysis of the global trade network of the chip industry chain: Does the U.S.-China tech war matter?” the highest interdependence is in the United States, indicating strong controls on trade in goods. China's trade position in semiconductor silicon wafers and integrated circuits has declined significantly during the Sino-US technology war. The trade network is strongest for downstream products and weakest for upstream products. The current literature mainly focuses on traditional industrial products, while there is a lack of comprehensive research on high-tech products within international trade networks. Very few studies have integrated the industrial chain perspective into trade network analysis, which limits the understanding of the business characteristics and risks associated with different products.

 

Aslam (2019) examines in “US-China trade disputes and its impact on ASEAN,” the US-China trade war, triggered by high tariffs imposed by the Trump administration, is likely to have both positive and negative effects on the economies of the US, China, and their trading partners, especially ASEAN. While the trade war could hurt China's commercial profits, it is not expected to have a significant impact on US-ASEAN trade. In contrast, ASEAN could benefit as an alternative market for US companies. It states that the true impact of Trump's tariff policies on US trading partners may only become apparent 2 to 3 years after implementation, indicating a temporal gap in understanding the long-term effects. In addition, uncertainty about the duration of the trade war creates a weakness in predicting its future impact on global trade conditions.

 

Sukar & Ahmed (2019)  wrote in their paper “Rise of trade protectionism: The case of US-Sino trade war,”  that globalization has led to significant economic growth, but also to rising income inequality, leading to a backlash against free trade in developed countries. The U.S. trade deficit with China has increased tensions between the world's two largest economies. Protectionism could weaken international institutions such as the World Trade Organization and prevent it from restoring lost manufacturing jobs. This paper discusses the complexity of trade relations and the impact of protectionism, but does not consider possible solutions or alternative strategies for reducing trade tensions. Furthermore, this paper focuses on macroeconomic factors as causes of trade deficits but does not explore in detail the role of technological progress, which could be an important area for future research.

 

Fatma & Bharti (2019) wrote in “Perception vs. reality: Understanding the US–China trade war“ that this trade war between the United States and China is harmful to both sides. In this case, the United States provides the wrong rationale for an adversarial relationship. There are disputes over the functioning of the WTO, which reduces its ability to effectively manage international trade. While developing countries are gaining more power, developed countries are facing obstacles in the WTO. There is no sign of a resolution to the ongoing trade war, and retaliatory measures are affecting American interests. Pre-existing crises in the international economic system are the main problem, but it didn’t detail that.

 

He et al. (2024) find in “Regional resilience during a trade war: The role of global connections and local networks” that regional resilience during the US-China trade war is particularly affected by global connectivity and local networks. Cities that prioritize high-value-added exports have shown better economic performance than cities that rely on foreign firms and processing trade, which are relatively more vulnerable. Economic development zones enhance resilience by fostering local networks, which mitigate the negative effects of sanctions. There is limited empirical research on the impact of economic sanctions on regional economic development, especially in regions that are deeply integrated into the global economy.

 

M. Zhang et al. (2025) find in “Examining the impact of trade tariffs on semiconductor firms’ environmental performance” that US-China geopolitical tensions significantly undermine the environmental performance of semiconductor companies, leading to operational uncertainty and supply chain disruptions. Companies facing these tensions often reduce their investment in environmental initiatives and fail to prioritize energy conservation. This study focuses only on trade tariffs, which limits insights into broader geopolitical tensions. It only considers first-tier Chinese suppliers, thus ignoring the complexities of multi-tier supply chains. This paper does not discuss multi-tier supplier structures in semiconductor companies.

 

According to this study (Shafique & Bhutta, 2024), the strong market efficiency of G-7 countries is inversely related to stock market volatility during trade wars. Current volatility in all series is heavily influenced by residual shocks from the past, which casts doubt on the robustness of the efficient market hypothesis (EMH). This article is written from a US perspective only; future research should look at the trade war from a Chinese perspective. For additional research, cross-market studies and methods such as copula and TVP-VAR are suggested. The impact of the trade war on other markets and economies is not discussed in this article. The long-term effects of the trade war on stock market volatility have not been well studied. The impact of geopolitical risks outside the G7 economies is not considered in the paper.

 

Benguria et al., (2022) showed that the trade war between the United States and China has made it very confusing for Chinese companies to know what rules they should follow when doing business. Smaller companies are feeling the most of this confusion. Companies in other countries are not as affected by the additional fees (called tariffs) that come from this trade war. This paper talks about some of the problems with its data collection. It looks mainly at reports published once a year, which can often miss important changes that happen. It mostly studies companies that are listed on the stock market, so it may not give a complete picture because it doesn’t include smaller companies or places like Taiwan or Singapore.

 

After all the assessment we can say that the trade war between the United States and China has similarities with historical economic conflicts, particularly in terms of tariff impositions and retaliatory measures (Smith & Johnson, 2020). Both nations have leveraged economic policies to exert pressure on each other, mirroring previous trade disputes (Brown, 2019). Additionally, the trade war has impacted global markets, leading to supply chain disruptions and inflationary effects similar to past trade conflicts (Lee, 2021). However, unlike previous trade wars, this conflict is deeply intertwined with technological rivalry, as seen in restrictions on Huawei and semiconductor exports (Wang, 2022). Another key difference is the role of international institutions; whereas past trade disputes often led to negotiations under the WTO, the U.S.-China trade war has seen a decline in multilateral dispute resolution efforts (Jackson, 2020). Furthermore, the ideological divergence between capitalism and state-led economic policies adds a layer of complexity absent in past disputes (Chen, 2021). Another unique aspect is China's increasing use of alternative economic alliances to counterbalance U.S. sanctions (Zhang, 2021). The impact on emerging economies also differentiates this trade war from previous ones, as many developing nations face pressure to align with one of the two major powers (Patel, 2022). Additionally, the long-term strategic objectives, including decoupling from supply chain dependencies, are more prominent in this conflict (Anderson, 2023).

 

While existing studies have extensively analyzed the economic consequences of the U.S.-China trade war, there remains a gap in understanding its long-term geopolitical implications (Smith & Johnson, 2020). Most literature focuses on short-term market reactions, yet limited research explores how this conflict reshapes global trade alliances (Lee, 2021). Additionally, studies primarily emphasize tariff impacts, overlooking the technological decoupling between the two powers (Wang, 2022). Further investigation is required into how developing nations navigate the geopolitical shifts induced by the trade war (Patel, 2022). The role of non-state actors, such as multinational corporations, in mitigating trade tensions is also underexplored (Chen, 2021). Another gap lies in assessing how trade conflicts influence domestic policy changes in both the U.S. and China (Zhang, 2021). Moreover, there is limited research on how trade war strategies evolve in response to shifting political leadership (Jackson, 2020). 

 

Addressing these gaps can provide a more holistic understanding of the trade war’s lasting effects on global economic stability.
 

Methodology

Qualitative and quantitative data are used to examine the impact of the US-China trade war on Bangladesh. This research mainly relies on secondary data sources such as academic journals, policy reports, government documents, newspapers and articles. It utilizes content analysis and comparative analysis to evaluate economic, political and trade-related impacts. 

Secondary data for this research was gathered from four main sources: scholarly articles, government and institutional documents (Bangladesh Bank, Ministry of Commerce, World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Trade Organization (WTO), United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), trade and economic metrics (Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS), trade publications, macroeconomic data from the World Bank and Asian Development Bank (ADB) and media evaluations (The Daily Star, Prothom Alo, The Economist, Financial Times, Bloomberg) facilitating a thorough analysis of the U.S.-China trade war's effects on Bangladesh. 

Theoretical Framework

Realist Trade Theory 

Realist Trade Theory rooted in the broader tradition of political realism argues that the international economic system is characterized by competition, conflict and power struggles rather than co-operation or mutual gain (Gilpin, 1987). Realists believe that states are the primary actors in international relations and their fundamental goal is to ensure their survival, security and relative power. From this perspective, trade is not seen as a neutral or purely economic activity, but rather as a tool to advance national interests and protect sovereignty (Hopewell, 2019). In contrast to liberal trade theory which emphasizes free markets, mutual benefit and global interdependence, realist trade theory argues that states need to carefully manage their economic interactions to avoid the risk of external pressures. States may impose tariffs, quotas, subsidies and other protective measures to shield domestic industries, control strategic resources and enhance their bargaining power on the global stage (Mastanduno, 1998). Economic globalization is therefore seen as a double-edged sword. In that while it can provide economic opportunities, also expose states to foreign influence and economic coercion, making strategic trade policies essential for national survival (Baldwin, 1985).

The resurgence of economic nationalism in recent years, particularly illustrated by US trade policy towards China, reflects a clear realist perspective. Scholars such as Hopewell (2019) argue that the U.S.–China trade conflict is less about correcting trade imbalances and more about asserting strategic dominance in key industries like technology, manufacturing and agriculture. Similarly, Capling and Ravenhill (2011) note that the shift from multilateral to bilateral and regional trade agreements can be interpreted as states seeking greater control over the terms of trade, minimizing the risks associated with interdependence.

Realist thinkers also emphasize the concept of relative gains over absolute gains (Grieco, 1988). Even if both parties benefit from trade, what matters in a realist framework is whether one state gains more than the other, thereby potentially upsetting the balance of power. Thus, in trade negotiations and conflicts, states are highly sensitive to distributional outcomes and constantly assess how economic arrangements affect their strategic position. In this sense, economic nationalism is not merely a set of protectionist policies but a strategic approach to international political economy that prioritizes autonomy, resilience, and national strength (Hopewell, 2019; Mastanduno, 1998). It underscores the importance of controlling key sectors, preserving industrial capabilities, and resisting economic dependencies that could later translate into political subordination. 

                   

Figure: Features of Realist Trade Theory

Compiled by Authors

 

State-Centrism

Realist Trade Theory places the state at the center of all economic and trade relations. Unlike liberal theories that emphasize the role of markets and multinational corporations, realists argue that states are the primary and most rational actors in the international system. They pursue trade policies not merely for economic benefit but to enhance their security and power. Trade becomes an extension of political strategy and the role of non-state forces is secondary to state interests (Gilpin, 2001).

 

Primacy of National Security Over Economic Efficiency

Realist thinkers argue that the ideals of economic efficiency and free markets should take precedence over national security. A country may willingly accept economic inefficiencies such as high costs or low productivity if it means reducing dependence on foreign powers for strategic resources such as food, energy or military technology. The ultimate goal is not economic growth for its own sake, but rather the survival and sovereignty of the nation (Baldwin, 1985; Mastanduno, 1986).

 

Concern with Relative Gains

One of the characteristics of realist trade theory is that its main goal is to emphasize relative profits rather than absolute profits. Even if trade results in mutual benefits, realists are concerned about who will benefit more. If a state's economic growth or technological advancement threatens the balance of power, it becomes a security concern. This is in sharp contrast to liberal theory which emphasizes win-win situations. For realists, the profits of one partner can be a potential threat and therefore trade relations should be assessed from a strategic perspective (Grieco, 1988).

 

 

Economic Nationalism and Protectionism

Realist trade thinking encourages policies that protect domestic industries from foreign competition. These include tariffs, import quotas, export subsidies, and regulations designed to protect key sectors from external influences. These policies are based on the belief that economic self-sufficiency contributes to national strength. Economic nationalism is not just about short-term security, it is a long-term strategy to avoid dependence and maintain control over key sectors such as defense, agriculture and technology (Helleiner, 2002).

 

Skepticism Toward Economic Interdependence

While liberal theories often see interdependence as a path to peace, realists see it as a source of weakness. Overreliance on foreign markets or supply chains can be strategically dangerous. In a conflict, economic dependence can be used as a weapon through sanctions, embargoes or market manipulation. Pragmatic states seek to diversify their economic partners, secure alternative supply routes or build domestic industries to avoid falling into strategic traps (Waltz, 1979; Gowa,1994).

 

Strategic Use of Trade Policy

To realists, trade policy is not simply a matter of economic exchange, it is a strategic tool used to achieve geopolitical goals. Through electoral agreements, economic aid or trade sanctions, states can strengthen allies and weaken rivals. Realists advocate “strategic trade policies” that target high-value sectors such as semiconductors, defense manufacturing or artificial intelligence. These policies are designed to position the state favorably within the international power hierarchy (Krugman, 1986; Tyson, 1992).

 

Focus on Power, Conflict and Competition

Realist trade theory is based on the belief that international relations are inherently conflictual. Economic competition reflects political and military competition. Trade wars, currency manipulation, sanctions and strategic alliances - all are seen as manifestations of power politics. States must be vigilant in protecting their interests and cannot rely on international institutions to ensure fair outcomes. The global economy is an arena of strategic competition not peaceful cooperation (Strange, 1996; Gilpin, 1987).

 

 

U.S.–China Trade War and Its Impact on Bangladesh

The ongoing US-China trade war presents a vivid, real-world illustration of the principles underlying realist trade theory. Rooted in economic nationalism and power politics, a trade war is not simply an economic dispute over tariffs or trade deficits, it represents a larger strategic conflict between two global powers to protect or challenge the existing international order.

From a pragmatic perspective, US tariffs on Chinese goods and restrictions on Chinese technology companies reflect efforts to curb China's growing economic and technological dominance. Scholars such as Hopewell (2019) argue that the US-China trade conflict exemplifies a realist emphasis on relative gains where the concern lies not only in mutual benefit but also in maintaining a favorable balance of power. The U.S. fears that China’s rapid technological progress, industrial expansion and growing influence in global supply chains could eventually shift the strategic equilibrium and thereby challenging American hegemony.

This strategic contest has important implications for third-party countries like Bangladesh which finds itself both benefiting from and vulnerable to this geopolitical rivalry. On the one hand U.S. firms seek to diversify their supply chains away from China, Bangladesh thanks to its cost-effective labor and mature garment sector that emerges as a viable alternative sourcing destination. This realignment has led to increased export opportunities particularly in the ready-made garments (RMG) industry. For example, Bangladesh’s RMG exports to the U.S. surged in recent years reflecting shifting trade flows induced by geopolitical tensions. On the other hand, Bangladesh's economic structure reveals vulnerabilities that are consistent with realist concerns over economic dependence. The country imports a substantial portion of its raw materials and machinery from China making it susceptible to supply chain disruptions. In FY 2022–23, Bangladesh's trade deficit with China exceeded \$16 billion (The Financial Express, 2025) illustrating a significant asymmetry in trade relations. Should the conflict escalate further, it could disrupt this vital supply line and adversely impact Bangladesh’s manufacturing output. Furthermore, global economic uncertainty generated by prolonged trade tensions can reduce demand for Bangladeshi exports in Western markets and increase volatility in global commodity prices. Such volatility poses risks to macroeconomic stability in developing economies like Bangladesh reinforcing the realist view that economic interdependence often conceals deeper vulnerabilities.

In this context, Bangladesh’s policy response must align with key tenets of economic nationalism as advocated by realist theorists. This would entail diversifying trade partnerships beyond China and the U.S. strengthening local industries to reduce strategic dependencies and formulating trade policies that enhance national resilience. Moreover, Bangladesh must adopt a strategically balanced diplomatic posture to avoid entanglement in great power rivalries while safeguarding its national interests in a competitive global landscape.

Thus, the U.S.–China trade war underscores how Realist Trade Theory provides a compelling framework for understanding the intersection of economics, power and national interest and how smaller states like Bangladesh must navigate this complex terrain with caution and strategic foresight.

 

Trade War

United States and China Trade Relations

China and the United States trade a lot of goods with each other and it’s growing fast! In 2024, they are expected to trade $688.28 billion worth of goods(Xinhua, 2025). Right now, the United States buys a lot from China, making it the largest place China sells its goods. China gets a lot from the United States, which is its second-largest source of imports. In 2024, about 14.7% of what China sells to other countries will go to the United States, and 6.3% of what China buys from other countries will come from the United States(Xinhua, 2025). For the United States, China is the third-largest place to sell things and the second-largest place to buy things. In 2024, about 7.0% of what the United States sells to other countries will go to China, and 13.8% of what it buys will come from China(Xinhua, 2025).

Source: UN Comtrade Database

China is a really important country for the United States when it comes to selling things. The United States sells a lot of agricultural products like soybeans and cotton to China. In fact, China buys more soybeans from the United States than any other country! They buy a lot of things like specialized computer parts, coal, gas, and cars. In 2024, more than half of all the soybeans the United States sold went to China, along with cotton and other products. According to United Nations data, in 2024, China received 51.7 percent of U.S. soybean exports, 29.7 percent of cotton exports, 17.2 percent of integrated circuit exports, 10.7 percent of coal exports, 10.0 percent of liquefied petroleum gas exports, 9.4 percent of medical equipment exports, and 8.3 percent of passenger motor vehicle exports(Xinhua, 2025). According to the United Nations' COMTRADE database on international trade, US exports to China amounted to US$143.55 billion in 2024. US exports to China - data, historical charts and statistics - were last updated in April 2025(Trading Economics, 2025).

 

Table: Top 10 Goods the US Exports to China (2024)
01	Oilseeds and Grains (e.g., soybeans, corn)	$13.35–$18.5 billion
02	Mineral Fuels, Oils, Distillation Products	$14.73–$17.6 billion
03	Electrical/Electronic Equipment	$15.28 billion
04	Machinery, Nuclear Reactors, Boilers	$12.86 billion
05	Aircraft, Spacecraft (Aerospace Products)	$11.54 billion
06	Optical, Photo, Technical, Medical Apparatus	$11.22 billion
07	Pharmaceuticals and Medicines	$9.50–$11.3 billion
08	Plastics	$7.45 billion
09	Vehicles (other than railway, tramway)	$6.39 billion
10	Organic Chemicals	$3.98 billion

Source: Trading Economics, https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/exports/china

The United States relies heavily on China's manufacturing capacity to meet its domestic needs. Major products imported from China include telephones, computers, semiconductors, furniture, toys, and textiles. According to foreign trade data, more than half of the total import value comes from electronics and appliances(EL PAÍS English, 2025).

Most imported products by the U.S. from China (2024)
01	Transmission Equipment	$54.50 billion
02	Computers	$38.00 billion
03	Office Machine Parts	$14.30 billion
04	Electric Batteries	$13.80 billion
05	Other Toys	$12.90 billion
06	Video and Card Games	$10.60 billion
07	Motor Vehicle Parts	$10.00 billion
08	Seats	$7.40 billion
09	Other Plastic Products	$7.00 billion
10	Other Furniture	$6.40 billion

Source: OEC, https://oec.world/en/profile/country/usa

 

The United States and China Trade War

Forced technology transfer and intellectual property theft are among the most significant reasons for a trade war. The United States has filed a series of intellectual property infringement charges against China, including counterfeit goods, illegal software, and forced technology transfers from American companies operating in China. These practices are estimated to cost the United States up to $600 billion annually, undermining valuable industries and innovation(Eurasian Research Institute, 2021). The "Made in China 2025" initiative has often raised concerns about the expansion of state-backed dominance in cutting-edge technologies such as semiconductors and electric vehicles, often in questionable ways(Molnar & Viktor, 2023). Historical trade deficit is another important cause. The U.S. trade deficit with China has experienced significant fluctuations over the years. In 2000, the deficit stood at $83.8 billion and remained relatively stable in 2001 at $83.1 billion(Economic Policy Institute, 2017). However, it surged sharply by 2008, reaching $268.0 billion, indicating growing economic dependence on Chinese imports. By 2015, the deficit widened further to $367.1 billion, driven by $483.2 billion in imports against only $116.1 billion in exports(Economic Policy Institute, 2017). The highest recorded deficit came in 2018 at $418.2 billion. Following this peak, the deficit gradually declined, falling to $382.0 billion in 2022 and further to $279.0 billion in 2023. However, in 2024, there was a slight rebound to $295.4 billion, reflecting ongoing but fluctuating trade tensions and economic adjustments between the two countries(EL PAÍS English, 2025; United States Trade Representative, 2025).

U.S. Trade Deficit with China (Billion USD)
Year	Deficit
2000	$83.8
2001	$83.1
2008	$268.0
2015	483.2(imports)−116.1 (exports) = $367.1
2018	$418.2 (historic high)
2022	$382.0
2023	$279.0
2024	$295.4

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, https://www.census.gov/

In 2024, the economic landscape between the United States and China underwent a significant shift. U.S. exports to China fell to $143.5 billion, reflecting changing trade dynamics, while imports from China continued to grow, reaching $438.9 billion in 2024(United States Trade Representative, 2025). An ongoing trade imbalance and evolving market conditions are emerging. But trade deficit between Washington and Beijing, which exceeded $295.4 billion last year(The Financial Express, 2025).

 

US Trade Deficit in Goods with China in 2024

Source: U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/

 

Trade conflicts can be seen as a competition to "master the core processes of the global economy," reflecting a fundamental rivalry for leadership of the global economy. Some experts have placed the trade war in the larger context of a power shift, saying it is a natural part of the changing geopolitical landscape around the world(Xiaotong & Flint, 2021). The US decision to unilaterally impose tariffs instead of resolving disputes through the World Trade Organization (WTO) has heightened tensions. Critics say the Trump administration's move has weakened the rules-based international trading system. As a result, China has had the opportunity to prove itself as a defender of multilateralism(Bekkers & Schroeter, 2020; Perry, 2018). The United States has chosen to obstruct the established processes of the World Trade Organization, thereby isolating itself from international cooperation. This decision has significantly undermined the collective efforts of its allies to effectively address global trade challenges(Anam, 2023; Maidinuer, 2024).

China's state capitalism and market reforms have created significant tensions with the United States, primarily because state-owned enterprises manipulate global markets. These companies benefit from government support, which leads to unfair competition, which undermines free trade policies and increases economic inequality between nations, complicating international relations and trade agreements(Bekkers & Schroeter, 2020). The United States has alleged that Chinese subsidies have enabled market-based low-price practices, which ultimately have caused significant harm to American businesses and industries, affecting their competitiveness(Hass & Denmark, 2020). This structural divergence reveals fundamental disagreements over the role of the state in the economy, with the United States advocating equal opportunity for all, while China sees its development model as essential for growth and stability(Anam, 2023).

 

United States trade protectionism and the America First policy are two of the main causes of the US-China trade war. Especially when Donald Trump won the election, it was obvious that there would be a trade war between the United States and China. Donald Trump's "America First policy" and the rhetoric of Make America Great Again led him to be blind. On the other hand The United States regards China's state-driven industrial strategies and technological aspirations, exemplified by the "Made in China 2025" initiative, as challenges to its global leadership and strategic dominance. Then Trump started imposing tariffs on nations(Chen et al., 2022).This protectionist approach was driven not only by concerns over trade imbalances but also by the strategic objective of revitalizing domestic manufacturing and minimizing dependence on international supply chains(Asia Pacific Task Force, 2025).

 

The substantial subsidies provided by the Chinese government to domestic industries, along with the significant influence of state-owned enterprises, have been points of ongoing dispute. U.S. policymakers contend that such measures distort international markets, foster unfair competitive advantages, and contravene the foundational principles of free trade(Council on Foreign Relations, 2025).

 

China’s primary objective in the trade war is to enhance its power, wealth, and global influence, while preventing the United States from hindering its ascent. Beijing aims to solidify its status as a leading global actor and to diminish U.S. influence both within the region and on the broader international stage(Czin, 2025). The trade war offers Beijing a strategic avenue to challenge American hegemony, particularly within the Indo-Pacific region. By capitalizing on its economic and technological capabilities, China seeks to realign the regional and global balance of power in its favor(The Conversation, 2025). 

 

The trade war is broadly acknowledged as a reflection of a deeper geopolitical rivalry, wherein both the United States and China are striving to influence the configuration of the future global order to their advantage. This strategic competition transcends trade, encompassing domains such as technology, security, and regional alliances(Asia Pacific Task Force, 2025; Eurasia Review, 2025). 

 

US-China Trade War and Bangladesh

The trade war is generally seen as a reflection of a deeper geopolitical rivalry, in which both the United States and China seek to influence the structure of the future world order for their own benefit. This strategic competition is not limited to trade, but also encompasses areas such as technology, security, and regional alliances(Prothom Alo English, 2025; The Diplomat, 2019; Zaman, 2025). China's retaliatory tariffs on US cotton have increased the global supply of cotton, which could result in a reduction in raw material costs for Bangladesh's textile industry(Choudhury, 2021). As various world-renowned brands are currently looking for alternative markets to China, Bangladesh is being considered an important destination due to its relatively low production costs and developed garment industry. This has created the potential for increased foreign direct investment in Bangladesh and various manufacturing industries to relocate here(Prothom Alo English, 2025; The Daily Star, 2025b). The trade war between the US and China has forced many Western companies to shift production orders from China to other markets. This shift has particularly benefited Bangladesh's well-established ready-made garment industry, RMG. The increase in tariffs on Chinese goods in the US has made Bangladeshi clothing prices more competitive (Golgeci et al., 2025). Multinational companies are looking to reduce their supply chain risks and are looking to low-cost manufacturing countries like Bangladesh. As a result, foreign investors are showing interest in Bangladesh, especially in the electronics and textiles sectors. These investment shifts are being driven by geopolitical instability and declining economic ties (Rosenberger, 2025).

In April 2025, Bangladesh faced a 37% retaliatory tariff imposed by the US, which, although currently suspended, poses a risk of increasing the total tariff on RMG exports to 53.5%. This uncertainty has led to many orders being cancelled and pricing agreements being renegotiated (The Daily Star, 2025c). If the US imposes tariffs on a Most Favored Nation (MFN) basis and applies them to all trading partners, Bangladesh's RMG exports could decline significantly due to reduced consumer demand in the US market (The Daily Star, 2025a). A protracted trade war risks dampening consumer demand globally, especially in the United States, which imports about $8 billion worth of clothing from Bangladesh each year. If people's purchasing power declines, it could result in lower garment orders in all garment-exporting countries (The Daily Star, 2025a, 2025c). Bangladesh's weakened infrastructure, administrative inefficiency, and mounting debt burden—increased by credit risks associated with Chinese loans—limit its ability to fully exploit new economic potential (The Diplomat, 2019). Competition to attract diverted orders from Vietnam, India and Indonesia intensifies pressure for productivity improvements and policy reforms (Prothom Alo English, 2025). Compared to Vietnam, Bangladesh faces slow port clearance, traffic congestion in industrial areas, and apathy among government officials. These weaknesses limit the country's ability to keep pace with rapid development and supply chain changes (Golgeci et al., 2025). Bangladesh must be careful to maintain balanced diplomatic relations with both the United States and China. Excessive attention to either side could jeopardize trade, security cooperation, or development assistance with the other. These geopolitical pressures make long-term economic planning difficult (Rosenberger, 2025). Western retailers are now demanding sustainability standards and compliance with labor laws. Without major improvements in industrial and environmental practices, Bangladesh risks losing its competitive advantage in ethical sourcing (Golgeci et al., 2025).

Findings

There is a large trade relationship between America and China where it is seen that America imports more from China and exports less. The Trump government considers this trade deficit as a national threat and imposes tariffs on China. Tariffs have been imposed on all the other countries with which America has a trade deficit. Here it is seen that the two countries are dependent on each other but trade is being disrupted due to their personal or government policies. The prices of everyday goods are increasing in America due to which people are starting to express hatred towards the Trump government.

The trade tariffs between America and China on each other have created dilemmas for small countries. Bangladesh is no exception. For Bangladesh, the US-China trade war creates an opportunity as well as a dilemma. We see here through data analysis that since Bangladesh is very strong in the garment sector, this sector has the potential to grow further due to the trade war. Companies that used to import their garments from China can now choose Bangladesh as their main manufacturer. However, since America has imposed a 37% tariff (currently suspended) on the garment sector of Bangladesh, the growth of this sector is also facing questions. Again, since 12% of China's export revenue comes from the American market, due to the imposition of tariffs, China has started giving more priority to Asian countries, where Bangladesh is also important. Almost all of Bangladesh's infrastructure development is built with the help of Chinese companies. So, Bangladesh can reach a good agreement in this opportunity where it is possible to develop Bangladesh's infrastructure at a low cost. Also, Bangladesh is far behind in technological development, where Bangladesh can take the help of Chinese companies. The main thing is that Bangladesh is very important in the trade war between America and China. Because both sides want an emerging economy like Bangladesh to have their influence.

As positive on one side of the coin, the other side is full of negatives and challenges. Since Bangladesh is a small country, many things have to be considered when adopting foreign policy. That is why it is often seen that small countries like Bangladesh follow a balance policy. Bangladesh's position in the China-US trade war is no exception here. Bangladesh is trying to fill a new balance on both sides.

Conclusion

The ongoing trade war between the United States and China has been considered one of the most significant destabilizing factors in the global economic system in recent times. When these two economic superpowers engage in tariffs and countermeasures against each other, the impact extends beyond their borders and spreads globally- including Bangladesh. Although Bangladesh is not directly involved in this trade conflict, the impact of such a large-scale economic conflict has affected the country's economy, export markets, foreign investment and Bangladesh's position in the global supply chain in various ways. This study found that the restructuring of global supply chains and changing international buyer demands have created new export opportunities in some sectors, including Bangladesh's apparel. While some investment and trade are beginning to flow to Bangladesh from China, these opportunities are not easily realized. Their realization depends on Bangladesh's own infrastructural capacity, business environment and the efficiency of policy-making institutions. On the other hand, some negative impacts such as volatility in raw material prices, shipment delays and market uncertainty have also been observed due to this trade war which has created challenges for Bangladesh's export-dependent economy. This study uses realist trade theory (economic nationalism) to explain how the United States and China are restructuring trade policies to protect their national interests and exert influence on the global trade structure. This theoretical framework has been helpful in analyzing and explaining Bangladesh's global position and opportunities and constraints. In light of the research, it can be said that Bangladesh needs to move towards more strategic and far-sighted economic policies. Sustainable economic development cannot be achieved by relying solely on short-term export gains. Rather, to achieve long-term economic stability, emphasis must be placed on diversification of industrialization, market diversification, infrastructure development, an investment-friendly environment and the creation of skilled human resources. At the same time, we must maintain a diplomatic balance and improve relations with the United States and China. After all, while the US-China trade war has created uncertainty in global trade, it has also opened a window of important opportunity for countries like Bangladesh. If Bangladesh can properly utilize this opportunity, this conflict could become a guide to a desired economic transformation for the country. Therefore, the conclusion of this study is that despite the challenges, this crisis can make Bangladesh's economy stronger, more sustainable and more diversified through appropriate strategies and realistic policies.

 

 

References

Anwar, A. (2021). US–China trade war: The potential impact on Bangladesh. In China's Belt and Road Initiative (pp. 153-168). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003053613-11

Aslam, M. (2019). US-China trade disputes and its impact on ASEAN. Transnational Corporations Review, 11(4), 332–345.(https://doi.org/10.1080/19186444.2019.1691410)

Amin, M. R., & Rahman, M. (2019). Trade war and Bangladesh’s export opportunities: An analysis. South Asia Economic Journal, 20(2), 182–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/1391561419851522

Anam, M. C. (2023). Analysis of the causes of the United States trade war with China in the era of economic globalization.

Asia Pacific Task Force. (2025). The new U.S.-China trade war: Strategic motives, domestic consequences, and global ramifications. [https://behorizon.org/the-new-u-s-china-trade-war-strategic-motives-domestic-consequences-and-global-ramifications/](https://behorizon.org/the-new-u-s-china-trade-war-strategic-motives-domestic-consequences-and-global-ramifications/)

Bekkers, E., & Schroeter, S. (2020). An economic analysis of the US-China trade conflict.

Baldwin, D. A. (1985). Economic statecraft. Princeton University Press.

Benguria, F., Choi, J., Swenson, D. L., & Xu, M. (Jimmy). (2022). Anxiety or pain? The impact of tariffs and uncertainty on Chinese firms in the trade war. Journal of International Economics, 137, 103608. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2022.103608)

Capling, A., & Ravenhill, J. (2011). Multilateral trade governance in a multipolar world. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, 17(4), 475–494. https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-01704004

Corporate Finance Institute. (n.d.). Trade Wars. Retrieved from https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/economics/trade-wars/

Choudhury, R. N. (2021). The China-US trade war and South Asian economies. [https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003053613](https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003053613)

Council on Foreign Relations. (2025). The contentious U.S.-China trade relationship. [https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/contentious-us-china-trade-relationship](https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/contentious-us-china-trade-relationship)

Czin, J. A. (2025). What Beijing wants from a US-China trade war. [https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-beijing-wants-from-a-us-china-trade-war/](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-beijing-wants-from-a-us-china-trade-war/)

Chen, Y., Ahmad, A. M., Zamri, Mahamed, M., & Kasimon, D. (2022). Literature review: The views of Chinese and international scholars on the causes of the US-China trade war. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 10(06), 167–180. [https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2022.106014](https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2022.106014)

Economic Policy Institute. (2017). Growth in U.S.–China trade deficit between 2001 and 2015. [https://www.epi.org/publication/growth-in-u-s-china-trade-deficit-between-2001-and-2015-cost-3-4-million-jobs-heres-how-to-rebalance-trade-and-rebuild-american-manufacturing/](https://www.epi.org/publication/growth-in-u-s-china-trade-deficit-between-2001-and-2015-cost-3-4-million-jobs-heres-how-to-rebalance-trade-and-rebuild-american-manufacturing/)

EL PAÍS English. (2025, April 11). Five charts that explain the US-China trade relationship. [https://english.elpais.com/economy-and-business/2025-04-11/five-charts-that-explain-the-us-china-trade-relationship.html](https://english.elpais.com/economy-and-business/2025-04-11/five-charts-that-explain-the-us-china-trade-relationship.html)

Eurasia Review. (2025, January 30). Trade wars 2025: US-China rivalry reshaping global power. [https://www.eurasiareview.com/30012025-trade-wars-2025-us-china-rivalry-reshaping-global-power-oped/](https://www.eurasiareview.com/30012025-trade-wars-2025-us-china-rivalry-reshaping-global-power-oped/)

Eurasian Research Institute. (2021). US-China trade war: Economic causes and consequences – ERI. [https://www.eurasian-research.org/publication/us-china-trade-war-economic-causes-and-consequences/](https://www.eurasian-research.org/publication/us-china-trade-war-economic-causes-and-consequences/)

Fajgelbaum, P. D., & Khandelwal, A. K. (2021). The economic impacts of the US-China trade war (NBER Working Paper No. 29315). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w29315

Fatma, A., & Bharti, N. (2019). Perception vs. reality: Understanding the US–China trade war. Transnational Corporations Review, 11(4), 270–278. (https://doi.org/10.1080/19186444.2019.1682409)

Guo, J., Liu, L., & Tang, Y. (2023). The influence of trade friction on the stability of stock market: Evidence from China. Heliyon, 9(10), (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20446)

Gilpin, R. (1987). The political economy of international relations. Princeton University Press.

Grieco, J. M. (1988). Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: A realist critique of the newest liberal institutionalism. International Organization, 42(3), 485–507. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300027715

Hopewell, K. (2019). US–China conflict in global trade governance: The new politics of agricultural subsidies at the WTO. Review of International Political Economy, 26(2), 207–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2018.1560352

He, C., Li, J., Wang, W., & Zhang, P. (2024). Regional resilience during a trade war: The role of global connections and local networks. Journal of World Business, 59(5), 101567. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2024.101567)

Hass, R., & Denmark, A. (2020). More pain than gain: How the US-China trade war hurt America. [https://www.brookings.edu/articles/more-pain-than-gain-how-the-us-china-trade-war-hurt-america/](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/more-pain-than-gain-how-the-us-china-trade-war-hurt-america/)

Liu, T., & Woo, W. T. (2018). Understanding the U.S.-China trade war. China Economic Journal, 11(3), 319–340. (https://doi.org/10.1080/17538963.2018.1516256)

LightCastle Partners. (2025, March 20). US-China trade war: Bangladesh's golden goose. Retrieved from https://lightcastlepartners.com/insights/2019/04/us-china-trade-war/

Mastanduno, M. (1998). Economics and security in statecraft and scholarship. International Organization, 52(4), 825–854. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081898550699

Perry, M. J. (2018). WSJ on Trump’s incoherent trade war that is inflicting arbitrary harm on innocent Americans. American Enterprise Institute (AEI). [https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/wsj-on-trumps-incoherent-and-trade-war-that-is-inflicting-arbitrary-harm-on-innocent-americans/](https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/wsj-on-trumps-incoherent-and-trade-war-that-is-inflicting-arbitrary-harm-on-innocent-americans/)

Prothom Alo English. (2025). Bangladesh eyes opportunity as Trump imposes high tariffs on Chinese goods. [https://en.prothomalo.com/business/local/8v0a1yw5il](https://en.prothomalo.com/business/local/8v0a1yw5il)

Maidinuer, P. (2024). China-US trade war unveiled: Analyzing the root causes and effects. SHS Web of Conferences, 188, 02016. [https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202418802016](https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202418802016

Molnar, A., & Viktor, P. (2023). The US-China trade war: A constructive analysis of the causes and methods of de-escalation. [https://www.isres.org](https://www.isres.org)

Rahman, M., & Bari, E. (2019). US–China trade war: Implications for Bangladesh’s trade and investment prospects. CPD Policy Briefs. Retrieved from https://cpd.org.bd

S&P Global Market Intelligence. (2025). Trade deficits, US-China trade spat & Bangladesh. Retrieved from https://policyinsightsonline.com/2019/04/trade-deficits-us-china-trade-spat-and-bangladesh/

Shafique, A., & Bhutta, N. T. (2024). Assessing conditional volatility due to trade war in the G-7 stock markets. Social Sciences and Humanities Open, 9, 100768. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100768)

Sukar, A., & Ahmed, S. (2019). Rise of trade protectionism: The case of US-Sino trade war. Transnational Corporations Review, 11(4), 279–289. (https://doi.org/10.1080/19186444.2019.1684133)

The Daily Star. (2025, January 19). Bangladesh sees window of opportunity in Trump’s trade war. Retrieved from https://www.thedailystar.net/business/economy/news/bangladesh-sees-window-opportunity-trumps-trade-war-3802471

The Conversation. (2025). In trade war with the US, China holds a lot more cards than Trump may think − in fact, it might have a winning hand. [https://theconversation.com/in-trade-war-with-the-us-china-holds-a-lot-more-cards-than-trump-may-think-in-fact-it-might-have-a-winning-hand-254173](https://theconversation.com/in-trade-war-with-the-us-china-holds-a-lot-more-cards-than-trump-may-think-in-fact-it-might-have-a-winning-hand-254173)

The Daily Star. (2025a). Can Bangladesh ride out the wave of US tariffs? [https://www.thedailystar.net/business/news/can-bangladesh-ride-out-the-wave-us-tariffs-3874661](https://www.thedailystar.net/business/news/can-bangladesh-ride-out-the-wave-us-tariffs-3874661)

The Daily Star. (2025b). Trump’s tariff war: How Bangladesh can mitigate its economic impact. [https://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/views/open-dialogue/news/trumps-tariff-war-how-bangladesh-can-mitigate-its-economic-impact-3864101](https://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/views/open-dialogue/news/trumps-tariff-war-how-bangladesh-can-mitigate-its-economic-impact-3864101The Daily Star. (2025c). US-China tariff war impact on Bangladesh | We must prepare for all uncertainties. [https://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/editorial/news/we-must-prepare-all-uncertainties-3869726](https://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/editorial/news/we-must-prepare-all-uncertainties-3869726)

The Diplomat. (2019, June). Is Bangladesh winning in the US-China trade war? [https://thediplomat.com/2019/06/is-bangladesh-winning-in-the-us-china-trade-war/](https://thediplomat.com/2019/06/is-bangladesh-winning-in-the-us-china-trade-war/)

The Financial Express. (2025). US-China trade war: What is the United States importing from China? [https://www.financialexpress.com/world-news/us-china-trade-war-what-do-china-and-united-states-import-and-export-from-each-other/3804225/](https://www.financialexpress.com/world-news/us-china-trade-war-what-do-china-and-united-states-import-and-export-from-each-other/3804225/)

Trading Economics. (2025). United States exports to China - 2025. [https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/exports/china](https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/exports/china)

The Business Standard. (2025, February 15). Trump's tariff war 2.0: A windfall for Bangladesh? Retrieved from https://www.tbsnews.net/economy/trumps-tariff-war-20-windfall-bangladesh-1059261

The Business Standard. (2025, February 15). Trump's tariff war 2.0: A windfall for Bangladesh? Retrieved from https://www.tbsnews.net/economy/trumps-tariff-war-20-windfall-bangladesh-1059261

The Diplomatist. (2025, March 17). The geopolitical impact of U.S.-China trade war in South Asia. Retrieved from https://diplomatist.com/2025/03/17/the-geopolitical-impact-of-u-s-china-trade-war-in-south-asia/

United States Trade Representative. (2025). The People’s Republic of China. [https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/china-mongolia-taiwan/peoples-republic-china](https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/china-mongolia-taiwan/peoples-republic-china)

Yale Jackson School of Global Affairs. (2025, January 10). In the US-China trade war, how did some “bystander” countries come out ahead? Retrieved from https://jackson.yale.edu/news/in-the-us-china-trade-war-how-did-some-bystander-countries-come-out-ahead/

Zhang, M., Liu, D., Shui, X., Hu, W., & Zhan, Y. (2025). Examining the impact of trade tariffs on semiconductor firms’ environmental performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 281, 109528. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2025.109528)

Zhang, Y., & Zhu, X. (2023). Analysis of the global trade network of the chip industry chain: Does the U.S.-China tech war matter? Heliyon, 9(6), e17092. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17092)

Xiaotong, Z., & Flint, C. (2021). Why and whither the US-China trade war?: Not realist ‘traps’ but political geography ‘capture’ as explanation. Journal of World Trade, 55(2), 335–358. [https://doi.org/10.54648/TRAD2021013](https://doi.org/10.54648/TRAD2021013)

Xinhua. (2025). China’s position on some issues concerning China-US economic and trade relations. [http://english.scio.gov.cn/whitepapers/2025-04/09/content\_117814362\_3.html](http://english.scio.gov.cn/whitepapers/2025-04/09/content_117814362_3.html)

World Trade Organization. (2025). An economic analysis of the US-China trade conflict. Retrieved from https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/ersd202004_e.htm

Zaman, A. U. (2025). Trade war escalation presents strategic opportunity for Bangladesh. [https://textiletoday.com.bd/trade-war-escalation-presents-strategic-opportunity-for-bangladesh](https://textiletoday.com.bd/trade-war-escalation-presents-strategic-opportunity-for-bangladesh)

Golgeci, I., Roscoe, S., Gligor, D. M., & Oh, C. H. (2025). Advancing the sociopolitical view of supply chain management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ijopm-03-2025-0175/full/html

Rosenberger, L. (2025). China's Dominant Economic Influence: IMF and Asia Push Back Against Decoupling. In The Great Power Competition Volume 6 (pp. 215–234). Springer. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-70767-4_12

Baldwin, D. A. (1985). Economic statecraft. Princeton University Press. (https://doi.org/10.2307/1960602)

 Gilpin, R. (1987). The political economy of international relations. Princeton University Press.

Gilpin, R. (2001). Global political economy: Understanding the international economic order. Princeton University Press. (https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400831272)

Grieco, J. M. (1988). Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: A realist critique of the newest liberal institutionalism. International Organization, 42(3), 485–507. (https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300027715)

Gowa, J. (1994). Allies, adversaries, and international trade. Princeton University Press.

Helleiner, E. (2002). Economic nationalism as a challenge to economic liberalism? Lessons from the 19th century. International Studies Quarterly, 46(3), 307–329. (https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2478.00235)

Krugman, P. (1986). Strategic trade policy and the new international economics. MIT Press.

Mastanduno, M. (1998). Economics and security in statecraft and scholarship. International Organization, 52(4), 825–854. (https://doi.org/10.1162/002081898550761)

Strange, S. (1996). The retreat of the state: The diffusion of power in the world economy. Cambridge University Press.(https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511559143)

Tyson, L. D. (1992). Who's bashing whom? Trade conflict in high-technology industries. Institute for International Economics. (https://doi.org/10.2307/2617913)

 Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. Addison-Wesley.(https://doi.org/10.2307/2149594