If you run a business that exports to the United States, how big is the tariff you have to pay? In 2025 that question was hard to answer. Between February and December, 53 separate announcements introduced, delayed, reinstated or changed US tariffs, with different countries and products pulled in or exempted each time.

Kalina Manova (UCL, CEPR) and her colleagues built a database of every one of those announcements, but they also measured  the confusion that those announcements created. She tells Tim Phillips about how tariff confusion has become a second tax on trade, as confusion puts off exporters: but it's one that raises no revenue. 

On average, uncertainty about the actual tariff doubled the damage done to trade by the tariff hikes themselves. For some countries it tripled it. Does this result mean that, if the US cleared up the confusion by not changing its tariffs regularly, it could double tariff income for the same impact on trade?

The research behind this episode:

Manova, Kalina, Dennis Novy, Thomas Sampson, and Aaron Tang. 2026. "Tariff Confusion." CEPR Discussion Paper DP21688 (gated).

To cite this episode:

Phillips, Tim, and Kalina Manova. 2026. "Tariff Confusion." VoxTalks Economics (podcast).

About the guest

Kalina Manova is Professor of Economics at University College London and a Research Fellow at the Centre for Economic Policy Research. Her work spans global production networks and multinational activity, firm productivity and management, trade policy, and the financial frictions that shape international trade and investment. She holds an AB, AM and PhD from Harvard, and has previously held posts at Stanford, Princeton and Oxford.

Research cited in this episode

US Tariff Announcement Database (USTAD). The dataset Manova and her co-authors assembled by hand from US presidential executive orders and proclamations, recording all 53 tariff announcements of 2025 and tracing, for roughly 230 origin countries and more than 18,000 ten-digit product categories, the statutory tariff in place each month.

The four confusion measures. With no direct way to measure confusion, the paper proxies it four ways: the cumulative number of relevant announcements a firm had to track; the number of possible tariff calculations those announcements could produce (labelled tariff mess, defined as two to the power of the number of announcements); the highest tariff a firm might infer if it heard only the bad news (tariff max); and how far that worst case sits above the true statutory rate (tariff miss).

The firm survey. A survey of roughly 4,500 firms in the US and Canada in March and April 2025 found that around 45% believed tariffs on Chinese goods were below 20%, when the true average was about 42%; at the same time, 87% underestimated how many announcements had postponed or rolled back tariffs. Firms were wrong in both directions at once.

Trade policy uncertainty. A prior literature on uncertainty about future tariffs, which tends to find that firms delay forming trade relationships when the future is unclear. The paper’s contribution is to separate confusion about current tariffs from uncertainty about future ones, and to show the former bites on its own.

Relationship-specific investment and trust. Trade in goods that require buyers and suppliers to customise to one another, or that sit in stickier supply relationships, proved more resilient to confusion; so did trade with countries whose populations report higher trust in foreigners. Informal trust, rather than formal contract enforcement, did the work of cushioning the shock.

The IEEPA ruling. In February 2026 the US Supreme Court ruled that the tariffs imposed in 2025 under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act were unlawful. The paper's data stops before the ruling, which generated fresh policy change and, presumably, fresh confusion.

More VoxTalks Economics episodes

World War Trade. Richard Baldwin on how the April 2025 tariffs settled into a trade Cold War, and why the rest of the world kept trading without the US.

Europe in the Middle. Pol Antràs and Beata Javorcik on where redirected Chinese exports go when they can no longer sell in the US, and what that means for European firms and consumers.

How exchange rates responded to tariffs. Giancarlo Corsetti on why the dollar fell after Liberation Day when tariffs should, in theory, have pushed it the other way.

Related reading on VoxEU.org

Trump and Tariffs, a VoxEU debate page collecting research on how the 2025 tariffs are reshaping supply chains, trade relationships and market stability.

Recorded at the PSE-CEPR Policy Forum, Paris School of Economics.

Tariffs move trade around, but so does economic power. When one economy dominates, other countries fall into step with it. They trade with the dominant economy, and also with each other. 

Alberto Martin (Barcelona School of Economics, CEPR) is one of a team that has tracked the influence of hegemons, large dominant economies, on trade from the start of the 19th century. In  our latest VoxTalk he tells Tim Phillips about how they used treaties (not necessarily about trade) as a proxy for alignment, and built a database of 77,000 of them signed between 1800 and 2020 to test their theory.

Hegemons sign a disproportionate share of these international agreements. After treaty-signing, trade links become stronger. But treaty-signing has fallen sharply over the past 15 years, as much as it did during the two world wars. If we are heading towards a multipolar world, might what will the absence of a global hegemony do to trade?

The research behind this episode:

Broner, Fernando, Alberto Martin, Josefin Meyer, and Christoph Trebesch. 2025. "Hegemonic Globalization." CEPR Discussion Paper 20339 (gated).

To cite this episode:

Phillips, Tim, and Alberto Martin. 2025. "How superpowers shape trade." VoxTalks Economics (podcast).

About the guest

Alberto Martin is a Senior Researcher at the Center for Research in International Economics (CREI), an Adjunct Professor at Universitat Pompeu Fabra, a Research Professor at the Barcelona School of Economics, and a Research Fellow at the Centre for Economic Policy Research, where he directs the International Macroeconomics and Finance programme. His research spans macroeconomics, finance, and international economics, including asset bubbles, credit cycles, sovereign debt, and the political economy of trade.

Research cited in this episode

Global Treaty Database. The dataset at the heart of the paper, assembled by the authors from the United Nations Treaty Collection, the League of Nations archive, and country-specific historical sources. It records roughly 77,000 international agreements signed between 1800 and 2020, most of them bilateral, sorted into economic and non-economic categories such as trade, taxation, migration, borders, and military cooperation.

Hegemonic stability. The idea, introduced by Charles Kindleberger in 1973, that an open and stable world economy needs a single dominant power to underwrite it. This paper builds a formal model of the mechanism Kindleberger described, and asks what happens to openness when dominance is contested.

Alignment and UN voting. The most common existing proxy for how closely two countries are aligned is whether they vote together at the United Nations. The authors' treaty measure correlates with UN voting in some periods and less in others, partly because many UN votes turn on narrow questions; treaties cover more policy areas and reach back 200 years, which UN voting cannot.

The recent decline in treaty-signing. Since 1800 treaty-signing has trended upward, interrupted by three sharp falls: the First World War, the Second World War, and a decline over the last 15 years that is proportionally comparable to the first two. The authors checked large-country sources directly to rule out a reporting lag, and the fall appears real.

More VoxTalks Economics episodes

The safety paradox. Isabelle Méjean on how, when countries impose trade restriction to protect themselves, it also makes conflict more likely. 

Related reading on VoxEU.org

Why globalisation needs a leader: Hegemons, alignment, and trade, the authors' own VoxEU column setting out the theory of hegemonic globalisation and what a shift from a unipolar to a multipolar world might mean for trade.

From bilateralism to a system: Europe's early trade treaties and lessons for EU trade policy in a contested world, a VoxEU column by Laura Panza and Maria Ptashkina drawing on nearly 900 commercial treaties from 1815 to 1919 to argue for expanding networks of agreements even without universal multilateralism.

Recorded at the PSE-CEPR Policy Forum, Paris.

In 2019 the IMF called the increasing adoption of industrial policy: "The return of the policy that shall not be named". No one is scared to name it in 2026. Governments in rich and poor economies alike are intervening to change what their countries produce, and the pace has picked up sharply.

Zsóka Kóczán (EBRD) was one of the leads on the Transition Report 2024-25, which draws on a database of more than 31,000 industrial policies in 150 economies. She talks to Tim Phillips about who is using these policies, and the mistakes that happen when they aren't managed well. They multiply before elections, they discriminate against foreign interests, many are firm-specific - and until recently few had an end date, whether they worked or not. Picking winners is hard. Letting go of losers is even harder, she warns. 

The research behind this episode:

EBRD. 2024. "Transition Report 2024-25: Navigating Industrial Policy." London: European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The digital edition, with country assessments and interactive charts, is at 2024.tr-ebrd.com.

To cite this episode:

Phillips, Tim, and Zsoka Koczan. 2026. "Navigating industrial policy." VoxTalks Economics (podcast).

About the guest

Zsoka Koczan is Associate Director and Lead Economist in the Office of the Chief Economist at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, where she works on the Transition Report, edits the Regional Economic Prospects and runs the Life in Transition Survey. Before joining the EBRD she was an economist at the International Monetary Fund. She holds a PhD in economics from the University of Cambridge, and her research spans income disparities within countries, migration and inequality.

Research cited in this episode

Moving the goalposts. The analysis of industrial policy objectives in the report is developed in Koczan, Zsoka, Victoria Marino, and Alexander Plekhanov. 2025. "Moving the Goalposts: The Changing Objectives of Industrial Policy." EBRD Working Paper No. 311. It codifies the stated objectives of more than 31,000 industrial policies using large language model processing; in the EBRD regions and other emerging markets, around 75% of policies pursue multiple objectives, and more than 10% pursue three or more.

The Juhász, Lane, Oehlsen and Pérez dataset. The report builds on the industrial policy dataset assembled by Réka Juhász, Nathan Lane, Emily Oehlsen, and Verónica C. Pérez in "The Who, What, When, and How of Industrial Policy: A Text-Based Approach" (STEG Working Paper No. WP050, 2023), which uses natural language processing to identify industrial policies in the Global Trade Alert repository; the EBRD team extended its coverage of emerging markets.

The Global Trade Alert. An independent monitoring initiative that has documented policy interventions affecting international commerce since 2009; it is the underlying source for both datasets above.

The policy that shall not be named. Cherif, Reda, and Fuad Hasanov. 2019. "The Return of the Policy That Shall Not Be Named: Principles of Industrial Policy." IMF Working Paper No. 19/74. The title captures how unfashionable the subject was among economists before its recent revival, which is Koczan's point in raising it; the interventions themselves never went away.

Reagan's nine words. In 1986 President Ronald Reagan remarked that the nine most terrifying words in the English language were "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." Koczan cites the line as a marker of the era when industrial policy fell out of favour, and as a reminder that government failures can replace the market failures these policies are meant to correct.

The Industrial Accelerator Act. The European Commission's proposal, presented in March 2026, would introduce "Made in EU" and low-carbon requirements for public procurement and support schemes in strategic sectors. Koczan cites it as evidence that the upward trend in industrial policy adoption is continuing.

More VoxTalks Economics episodes

Europe in the Middle, recorded at the same forum, in which Pol Antras and Beata Javorcik ask how Europe should make policy when it is caught between the US and China in a realigning world trade system.

Addressing Global Imbalances, also from the forum, in which Gita Gopinath and Philip Lane discuss the third wave of global imbalances and what central banks can and cannot do about it.

Related reading on VoxEU

The visible hand of the state: Industrial policies in emerging markets, a VoxEU column by the EBRD team presenting the Transition Report's findings on how emerging markets use industrial policy.

The new economics of industrial policy, a VoxEU column by Réka Juhász, Nathan Lane and Dani Rodrik summarising the recent empirical literature on when these policies work.

The return of industrial policy in data, a VoxEU column introducing the New Industrial Policy Observatory and documenting the recent wave of interventions.

Recorded at the PSE-CEPR Policy Forum, Paris School of Economics, June 2026.

In 1941 the United States banned oil exports to Japan, to punish aggression without fighting a war. Historians now argue the embargo did the opposite, and hastened Japan's entry into the war.

Isabelle Méjean (Sciences Po, CEPR) calls this "The safety paradox". Trade between rivals makes war more expensive. Cut that trade to protect your interests, and you make conflict cheaper, for your rival as well as for you. In a new VoxTalk she talks to Tim Phillips about economic coercion, decoupling, and why Europe should treat its trade agreements as insurance.

Méjean and her co-authors simulated the US decoupling from China. Raising tariffs by 20 percentage points, roughly what the first Trump administration did, raises the probability of war by 2%, she estimates. That sounds small until you consider what a war between the US and China would mean.

The research behind this episode:

Mayer, Thierry, Isabelle Méjean, and Mathias Thoenig. 2025. "The Fragmentation Paradox: De-risking Trade and Global Safety." CEPR Discussion Paper 20564 (gated).

To cite this episode:

Phillips, Tim, and Isabelle Méjean. 2026. "The Safety Paradox." VoxTalks Economics (podcast).

About the guest

Isabelle Méjean is Professor of Economics at Sciences Po and a Research Fellow of the Centre for Economic Policy Research, where she directs the International Trade and Regional Economics programme and is a member of the Research Policy Network on Geoeconomics and Security. She is a scientific advisor at CEPII and a member of the French Conseil d'Analyse Économique, with research spanning international trade, firm-to-firm networks, and how shocks to individual firms move whole economies. In 2020 she was named Best Young Economist of France.

Research cited in this episode

Make Trade Not War? Philippe Martin, Thierry Mayer, and Mathias Thoenig's 2008 paper in the Review of Economic Studies (75(3): 865-900) provided the first quantitative evidence that bilateral trade integration reduces the probability of interstate conflict; the diplomatic game in the new paper builds directly on it.

Montesquieu, De l'esprit des lois (1748). The earliest statement of the idea, Méjean notes, that interdependence between nations raises the cost of conflict and strengthens the hand of diplomacy; what was trade dependence in the 18th century now includes finance and technology.

The US oil embargo on Japan, 1941. Méjean's historical example of the safety paradox in action; a policy designed to impose costs on Japan is widely credited by historians with accelerating its entry into the Second World War.

China's trade ban on Lithuania. After Lithuania allowed a Taiwanese representative office to open in Vilnius in 2021, China blocked Lithuanian products from its market; the episode's example of open economic coercion, and one that prompted the EU's Anti-Coercion Instrument, in force since 2023.

Liberation Day tariffs. The US tariffs announced in April 2025; Méjean points to the tariff on Brazil, justified by the treatment of former president Jair Bolsonaro, as a tariff with an explicitly geopolitical rather than economic purpose.

Rare earths. China holds a near monopoly across mining, refining, and magnet production; Méjean's example of where future trade agreements could act as insurance, because deposits outside China offer more scope for diversification than mining in Europe.

More VoxTalks Economics episodes

Europe in the Middle. Pol Antras and Beata Javorcik, recorded at the same forum, on what the US-China realignment means for European producers and consumers.

World War Trade. Richard Baldwin on how world trade was weaponised, and where the trading order goes from here.

Trading Around Geopolitics. Giancarlo Corsetti, Banu Demir, and Beata Javorcik on why trade sanctions can be like squeezing a balloon.

Related reading on VoxEU

Why 'de-risking' may not deliver a large peace dividend, a VoxEU column estimating that a doubling of bilateral trade reduces the probability of militarised conflict by roughly 30%.

How geopolitics is changing trade, a VoxEU column documenting the fragmentation of trade flows along geopolitical lines.

Geopolitical risk and supply chain diversification, a VoxEU column on how firms respond to geopolitical risk in their sourcing decisions.

French teenagers carry a smartphone with access to almost anything, but few of them have been using it to read the news.

Julia Cagé (Sciences Po, CEPR) ran an experiment to test the one barrier everyone assumes matters most: the price of a newspaper. She and her co-authors gave free digital subscriptions to Le Monde and media education to thousands of French high school students for a year, and then tracked what the students actually read. It's a bit like persuading kids to eat vegetables when there are fries on the table, she tells Tim Phillips. Can a free subscription persuade France's teens to use their phones differently and eat their media greens, and what changes when they do?

The research behind this episode:

Briole, Simon, Julia Cagé, and Andrea Prat. 2026. "Making Teenagers Read Newspapers: A Nationwide Experiment in French High Schools." CEPR Discussion Paper 21706. Gated.

To cite this episode:

Phillips, Tim, and Julia Cagé. 2026. “Making teenagers read newspapers”. VoxTalks Economics (podcast).

About the guest

Julia Cagé is Professor of Economics at Sciences Po Paris and a Research Fellow at the Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), where she leads the CEPR Research and Policy Network on Media Plurality. Her research spans media economics, political participation, and the economics of information, with a particular focus on how news markets shape political knowledge and democratic engagement. She is the author of several books on the media, including Saving the Media and The Price of Democracy.

Research cited in this episode

Reuters Institute Digital News Report is an annual global survey that tracks how people find, consume, and pay for news across dozens of countries. Cagé cites its long-running data on declining time spent reading news online, a trend she says is sharpest among the young.

Post-Broadcast Democracy, a book by the political scientist Markus Prior, argues that the shift from a small number of broadcast TV channels to an environment of unlimited media choice let people who were never especially interested in news opt out of it entirely. Cagé uses Prior's framework to argue that the internet did not create this problem; television did, and the internet simply deepened it.

Information inequality describes the finding that lower-income, less-educated citizens draw on fewer sources of political information than wealthier, better-educated ones, widening gaps in political knowledge. The concept draws on earlier work by Cagé's co-author Andrea Prat, and it motivates the experiment's focus on whether free access to quality journalism narrows that gap for teenagers from poorer backgrounds.

More VoxTalks Economics episodes

Misinformation and trust in news, in which Ruben Durante discusses a field experiment testing how AI-generated misinformation changes readers' trust in, and demand for, credible journalism.

Related reading on VoxEU

Information inequality, a VoxEU column by Paul Kennedy and Andrea Prat setting out the cross-country evidence that poorer, less-educated voters consume fewer sources of political news, the pattern this episode's experiment sets out to address.

Sixty-three percent of large companies worldwide had made a net zero commitment by 2023, up from close to none in 2018. But if the target date is 2050, that's several corporate lifetimes away, and the planet needs emission reductions today. What actually changes in the boardroom when a pledge is signed?

Simon Dietz (LSE, CEPR) has tracked climate management practices and emissions at nearly 2,000 companies to find out. He tells Tim Phillips that the picture is not the one that either side of the debate might expect. A net zero pledge doesn't usually signify an immediate cut in emissions, but there is a clear and early shift in how companies plan for net zero that has often started before the announcement. What is left is something is harder to spot: firms making a strategic pivot, of which the public commitment is only one part.

The research behind this episode:

Dietz, Simon, and Nikolaus Hastreiter. 2026. "Corporate Net Zero Targets: Have They Achieved Anything?" CEPR Discussion Paper 21441 (gated).

To cite this episode:

Phillips, Tim, and Simon Dietz. 2026. "Are net zero commitments greenwash?" VoxTalks Economics (podcast).

About the guest

Simon Dietz is Professor of Environmental Policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science, Research Director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, and Research Director of the LSE Transition Pathway Initiative Global Climate Transition Centre. He is a Research Fellow of the Centre for Economic Policy Research. His research spans climate change economics, corporate sustainability, decision-making under uncertainty, and climate finance.

Research cited in this episode

The Paris Agreement and the 1.5°C target. The 2015 UN Paris Agreement on Climate Change set a goal of limiting global warming to well below 2°C, with a stretch target of 1.5°C. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change subsequently concluded that meeting the 1.5°C goal requires global emissions to reach net zero by around mid-century, giving corporate net zero pledges their scientific rationale.

Science Based Targets initiative, UN Race to Zero, and the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero. These are among the organisations that encouraged corporations to adopt long-term net zero commitments following the Paris Agreement, helping drive the rapid diffusion of pledges that Dietz and Hastreiter document.

Trucost and the Transition Pathway Initiative (TPI). Dietz and Hastreiter combine two emissions datasets to overcome measurement problems in this area. Trucost provides broad coverage of around 1,600 large listed firms, combining self-reported data with modelled estimates. TPI provides sector-specific, physically normalised emissions intensity data for a smaller sample of roughly 200 companies in the highest-emitting sectors; Dietz is Research Director of the TPI Global Climate Transition Centre, which is based at LSE.

Difference-in-differences with matching. To separate the effect of a net zero pledge from the fact that greener firms are more likely to make one in the first place, the authors compare firms before and after adoption against similar firms that have not yet adopted, using propensity score matching to build a comparable control group.

The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures framework. The paper groups management practices into four pillars from this framework: governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets. It finds no significant effect of net zero pledges on governance, risk management, or metrics and targets, but a significant and positive effect on strategy, including climate scenario planning and internal carbon pricing.

More VoxTalks Economics episodes

A big push for climate policy, in which Rick van der Ploeg argues that gradual policy change risks backsliding, and sets out what a genuinely transformative climate push would require.

Related reading on VoxEU.org

Corporate net zero targets: Neither greenwashing nor a gamechanger, in which Dietz and Hastreiter set out the findings behind this episode in their own words.

Corporate climate commitments: A profit-driven strategy, not just empty promises, in which Viral Acharya, Robert Engle, and Olivier Wang model when large firms and their investors have a financial incentive to follow through on climate pledges.

Business as usual: Bank net zero commitments, lending, and engagement, in which Parinitha Sastry, Emil Verner, and David Marques-Ibanez find that banks' net zero pledges predict decarbonisation of their loan portfolios, but not reduced lending to high-carbon sectors.

Recorded at the Paris School of Economics-CEPR Policy Forum 2026. 

Europe is under attack from the US, and under a different kind of attack from China.

That is Olivier Blanchard's diagnosis. Blanchard (MIT, Paris School of Economics, Peterson Institute) is one of four economists leading Europe 2050, a new CEPR initiative asking where Europe wants to be in 25 years, and how it gets there. Blanchard's overriding principle: a vision without plumbing goes nowhere, and plumbing without vision is just reacting to the next tweet.

Who can combine the vision and the plumbing, and produce ideas that we haven't seen before? Europe might be short of solutions to its current malaise, but it is not short of people with ideas: the project sent out 50 invitations for policy papers. Blanchard expected 30 replies. He got 48.

The research behind this episode:

Blanchard, Olivier, Pascal Lamy, Enrico Letta, and Beatrice Weder di Mauro. 2026. "Europe 2050: Geometries of Peace, Power, and Prosperity." VoxEU column, CEPR, 16 March 2026.

The CEPR Europe 2050 initiative launched by Blanchard, Lamy, Letta and Weder di Mauro is generating a rolling series of commissioned policy papers and shorter open call submissions. The full set of contributions can be found at cepr.org/europe-2050-geometries-peace-power-and-prosperity.

To cite this episode:

Phillips, Tim, and Olivier Blanchard. 2026. "Europe in 2050." VoxTalks Economics (podcast). 

About the guest

Olivier Blanchard is the Robert M. Solow Professor of Economics emeritus at MIT, Professor of Economics at the Paris School of Economics, and Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. He is a CEPR Distinguished Fellow. Blanchard's research spans macroeconomics, monetary and fiscal policy, and the economics of European integration; he was chief economist and director of research at the IMF from 2008 to 2015. 

Research cited in this episode

Europe 2050: Geometries of Peace, Power, and Prosperity is the CEPR initiative behind this episode, launched by Blanchard, Lamy, Letta and Weder di Mauro. It commissions longer policy papers and runs an open call for shorter pieces, five to fifteen pages, on what Europe should aspire to become by 2050. Blanchard describes it as a box of tools rather than a single blueprint, deliberately open to contributors who disagree on fundamentals, including whether Europe should become a federation.

The Draghi report refers to Mario Draghi's 2024 report for the European Commission, The Future of European Competitiveness. It diagnosed Europe's weak productivity growth, fragmented capital markets and insufficient scale financing for innovative firms. Blanchard contrasts it with Europe 2050, which he says is not trying to produce a similarly prescriptive plan.

The Letta report refers to Enrico Letta's 2024 report Much More Than a Market, commissioned by the European Council, which set out proposals for deepening the EU single market. Letta is one of the four leaders of Europe 2050.

"Getting to Denmark" is a concept popularised by the political scientist Francis Fukuyama in his 2011 book The Origins of Political Order, describing the temptation to picture a distant, well governed destination without a plan for the institutional steps needed to reach it. Is this a risk for Europe 2050?

Schengen is raised by Blanchard as a working example of a "coalition of the willing": a group of countries, not all of them EU members, that agreed to abolish border controls between themselves without waiting for unanimous agreement across the whole Union. He points to it as a template for how Europe might make progress on other issues where full consensus is unlikely.

More VoxTalks Economics episodes

This episode was recorded at the Paris School of Economics-CEPR Policy Forum 2026, alongside a series of conversations with forum speakers.

Europe in the Middle, the previous episode, features Pol Antràs and Beata Javorcik on how the US-China trade war is reshaping trade flows into Europe, and who wins and loses from it.

Related reading on VoxEU

Europe's challenge and opportunity: Building coalitions of the willing, a VoxEU column by Blanchard and Jean Pisani-Ferry, sets out the coalition of the willing idea in more detail, working through how it might apply to climate, trade and tax policy.

Capitalising on Europe's strengths, a VoxEU column by Debora Revoltella and colleagues at the European Investment Bank, looks at what Europe already does well and how policy can build on it rather than only cataloguing weaknesses.

Addressing European competitiveness: Investment, integration, and simplification, another VoxEU column from the European Investment Bank, sets out the scale of Europe's investment gap and where past bursts of EU investment have come from.

EU capital markets reform should focus on innovation investment, a VoxEU column, argues that capital markets union, a project Blanchard mentions in the episode, should be judged by whether it gets money to innovative firms, not just by market integration for its own sake.

China cannot sell as much as it used to in the United States. That trade has to go somewhere, and somewhere might be Europe.

In this week's VoxTalk, Tim Phillips asks Pol Antràs (Harvard) and Beata Javorcik (EBRD, Oxford) what this means for European producers and consumers.

Antràs and Andrea Presbitero have mapped which countries and sectors face the sharpest competition from redirected Chinese exports, and which stand to gain. Does cheap Chinese tech ease Europe's energy cost crisis, or squeeze European manufacturers of wind turbines and electric cars?

If Europe decides to take the gains where consumers and firms can get them, and compensate the producers who are legitimately hurt, how do they go about it? And can raising tariffs in a world of global value chains protecting one sector without damaging others?

New episode, recorded at the PSE-CEPR Policy Forum 2026 in Paris.

The research behind this episode:

Antràs, Pol, and Andrea F. Presbitero. 2026. "The Remains of the Trade: The U.S.-China Trade War and its Aftermath." Preliminary version

To cite this episode:

Phillips, Tim, Pol Antràs, and Beata Javorcik. 2026. "Europe in the Middle." VoxTalks Economics (podcast). 

About the guests:

Pol Antras is Robert G. Ory Professor of Economics at Harvard University, a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research, and a Research Affiliate at the Centre for Economic Policy Research. His research spans global value chains, the organisation of multinational firms, and, most recently, the intersection of trade policy and geopolitics.

Beata Javorcik is Chief Economist of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, on leave from her position as Professor of Economics at the University of Oxford and Fellow of All Souls College. She is Director of the International Trade Programme at the Centre for Economic Policy Research. Her research spans foreign direct investment, industrial policy, and, increasingly, the economics of geopolitical fragmentation.

Research cited in this episode:

The Great Reallocation is the term coined by Laura Alfaro and Davin Chor for the reorganisation of United States sourcing away from direct imports from China and toward alternative suppliers such as Vietnam, Mexico, and Taiwan. Antràs and Presbitero's paper extends this idea to third countries, showing that Chinese exports displaced from the American market are increasingly landing in Europe and Asia rather than disappearing.

Geopolitical externality is a concept developed by Laura Alfaro, Maggie Chen, and Beata Javorcik in their working paper "The Battle over Knowledge: Multinationals, Diffusion, and Governance." It describes how knowledge transferred abroad by multinational firms can strengthen a rival state's strategic capability in ways the firm never intended and the market never prices, which is why governments increasingly restrict flows of codified, tacit, and organisational knowledge that would once have passed unremarked.

Voluntary export restraints were the mechanism used to defuse the United States' trade conflict with Japanese carmakers in the 1980s. Rather than imposing tariffs, Japan agreed to limit its car exports, and Japanese manufacturers responded by building plants directly in the United States. Javorcik cites this as the precedent for how the current standoff over Chinese electric vehicles and knowledge transfer might eventually be resolved.

The Draghi report on European competitiveness, published by the European Commission in September 2024, recommended conditioning Chinese investment in the European electric vehicle sector on mandatory knowledge transfer. Javorcik notes the difficulty of calibrating such requirements: demand too little and Europe gains nothing from the technology; demand too much and Chinese investors have no reason to come at all.

"Industrial Policies for Multi-stage Production: The Battle for Battery-powered Vehicles," by Keith Head, Thierry Mayer, Marc Melitz, and Chenying Yang, models how tariffs and subsidies reshape the location of battery and vehicle assembly plants across a multi-stage supply chain. Antràs cites the paper's finding that protecting the electric vehicle sector through tariffs can produce worse outcomes than the problem it was meant to solve.

Export controls and innovation, discussed by Javorcik with reference to Chinese firms such as DeepSeek and Huawei, illustrate a pattern in which restricting a country's access to a technology, in this case advanced semiconductors, can accelerate that country's innovation in adjacent areas rather than simply constraining it. She draws a parallel with rare earth export restrictions, which have historically spurred substitute technologies rather than suppressing them.

More VoxTalks Economics episodes:

In a conversation recorded at the CEPR Annual Forum in Paris called "What should Europe do about Trump?" Tim Phillips spoke to Beatrice Weder di Mauro and Ugo Panizza of the Graduate Institute Geneva, about how Europe should respond to the second Trump administration's trade policies.

Listeners interested in how firms navigate geopolitical trade disruption should also hear "Trading around geopolitics," in which Giancarlo Corsetti, Banu Demir, and Beata Javorcik discuss how Turkish exporters filled the gap left by sanctions on Russia.

Related reading on VoxEU:

"An update on the great reallocation in US supply chain trade" uses detailed United States import data through 2025 to track the scope and pace of the reallocation discussed in this episode.

"From tariffs to trade flows: Diversion effects and China's exports to the EU" examines the evidence for and against the trade deflection story that Antras and Javorcik discuss, and finds the picture more mixed than a simple diversion narrative suggests.

"China shock 2.0 and the euro area: Cheaper imports, tougher competition" decomposes the recent surge in Chinese exports to the euro area and argues that structural forces within China, rather than diversion from the American market, explain most of it.

"The impact of trade wars on firms in third countries" proposes a model of how bilateral trade shocks spill over to bystander economies, applying it to Italian firms during the 2018 to 2019 trade war.

Episode recorded on 19 June 2026 at the PSE-CEPR Policy Forum in Paris.

Twice before, the world's savings and debts have piled up in the wrong places, and twice the imbalance broke something. The first time it took the Plaza Accord to fix it. The second time it took a global financial crisis.

Now we are in a third wave. Gita Gopinath (Harvard, former IMF Chief Economist and First Deputy Managing Director) and Philip Lane (European Central Bank, CEPR) join Tim Phillips to ask what is different this time.

Household and bank balance sheets are stronger than before 2008. But the fragility has moved to governments carrying much higher debt, and to non-bank financial institutions whose exposures and links to banks are only partly visible. Foreign investors hold US$40.7 trillion of US equities, 44% of world GDP outside the US, much of it riding on the AI boom.

Lane's overriding principle: central banks can calm bond markets under stress, but they must be just as clear about what they will not do if debt is unsustainable.

The research behind this episode:

Bai, Chong-En, Gita Gopinath, Hélène Rey, and Axel Weber. 2026. "G7 Economists Memo on Global Imbalances." Prepared for the French Presidency of the G7, 28 March.

The panel also draws on the fourth CEPR/Bruegel Paris Report, Paris Report 4: The New Global Imbalances, edited by Hélène Rey, Beatrice Weder di Mauro and Jeromin Zettelmeyer (CEPR Press and Bruegel, 2026), free to download at cepr.org.

Gopinath made the keynote presentation “The Third Wave: Addressing Global Imbalances” on 19 June at PSE.

To cite this episode:

Phillips, Tim, Gita Gopinath, and Philip Lane. 2026. "Addressing Global Imbalances." VoxTalks Economics (podcast). 

About the guests

Gita Gopinath is the Gregory and Ania Coffey Professor of Economics at Harvard University, where her research spans international finance and macroeconomics, dollar dominance, exchange rates and sovereign debt. She was First Deputy Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund from 2022 to 2025, and the Fund's Chief Economist from 2019 to 2022. 

Philip Lane is Chief Economist and a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank, and a Fellow of CEPR's International Macroeconomics and Finance programme. He was Governor of the Central Bank of Ireland from 2015 to 2019, and remains an honorary professor of economics at Trinity College Dublin, where his research covered financial globalisation and European monetary integration.

Research cited in this episode

The three waves of global imbalances. Gopinath frames today's imbalances as the third episode since the 1970s in which national savings and investment have pulled badly out of line, a framing she titled "The Third Wave" in her Atlanta Fed presentation. The first, in the early 1980s, produced the 1985 Plaza Accord, when the US and its G5 partners agreed to talk the dollar down after years of a strong currency and a widening trade deficit. The second built through the 2000s and unwound in the 2008 global financial crisis. In both, the US was the deficit country; the surplus moved from Japan to China.

Foreign holdings of US equities. Gross foreign holdings of US equities stood at US$40.7 trillion, 44% of world GDP excluding the US (Gopinath 2026, citing US Treasury data). Gopinath's slides show 54% of gross foreign inflows into US government debt since 2007 and estimate that 61% of the deterioration in the US net international investment position since the global financial crisis has been driven by valuation effects rather than trade deficits.

Non-bank financial institutions (NBFIs). Hedge funds, private credit funds, insurers and other institutions outside the regulated banking system now intermediate a large and growing share of global finance. Gopinath's slides show leveraged intermediation migrating from households and banks before the 2008 crisis toward government and non-bank financial institutions today, echoing the concerns set out in the G7 memo and the CEPR Paris Report.

The 2020 "dash for cash." In March 2020, US Treasury yields rose sharply even as investors would normally be expected to flee to safety, a sign that market functioning, not just prices, can break down under stress. Gopinath cites the episode as evidence that hedge funds, now bigger players in Treasury market-making, can amplify rather than absorb shocks.

ECB crisis tools: PEPP, OMT and TPI. Lane describes three instruments built since 2012 to separate monetary policy from market functioning: the Outright Monetary Transactions programme (2012), designed to backstop governments already in an ESM assistance programme; the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Programme (2020), the ECB's flexible, country-varying response to Covid-19; and the Transmission Protection Instrument (2022), intended to calm unwarranted bond market panic without financing unsustainable debt.

US federal debt and the fiscal deficit. Gopinath's slides put federal debt at 108% of GDP in 2025, up from 41% in 2007 and 39% in 2000 (source: Federal Reserve, FRED). In conversation she cites the US fiscal deficit at close to 7% of GDP, at a point in the cycle when the economy is strong. Note this is federal debt specifically; the G7 memo cites a broader measure, US general government debt, at around 120% of GDP, projected to reach around 140% by 2031. The two figures are not directly comparable and should not be conflated in the notes or on air.

More VoxTalks Economics episodes

This episode sits alongside three earlier VoxTalks Economics conversations built around the CEPR/Bruegel Paris Report 4, The New Global Imbalances.

Global Imbalances Redux, in which Maurice Obstfeld sets out the history of the three waves of imbalances and what today's policymakers can learn from how the first two were resolved.

Rebalancing the Chinese Economy, in which Yiping Huang explains why decades of investment-led growth suppressed Chinese household consumption, and what it would take to reverse that.

Stablecoins and Global Imbalances, in which Gilles Moec examines how dollar-backed stablecoins help fund the US deficit, and the regulatory gaps that leaves behind.

Related reading on VoxEU

Why global imbalances matter again, and what to do about them, a VoxEU column drawn from Chapter 1 of Paris Report 4, setting out why imbalances have widened since 2018 and the risks of a disorderly unwind.

Industrial policy, tariffs, and the return of global imbalances, which finds that tariffs are a weak tool for correcting current account imbalances and that industrial policy's effects run mainly through its impact on domestic saving and consumption.

Lose your job at 25 and someone will help you find another. Lose it at 55 and the talk quietly turns to how you might wind down towards retirement.

Policymakers tend to assume job search training works for the young and not the old, so they rarely spend money trying. Bas van der Klaauw (Tinbergen Institute) thinks they got that wrong.

In this week's VoxTalks Economics, he tells Tim Phillips about a Dutch experiment that put older unemployed workers through an intensive programme built on one idea: teach people over 50 to find work the way younger workers already do, by working their social network.

Participants left unemployment faster, there was a 10% increase in job finding, and the savings in benefits more than covered the cost. The catch: it helped the better educated most and was tested in a recession. Will it work just as well in today's labour market, where even the young and well-educated are struggling to find good jobs?

The research behind this episode:

de Groot, Nynke, and Bas van der Klaauw. 2026. "A Randomized Experiment on Improving Job Search Skills of Older Unemployed Workers." CEPR Discussion Paper 21464. (Gated)

To cite this episode:

Phillips, Tim, and Bas van der Klaauw. 2026. “Helping the over-50s find work.” VoxTalks Economics (podcast). 

About the guest

Bas van der Klaauw is professor of economics at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and director of the Tinbergen Institute. An applied microeconometrician, he uses causal methods to study labour markets, education and health, and is a research fellow of CEPR and IZA. His work on unemployment insurance, active labour market programmes and job search includes several field experiments run with the Dutch benefits administration.

The paper is co-authored with Nynke de Groot, an economist at the National Health Care Institute (Zorginstituut Nederland) who took her PhD at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Her earlier work with van der Klaauw includes a study of how cutting the unemployment insurance entitlement period affects job finding.

Research and concepts discussed in this episode

Older workers and long-term unemployment. Older unemployed workers tend to have job finding rates around half those of younger workers, and during the recession the study covers, more than half of older job seekers risked becoming long-term unemployed. Van der Klaauw attributes the gap to a combination of factors rather than any single cause: more generous and longer benefit entitlements that weaken the incentive to take a lower-paid job quickly, and employers who favour younger hires expected to grow with the firm over a longer horizon.

STEP (Successfully to Employment Program). A Dutch job search assistance programme developed during the post-2008 recession for unemployed workers aged 50 and above who had not found work within a few months of claiming unemployment insurance. It ran to 10 group sessions of around four hours each plus two individual meetings, covering interview practice, CV writing and social media, with a particular emphasis on activating the participant's social network. Participants were encouraged to have at least one conversation a week with a contact about possible work. The programme cost roughly 470 euros per participant.

The experiment. The study covers everyone aged 50 to 63 who entered unemployment insurance in the Netherlands between November 2014 and July 2015 and remained unemployed for three months, about 50,000 people. Assignment to treatment or control was based on the last digit of the social security number, putting roughly 20% in the control group. Because participation was voluntary (an encouragement design), the authors report both the effect of being offered the programme and, using random assignment as an instrument, the effect of actually taking part. Around 54% of those in the treatment group took up STEP.

What it did to job search behaviour. The job application register lets the authors watch how people searched. Participants made fewer applications to posted vacancies and did more networking, exactly the shift the programme was designed to produce. The change in method did not raise the number of job interviews, but it was accompanied by faster exits from unemployment.

Cost effectiveness. Participation cut cumulative benefit payments by about 715 euros within 18 months, comfortably above the 470 euro cost, making STEP cost effective for the benefits administration. For participants, the lost benefits were almost fully offset by higher earnings from working sooner, so there was no large income gain to the individual, but no loss either.

Who it helped. Effects were strongest for the better educated, those with higher pre-unemployment earnings and those not previously working through a temporary work agency. There was little or no effect on the lowest educated, who also had the lowest take-up. The authors find no significant difference by gender or by age band within the 50 to 63 range.

Trainers and group composition. Effectiveness varied significantly across trainers, but no observed characteristic (gender, age, experience, contract type) explained which trainers did better. Group composition mattered too: participants did better when their group contained some lower-educated members, which argues for mixed rather than streamed training groups. One reading is that trainers may concentrate their attention on the more employable members of a group.

Does it generalise? Two caveats. The programme was evaluated in a recession, when people were losing jobs through no fault of their own (frictional unemployment), and it may do less when work is easier to find. And it was designed for that kind of unemployment, not for the structural problem of workers whose skills no longer match available jobs, where van der Klaauw suggests training or retraining, rather than job search help, is the relevant tool.