U.S. government accused of setting sexist tariffs
John Burcham/Nat. Geographic Ever wondered why men pay more for bathing suits than women, why women pay more for hiking boots than men, or why woven wool shirts are cheaper for women? The answer, it seems, is the United States Congress, which assigns differing tariff rates for men and women’s apparel. According to Michael Barbaro ...
John Burcham/Nat. Geographic
Ever wondered why men pay more for bathing suits than women, why women pay more for hiking boots than men, or why woven wool shirts are cheaper for women? The answer, it seems, is the United States Congress, which assigns differing tariff rates for men and women’s apparel. According to Michael Barbaro in the International Herald Tribune, there is no apparent pattern to the tariff rates, which sometimes favor men and at other times favor women, with as much as a one hundred percent difference in tariff rates. He also notes that “the fees tacked onto clothing, shoes and swimwear as they enter the country’s ports may be the last legal form of sex discrimination in the United States, approved year after year by lawmakers and passed on to consumers.” But maybe not for long.
A number of major apparel companies, including Steve Madden, Asics and Columbia Sportswear, are challenging this sex discrimination in tariffs through lawsuits against the U.S. federal government. If they win, they could earn as much as $1 billion worth of tariffs, and higher future profits as tariffs are scaled down for consistency. Of course, they run the risk of increasing the prices for consumers if the government ultimately decides to raise the tariffs to equalize the rates rather than lower them.
What’s most interesting—or amusing—about this case is the utter lack of rationale for the differing rates. Some believe that it comes down to old-fashioned sex discrimination (but that doesn’t explain why men/women lose sometimes and win at other times), or that it’s a different form of protectionism. But the companies’ lawyers, after years of scrutinizing tariff lists, international trade court records and congressional testimony, have found no explanation for the tariff discrepancies. As Daniel Altman writes in his IHT blog:
What they really show, at bottom, is how arbitrary the tariff system is in the United States. In the midst of all the talk about global, regional and bilateral trade agreements, has anyone thought to check if the present regime is even rational?”
More from Foreign Policy
At Long Last, the Foreign Service Gets the Netflix Treatment
Keri Russell gets Drexel furniture but no Senate confirmation hearing.
How Macron Is Blocking EU Strategy on Russia and China
As a strategic consensus emerges in Europe, France is in the way.
What the Bush-Obama China Memos Reveal
Newly declassified documents contain important lessons for U.S. China policy.
Russia’s Boom Business Goes Bust
Moscow’s arms exports have fallen to levels not seen since the Soviet Union’s collapse.
Sign up for World Brief
FP’s flagship evening newsletter guiding you through the most important world stories of the day. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
