E-commerce mercantilism-practices and causes

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to highlight in particular one commercially influential but subtle constituent of China’s mercantilist stratagem – asymmetrical internet access. The wider aim of the paper is to provide a solid basis of real-world facts and knowledge to the e-commerce discussions at the World Trade Organization and the ongoing plurilateral e-commerce negotiations.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper uses an empirical approach to reflect the general experiences of consumers connecting from China to e-commerce platform websites in other countries and vice versa consumers connecting from other countries to China’s e-commerce platform.

Findings

The empirical data show that Chinese potential customers trying to connect to the websites of foreign internet retailers in 17 other sample countries are faced with prohibitively long waiting times. In contrast, the average waiting time that it takes for customers in those other 17 countries to link up to China’s major internet retail platforms is much shorter.

Practical implications

The hard evidence presented here serves to strengthen the arguments that such internet censorship is used by China to establish unfair e-commerce advantage. This paper further argues that the General Agreement on Trade in Services is restrained from providing systemic solutions to the digital mercantilism problem. It is essential, therefore, that the ongoing plurilateral e-commerce negotiations address this issue.

Originality/value

This paper is the first to publish detailed results of a systematic survey designed to analyze the impact of asymmetrical internet access in China. It is also the first to examine the extent and effect of differing internet connection speeds in the context of international trade. The outcome of the survey provides a factual base for future rule-making at the multilateral level.

Citation

Chu, C.Y.C. and Lee, P.-C. (2020), "E-commerce mercantilism-practices and causes", Journal of International Trade Law and Policy, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 51-66. https://doi.org/10.1108/JITLP-08-2019-0054