A Historical Anatomy Renewed by Modern Research
The historical analysis of trade conflicts, long focused on macroeconomic causes, now benefits from multidisciplinary approaches. The work of economist Davin Chor (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2023) now incorporates geolocalized data on employment and voting, revealing that the tariff wars of the 19th and 20th centuries were often triggered by domestic political calculations targeting specific electoral districts, far more than by global trade imbalances.
For example, the famous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 is being reassessed through the lens of political science. A study by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS, 2024) uses network analysis to show how the ensuing cascade of retaliation was less linear than often described, with some countries seeking more to solidify regional blocs than to strike the U.S. economy.
The Complexity Turn: Value Chains and Asymmetric Retaliation
The fundamental context has changed with the international fragmentation of production processes. The IMF note “Geoeconomic Fragmentation: The Global Trade Network on the Brink” (January 2024) models the impact of a modern tariff war. It concludes that losses are no longer symmetrical and depend crucially on a country’s position in the value chain. A tariff on a component can paralyze a downstream sector located in the very trading partner that imposed it, creating a boomerang effect.
This explains the emergence of “scalpel” retaliation, documented by the OECD in its “Strategic Dependency Mapping” report (2023). Rather than generalized barriers, countries target specific, critical imports for their adversary’s political industry (e.g., rare earths for high-tech, agricultural products from key regions). This precision makes conflicts harder to resolve through broad concessions.
Prospective 2025-2030: Scenarios Based on Current Models
Based on the latest publications from credible institutions, several scenarios are emerging for the coming years.
- “Technological Fragmentation” Scenario (High Probability)
The Centre d’Études Prospectives et d’Informations Internationales (CEPII, Paris, February 2024) anticipates that future tariff wars will be less motivated by trade deficits than by the race for critical technologies (semiconductors, AI, green energy). Measures will take the form of “mirror tariffs” (like the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism) and massive subsidies to domestic industries, as seen in the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act. This scenario would lead to a reconfiguration of global flows around technological blocs (USMCA, EU, Asia).
- “Fluid Conflict” Scenario (Medium Probability)
The Peterson Institute for International Economics (April 2024) warns that the proliferation of non-tariff measures (standards, data embargoes, ESG criteria) will create an environment of “fluid conflict,” permanent and diffuse. Companies will have to navigate a shifting regulatory patchwork, increasing compliance costs and freezing long-term investment. Global growth would suffer durably, with an estimated loss of 0.5% to 1.3% of annual global GDP by 2030 in their models.
- “New Targeted Multilateralism” Scenario (Low but Growing Probability)
Facing systemic risks, a joint WTO/World Bank report (March 2024) argues for the emergence of “clubs” or plurilateral agreements on specific issues (food security, digital taxation, fishing subsidies). These mini-alliances could contain a general escalation by creating spaces for partial cooperation, without a return to the full grand multilateralism of the 20th century.
Conclusion: The Era of Strategic Uncertainty
The lessons of history, revisited by modern analytical tools, teach us that tariff wars are rarely tools of rational economic policy, but rather the expression of geopolitical rivalries and domestic tensions. The outlook for 2025-2030, supported by the models of major institutions, indicates a transition towards more targeted, technological, and regulatory conflicts.
The effectiveness of responses will depend on the ability of states and businesses to develop real-time “geoeconomic intelligence,” allowing them to anticipate vulnerabilities and diversify supply chains. The real battle will be fought less on the level of tariffs and more on the mastery of standards, the security of critical inputs, and the agility to adapt to a rapidly fragmenting trade landscape.
Sources:
- Chor, D. (2023). “The Political Economy of Trade Policy”. NBER Working Paper Series.
- Bank for International Settlements (2024). “Lessons from Historical Trade Conflicts”. BIS Quarterly Review.
- IMF (2024). “Geoeconomic Fragmentation: The Global Trade Network on the Brink”. World Economic Outlook, Chapter 4.
- OECD (2023). “Mapping Strategic Dependencies in Global Value Chains”.
- *CEPII (2024). “Trade Wars in the Age of Technological Competition”. Policy Brief No.2024-05.*
- Peterson Institute for International Economics (2024). “The Age of Fluid Trade Conflict”.
- *WTO/World Bank (2024). “Reinventing Multilateral Cooperation in a Fragmenting World”.*
Important Disclaimer: The content of this article is provided for informational and educational purposes only. It reflects the author’s opinion based on information available at the time of publication, which may become outdated. This content does not constitute personalized investment advice, a recommendation to buy or sell, and does not guarantee future performance. Markets carry a risk of capital loss. The investor is solely responsible for their decisions and should consult an independent professional advisor before any transaction. The publisher disclaims all liability for decisions made based on this information.