618
Part 7
Cases
Case Discussion Questions
1.
Who benefits from subsidies to U.S. sugar producers? Who loses?
2. Do the benefits of U.S. government support to the
U.S. sugar industry outweigh the losses?
3. What do you think would happen if the U.S. government removed all support for U.S. sugar producers?
4. Government support programs for sugar producers
were introduced in the 1930s, yet they are still in
place today, long after the original rationale disappeared. What does this tell you about political decisions relating to international trade?
5. If you had the power to make changes here, what
would you do and why?
Volkswagen in Russia
In the mid-2000s, Volkswagen announced that it would
invest directly in automobile production in Russia. The
decision to invest was driven by a number of factors.
Russia’s economy was growing rapidly at the time and
living standards were rising, while the level of car ownership per capita was still low by European standards. This
suggested that demand for cars would grow rapidly going
forward. Indeed, forecasts predicted that by 2020, Russia
would surpass Germany to become the largest car market in
Europe. Moreover, Volkswagen’s global rivals, including
most notably Toyota, General Motors, and Ford, were also
investing in production facilities in Russia, so Volkswagen
felt that it had to make direct investments in order to
avoid being preempted by its rivals.
The Russian government also created incentives for
carmakers to invest directly in Russian production facilities,
allowing them to avoid import tariffs and a punitive tax on
imports of parts if they produced at least 25,000 cars in the
country. In 2011, the government announced that it would
keep tariffs on imported components at 0.3 percent if a foreign automaker built at least 300,000 in the country by 2020
and produced 60 percent of the value of the car locally.
Spurred on by such incentives, in 2007 Volkswagen
opened a plant in Kaluga, 160 miles southwest of Moscow,
to build some of its VW and Skoda car brands. The plant
was projected to have a peak capacity of 150,000 units a
year and employ 3,000 people. Initially, all vehicles at the
plant were assembled from semi-knocked-down kits imported from Germany. In October 2009, however, the
plant launched full-scale production, including welding
and painting of vehicles. In October 2011, Volkswagen announced that, together with a local partner, GAZ Group,
it would open a second plant near St. Petersburg as it
strove to reach the 300,000 units of local production by
2020. In 2013, Volkswagen made an additional investment in Kaluga when it pledged €300 million to build an
engine plant near to its assembly operation. The engine
plant opened in September 2015.
All told, by this point Volkswagen had invested more than
$1 billion in production in Russia. General Motors and Toyota had also announced investments of more than $1 billion
to boost Russian production up to 300,000 units by 2020,
and Fiat had indicated that it would make investments to
bring its Russian production up to 300,000 as well. In total,
foreign carmakers had invested more than $5 billion in
Russian assembly operations by 2014. Meanwhile, analysts
continued to predict that the Russian car market would grow
at a healthy pace and exceed that of Germany by 2020.
In 2014, however, the market took a sharp turn for the
worse. Russia is a major oil producer. Since the mid-2000s,
much of the country’s economic growth had been powered
by high oil prices. In the second half of 2014, however, global
oil prices started to fall rapidly as increased production in
America and weak demand in China conspired to create a
global glut of oil. By 2016, oil prices had fallen 80 percent
from their peak. To make matters worse, following hard on
the heals of its hostile takeover of the Crimea region from
Ukraine, Russia had become embroiled in a smoldering civil
war in eastern Ukraine. Western nations responded to what
they perceived as Russian aggression by imposing sanctions
on Russia. Hit by these twin blows, the Russian economy
weakened significantly in 2014 and 2015, and the ruble declined precipitously, losing 50 percent of its value against the
U.S. dollar. Suddenly the bright hopes that foreign automakers had for the Russian market seemed to be tarnished.
Faced with falling demand, Volkswagen cut production at its Kaluga plant to 120,000 vehicles from a
planned 150,000. With the new engine plant scheduled to
come on line and no resolution to Russia’s economic crisis insight, Volkswagen’s excess capacity problem may get
worse. Looking forward, Volkswagen has to decide
whether to keep investing in Russia in order to hit the
magic 300,000 local output figure by 2020 or to pull back
from a market whose future suddenly looks highly uncertain. At this point, it looks as if Volkswagen is staying the
course. In late 2015, a Volkswagen board member noted
that “We need to continue to strengthen our partnership
(in Russia) despite the current situation.”
Sources
Sarah Sloat, “Volkswagen to Halt Production at Russian Plant
for 10 Days,” The Wall Street Journal, September 7, 2014; Clare
Nuttall, “Foreign Car Firms Invest Heavily in Russia,” The Telegraph, April 28, 2011; “Volkswagen Russia Shows the Way,”
Automotive Supply Chain, July 2, 2013; “Volkswagen Slashes Car
Production at Russian Plant,” Reuters, September 7, 2014.
Exceeds
Expectation
Content and Analysis
1 Point
Explanation of Includes all of the
required
issues
components, as
specified in the
assignment.
Evidence
Analysis
Conclusions
and related
outcomes
Meets
Expectation
Below
Expectation
0.75 Point
Includes most of
the required
components, as
specified in the
assignment.
0.5 Points
Includes some of
the required
components, as
specified in the
assignment.
0.5-0 Points
Includes few of the
required
components, as
specified in the
assignment.
1 Point
Information is taken
from source(s) with
enough
interpretation/
evaluation to
develop a
comprehensive
analysis or
synthesis.
0.75 Point
Information is
taken from
source(s) with
enough
interpretation/
evaluation to
develop a
coherent analysis
or synthesis.
0.5-0 Points
Information is
taken from
source(s) without
any interpretation/
evaluation.
1.5 Points
Thoroughly
(systematically and
methodically)
analyzes own and
others' assumptions
and carefully
evaluates the
relevance of
contexts when
presenting a
position.
1 Point
Identifies own
and others'
assumptions and
several relevant
contexts when
presenting a
position.
0.5 Points
Information is
taken from
source(s) with
some
interpretation/
evaluation, but
not enough to
develop a
coherent analysis
or synthesis.
0.75 Points
Questions some
assumptions.
Identifies several
relevant contexts
when presenting
a position. May
be more aware of
others'
assumptions than
one's own (or
vice versa).
0.5 Points
Conclusions and
related outcomes
(consequences and
implications) are
logical and reflect
student’s informed
evaluation and
ability to place
evidence and
perspectives
discussed in priority
order.
0.25 Points
Conclusion is
logically tied to a
range of
information,
including
opposing
viewpoints;
related outcomes
(consequences
and implications)
are identified
clearly.
0.25 Points
Conclusion is
logically tied to
information
(because
information is
chosen to fit the
desired
conclusion);
some related
outcomes
(consequences
and implications)
are identified
clearly.
Limited
Evidence
0.75-0 Points
Shows an
emerging
awareness of
present
assumptions
(sometimes labels
assertions as
assumptions).
Begins to identify
some contexts
when presenting a
position.
0 Points
Conclusion is
inconsistently tied
to some of the
information
discussed; related
outcomes
(consequences and
implications) are
oversimplified.
Writing
1 Point
Demonstrates
college-level
proficiency in
organization,
grammar and
style.
Work is clearly
organized, well
written, and in
proper format as
outlined in the
assignment.
Strong sentence
and paragraph
structure, contains
no errors in
grammar, spelling,
APA style, or APA
citations and
references.
Total points possible = 05
0.75 Points
Work is fairly
well organized
and written and is
in proper format
as outlined in the
assignment.
Reasonably good
sentence and
paragraph
structure, may
include a few
minor errors in
grammar,
spelling, APA
style, or APA
citations and
references.
0.25 Points
Work is poorly
organized and
written and may
not follow proper
format as
outlined
in the
assignment.
Inconsistent to
inadequate
sentence and
paragraph
0 Points
Work is not
organized or well
written and is not
in proper format as
outlined in the
assignment. Poor
quality work;
unacceptable in
terms of grammar,
spelling, APA
style,
Purchase answer to see full
attachment