[🇺🇸] USA News/Views

[🇺🇸] USA News/Views
82
3K
More threads by Saif

G   American Defense

Alarming rise of NTMs

Asjadul Kibria

Published :
Jun 06, 2026 23:43
Updated :
Jun 06, 2026 23:43

1780792297210.webp


Following US President Donald Trump's tariff blitz last year, countries worldwide have been shaken by the rise in tariff barriers. Trump's move provoked many countries to impose higher tariffs on imports, increasing trade costs for their partners. Besides the surge in tariffs, the rise in non-tariff barriers (NTBs) has become a serious problem for developing nations. Though non-tariff measures (NTMs) are not new in global trade, and countries have continuously struggled to address them, recently, a new wave of NTMs has evolved into NTBs.

UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD), in its latest global trade update, highlighted the issue. Released last month, the report showed tariffs increased sharply in 2025, rising by 10 per cent for developed countries, 16 per cent for developing countries, and 18 per cent for least developed countries (LDCs). Even so, tariffs are not the main cost for most countries because NTMs impose higher export costs than tariffs for 88 per cent of nations. "They include technical regulations, health and safety requirements, and administrative procedures," said the UNCTAD report. "They often involve compliance, information and procedural costs." NTMs such as regulations, mandatory standards, or product requirements now drive most trade costs, shaping who trades, what is traded, and to which markets. "For developing countries, this creates a double burden. They face higher tariffs while also trying to meet increasingly complex rules," it added.

NTMs are broadly defined as policy measures other than tariffs that affect international trade in goods. Most NTMs are technical measures aimed at protecting public health and the environment and are essential public policy instruments. Nevertheless, they may have substantial trade effects by generating information, compliance, and procedural costs. Some NTMs are NTBs, such as import licensing requirements, quotas, import prohibitions, and export bans. These tools generally limit or restrict the export or import of various products.

The international classification of NTMs includes: Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures; Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT); Pre-shipment Inspection and other formalities; Contingent trade-protective measures; Non-automatic licensing, quotas, prohibitions, and quantity control; Price-control measures; and Export-related Measures. The first three NTMs are technical measures, and all the rest are non-technical measures. There are other NTMs like finance measures; measures affecting competition, trade-related investment measures; distribution restrictions; restrictions on post-sales services; subsidies and other forms of support; government procurement restrictions; intellectual property (IP) and rules of origin.

The scope of NTMs is very wide, with overlaps among various measures. Different countries use different measures in different ways for different purposes. NTMs are mostly linked to domestic public policies, and no single focal point administers them. Except for a few quantitative measures (e.g., quotas), most NTMs are qualitative.

There are three relevant World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements : General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT), Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement), and Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement). GATT provisions seek to ensure that WTO members abide by trade liberalisation commitments and do not re-impose protective or restrictive measures through domestic policies or NTMs that discriminate against imports. The TBT agreement aims to standardise technical regulations and their application. The SPS agreement asks WTO members to base measures for the protection of human, animal, or plant life or health on international standards. Both the TBT and SPS agreements restrain members from setting and applying standards that are more trade-restrictive than necessary to achieve a legitimate objective.

Due to the diversity and complexity of NTMs, it is difficult for developing countries like Bangladesh to understand the measures and take adequate steps to address them. Resource constraints and a lack of skilled manpower make NTMs more challenging for these countries. While developed and some advanced developing nations deploy significant resources to deal with NTMs effectively, others struggle to develop the necessary human resources, technical knowledge, and logistics. That is why NTMs become more burdensome for these countries.

Over the decades, Bangladesh's exports have faced various NTMs in different potential markets. Despite market access thanks to lower tariffs, NTMs often act as NTBs, blocking the potential penetration of Bangladesh-made goods. The country's exports to India have faced various NTBs over the decades despite tariff-free access to most products. Nevertheless, Bangladesh has succeeded to some extent in dealing with Indian NTMs by improving product standards and adjusting other requirements for the Indian market. Exports to India increased modestly over the decades, though still below potential. After the fall of the autocratic Hasina regime, bilateral relations with India were strained during the Yunus-led interim regime. New Delhi, unwilling to accept the changed reality in Bangladesh, imposed several NTBs, making exports more expensive. The Hasina regime was subservient to India, persistently compromising Bangladesh's greater interests. The fall of the regime through the July revolution in 2024, at the cost of at least 1,400 lives, fuelled anti-Indian sentiment in the country.

India's use of NTBs also revealed its hostility toward Bangladesh, showing how trade tools are used to enhance geopolitical pressure. For example, India restricted land ports for exporting goods from Bangladesh and imposed conditions on the use of sea ports, thereby increasing export costs. Though Dhaka requested a discussion on NTBs, New Delhi has given no positive response, indicating its unwillingness to remove the barriers soon.

Like India, other countries also use NTMs and NTBs, mainly for geopolitical reasons. That's why the UNCTAD report mentioned: "Governments are increasingly using NTMs to advance objectives linked to economic nationalism and economic security, as both developed and developing economies seek not only to protect domestic industries but also to shape and secure control over key global value chains, underscoring a broader trend toward the strategic use of interdependence."

The report also noted that recent US trade deals focus heavily on easing regulatory and administrative requirements for US exporters. Most of these include sector-specific provisions on the recognition of US standards and conformity assessment for vehicles, pharmaceuticals and agricultural food products in bilateral trade. For instance, as noted in the UNCTAD report, under the Bangladesh-US Agreement on Reciprocal Trade, Bangladesh recognises the US vehicle standards (TBT) and the US Food and Drug Administration certificates for the automotive, medical devices, and pharmaceutical sectors. The agreement compels Bangladesh not to impose a number of NTBs on US goods.

The UNCTAD report further noted that in some countries, negotiations covered the removal of local content requirements, as well as the elimination or simplification of import licenses. "With Indonesia and Malaysia, agreements also covered strategically important critical minerals, with countries agreeing to refrain from imposing any type of export restrictions," it added.

To address the challenge of rising NTBs, the UN agency urged greater transparency to reduce the costs associated with NTMs. "Improving transparency can reduce trade costs associated with non-tariff barriers by about 19 per cent. When countries fail to notify measures, the costs are comparable to imposing a 28 per cent tariff," it pointed out. "Small companies with limited resources, these hidden costs can be enough to completely exclude them from entering or participating in the global market."

For Bangladesh, dealing with NTMs in the coming days will be more challenging, as NTMs worldwide are rising amid increased focus on national security and geopolitical concerns. Extensive effort is needed to strengthen the capacity in this regard.​
 

Myanmar detains US businessman who wrote about military coup, sources say

REUTERS

Published :
Jun 12, 2026 16:18
Updated :
Jun 12, 2026 16:18

1781319316349.webp


Representational photo: A view shows burnt houses in Kin Ma Village, Pauk Township, Magway Region, Myanmar Jun 16, 2021, in this picture obtained by Reuters from social media.

An American businessman who wrote a book about living through a military coup in Myanmar was detained on his return to the Southeast Asian nation on Thursday, according to two people briefed on the matter.

Adam Castillo, a former head of the American Chamber of Commerce in Myanmar who is based in Yangon where he runs a security firm, was stopped at an airport after travelling to the country, one of the people said.

A US State Department spokesperson said it was aware of reports of the detention of an American in Myanmar but had no further comment “due to privacy concerns”.

A spokesperson for the military-backed government did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Castillo had been abroad promoting his book, Finding Our Voice, about staying in Myanmar following the 2021 coup that threw the country into turmoil, according to social media posts.

The military’s power grab ended a brief experiment in democratic rule under Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, and sparked a civil war between the army and a coalition of pro-democracy armed resistance forces allied to long-established ethnic minority groups.

In early April, former junta chief Min Aung Hlaing ⁠was sworn in as the country’s president, following a widely criticised, military-engineered election that excluded the main opposition groups, including Suu Kyi’s political party, and was conducted in the throes of conflict.

Castillo, a former US Marine, last year visited the White House and suggested to officials that the United States play a peace-broker role with a view to accessing rare earth minerals, Reuters reported.

His book chronicles the military’s bloody crackdown on pro-democracy protesters but also criticises Washington’s policy, including sanctions, as ineffective and advocates for more business engagement.​
 

Why Does the US stock market exceed GDP?

Abdullah A Dewan

Published :
Jun 21, 2026 00:09
Updated :
Jun 21, 2026 00:09

1782086370051.webp


One of the more intriguing facts in modern economics is that the value of the United States (US) stock market substantially exceeds the country's annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP), while in many other nations' stock market capitalisations and GDPs are roughly equal. At first glance, this appears paradoxical. How can the value of listed companies exceed the value of everything produced in a year?

The answer lies in the fundamental difference between what GDP measures and what stock markets value. GDP is an annual flow of goods and services produced within a country's borders during a single year. Stock market capitalisation, by contrast, is a stock measure representing the discounted present value of expected future profits. One measures current production; the other measures future earning power. Because stock markets look forward while GDP looks backward, a substantial gap between the two is not only possible but often expected.

A second distinction is that GDP measures economic activity occurring within national borders, whereas stock market capitalization reflects the value of companies wherever they earn their profits. American corporations generate substantial revenues and profits throughout the world. Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, Alphabet, Amazon, and Meta derive a significant share of their earnings from international markets. GDP captures only the portion of their activities occurring within the US, while market capitalization reflects investors' expectations regarding future profits generated across the globe. In effect, US stock valuations incorporate worldwide income streams that never appear in US GDP statistics.

Using year-end 2025 estimates, the US stock market was worth about $69 trillion, while GDP was roughly $31 trillion, producing a market-cap-to-GDP ratio near 221 per cent.

The phenomenon can also be understood through the smile curve of value creation. The greatest profits are often captured at the two ends of the production process: research and development on one side, and branding, marketing, finance, logistics, and distribution on the other. The middle-the physical manufacturing and assembly stage-typically earns the smallest share of value added. Many American firms dominate these highly profitable ends of the smile curve. Their market valuations therefore reflect control over ideas, technology, intellectual property, software ecosystems, global brands, and financial networks rather than merely the value of physical goods produced. Countries that primarily occupy the manufacturing middle of the smile curve may generate substantial output yet capture only a modest share of the profits.

This distinction highlights the growing importance of intangible capital. Traditional economies were built upon factories, machinery, land, and physical infrastructure. Today's leading corporations increasingly derive their value from patents, algorithms, software, data, trademarks, and intellectual property. Unlike physical assets, these intangible assets can be scaled globally at very low marginal cost. A steel mill can produce only so much steel, but a software platform can add millions of users without constructing another factory. Financial markets place high valuations on such scalable future earnings, causing market capitalization to rise far faster than GDP.

The depth and sophistication of financial markets further magnify this effect. The U.S. possesses the world's largest, most liquid, and most trusted capital markets. Pension funds, mutual funds, insurance companies, sovereign wealth funds, and individual investors from around the world continuously channel savings into American equities. This enormous pool of capital increases demand for shares and supports higher valuations than would be expected from domestic GDP alone.

Institutional quality also matters. Investors place a premium on countries with reliable property rights, transparent accounting standards, independent courts, strong corporate governance, and predictable regulatory environments. Future profits are worth more when investors have confidence that those profits will be protected and enforceable. The rule of law, therefore, acts as a valuation multiplier. Countries with weaker institutions often experience lower stock valuations even when their economies are productive.

Another frequently overlooked factor is the way corporations are financed. The US relies heavily on public equity markets to fund business expansion. Much of corporate wealth therefore becomes visible through stock exchanges. By contrast, countries such as Germany traditionally rely more on bank-centered financing. Many highly successful firms remain privately held, family-owned, or financed through commercial banks rather than public stock markets. These firms contribute significantly to GDP but do not appear in market-capitalization statistics. Consequently, stock market value remains closer to GDP even though economic performance may be strong.

Pension systems also influence market size. In the US, retirement savings flow heavily into 401(k) plans, IRAs, mutual funds, and pension portfolios invested in equities. This creates a continuous institutional demand for stocks. In countries with large state-funded pay-as-you-go pension systems, household savings often bypass equity markets altogether. The result is a smaller stock market relative to GDP.

Interest rates provide another important explanation. Stock prices reflect the present value of future earnings. Lower interest rates reduce the discount rate applied to those earnings and thereby increase stock valuations. Over the past several decades, the U.S. has benefited from relatively low borrowing costs and deep capital markets. Investors have consequently been willing to pay higher multiples for future growth. Higher interest-rate environments generally produce lower market valuations relative to GDP.

The dollar's status as the world's principal reserve currency amplifies all these forces. Governments, central banks, corporations, and investors around the world hold dollar-denominated assets as stores of value. As global savings flow into American financial markets, US equities enjoy a structural valuation premium unavailable to most other countries. The world's confidence in the dollar effectively raises the value of American financial assets beyond what domestic economic activity alone might justify.

The distribution of income between labour and capital also matters. Countries with identical GDP levels can exhibit very different stock market valuations depending on how national income is divided. Where a larger share of economic output accrues to corporate profits, stock market capitalization naturally rises. Where more output flows to wages, social programs, or public-sector expenditures, stock market valuations tend to be lower. The Anglo-American economic model generally channels a larger share of income toward corporate earnings than many continental European systems, contributing to higher equity valuations.

International comparisons illustrate these differences clearly. Switzerland frequently records stock market capitalisation well above GDP because of globally dominant pharmaceutical and financial firms. Germany, despite its formidable industrial strength, often exhibits a lower ratio because many successful enterprises remain privately owned. Australia's ratio tends to hover closer to GDP because its market is concentrated in banking and natural-resource companies. China, despite possessing one of the world's largest economies, typically maintains a lower ratio than the U.S. because of state ownership, regulatory constraints, and differences in capital-market development.

Taken together, these factors reveal that the ratio of stock market capitalisation to GDP is far more than a financial statistic. It serves as a window into how nations create, capture, and retain economic value. Countries concentrated in manufacturing, commodities, agriculture, and domestic services may produce large volumes of output yet capture a smaller share of global profits. Countries that dominate innovation, intellectual property, software, finance, branding, and global distribution occupy the profitable ends of the smile curve and retain a disproportionate share of value added.

A further insight emerges from these international comparisons. Wealth alone does not create an extraordinarily large stock market. Many countries are wealthy because of natural resources, yet their market capitalisation remains relatively close to GDP. The distinguishing factor is often innovation. For example, a barrel of oil produces income once; a patented technology can produce income repeatedly for decades. A factory expands output incrementally; a software platform can serve millions of additional users at minimal cost.

Viewed through this lens, the gap between stock market capitalisation and GDP is not merely a measure of financial wealth, but a measure of where economic power resides. In a well-functioning economy, GDP growth and stock market value often reinforce one another, yet the decisive factor is not the volume of current output but the ability to transform knowledge, technology, and intellectual property into scalable future earnings.

In the twenty-first century, value increasingly belongs not to those who merely manufacture products, but to those who create ideas, control technology, own brands, and command the global channels through which value flows. The stock market therefore reflects not simply what an economy produces today, but what investors believe will continue to earn tomorrow. That is why America's market capitalization towers over its GDP, while many other nations remain much closer to parity.

Dr Abdullah A. Dewan is Professor Emeritus of Economics at Eastern Michigan University (USA); former physicist and nuclear engineer at the Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission (BAEC).​
 

Latest Posts

Back