Introduction
Douglas Irwin, analyzing U.S. tariff policy through the lens of a triad—revenue, restriction, and reciprocity—unmasks the hidden paradigms of justification that shape the relationships between the state, the market, and the global order. This article expands on this perspective, examining how these three "Rs" evolve in the context of modern challenges: from the impact of artificial intelligence on international trade to the need for building economic resilience in the face of global shocks. It argues that the traditional understanding of tariff policy, rooted in a liberal consensus, is becoming insufficient in a world marked by inequality, digital asymmetries, and climate threats. It posits that tariff policy, beyond generating revenue and protecting domestic producers, should serve to strengthen resilience and defend democracy, even at the cost of some free trade benefits. It calls for an open debate on the future of trade policy to avoid technocratic management or populist slogans that could undermine the foundations of the global order.
Irwin’s Triad: Revenue, Restriction, and Reciprocity
The logic of tariff policy rests on three pillars. Revenue is the fiscal function of tariffs, which was crucial for the early American republic as it allowed for state funding without deep interference in private property. Restriction refers to protectionism that shields domestic producers, a function that gained prominence with industrialization. Reciprocity, in turn, is a tool for negotiated liberalization. Although U.S. tariff revenues are hitting records in 2025 (over $100 billion annually), their fiscal role remains secondary to political objectives.
The shift from revenue to restriction resulted from industrial development and an asymmetry of motivation. Well-organized interest groups (such as steel or textile lobbies) dominated the legislative process through logrolling—the mutual support of protective tariffs. This led to systemic pathologies, epitomized by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, which catalyzed the collapse of world trade in the 1930s.
Cordell Hull: The Reciprocity Revolution and Tariffs as a Security Shield
The turning point was the 1934 Act, whose architect, Cordell Hull, linked trade with security. Shifting authority to the president was intended to curb lobbying and introduce the principle of reciprocity. Today, this logic is being redefined: tariffs are becoming a "carrot and stick" in relations with China, Mexico, and Canada. They are used to compel action in areas such as migration or the fight against fentanyl, moving beyond classical trade.
Currently, tariffs serve as a national security shield and a tool of industrial policy (e.g., 100% tariffs on Chinese EVs). However, such aggressive use of executive power sparks legal controversy. Appellate courts are increasingly examining the constitutional limits of presidential authority, questioning the legality of certain tariffs introduced under emergency measures.
Resilience, AI, and the Cultural Codes of Trade
Trade is deeply embedded in culture: in the U.S., it is a dispute over the middle-class ethos; in Europe, a tool for exporting norms (climate, social); and in Arab countries, an element of status-seeking. Modern economics (Krugman, Rodrik) warns that tariffs can be a "stray bullet" that hits innovation. Therefore, the author proposes a fourth "R"—Resilience, meaning the protection of strategic sectors (energy, food) for social security.
Artificial intelligence is entering this arena. AI optimizes customs inspections and risk analysis, but it also allows corporations to bypass barriers instantly. There is a risk of technocratic management, where algorithms replace democratic debate. For companies, Irwin’s triad becomes a strategic tool: they must understand the political trajectories of tariffs to consciously manage global supply chains in a world of competing blocs.
Summary
In an era of digital borders and algorithmic trade wars, tariff policy becomes a mirror of our fears and ambitions. Will we manage to transform it into a tool for building lasting resilience, or will we succumb to the temptation of protectionist isolation? The answer to this question will determine the future of the global order and whether we can find a balance between the benefits of trade and the imperative of survival.
📄 Full analysis available in PDF