Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The U.S. textile industry has, over the last 20 years, been transformed from a small-scale, unintegrated, predominantly family-owned industry producing standardized fabrics and yarns in the Northeast to a large-scale, more concentrated, capitalintensive, technologically advanced, and internationally competitive industry located primarily in the Southeast. Pressure for this transformation came from a variety of sources. Primary among them was competition from foreign low-cost producers, initially of cotton textile products and later of man-made textile products. The other major source of pressure came from internal competition by domestic producers intent on introducing structural reforms and technical change. The industry's response to these foreign and domestic pressures took the form of both political and economic measures. The outcome of these measures is a healthier, more profitable, and more competitive textile industry. In view of the performance of the U.S. textile industry—excluding apparel—in world trade and its relative level of efficiency, further protection appears to be unjustified. Consequently, the United States should adopt a more flexible trading position and seek to split off textiles from apparel in the renewed Multifiber Arrangement (MFA).

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

1. All references made in this article to the “textile industry” will refer only to textile products consisting of yarns, fabrics, and miscellaneous made-up goods.

2. In 1957, Japanese cotton textile exports accounted for over 60 percent of total U.S. imports. These imports were concentrated in cotton ginghams and velveteens. In response to these increased imports the U.S. textile industry filed four escape-clause petitions with the U.S. Tariff Commission between January and June of 1956. See U.S. International Trade Commission , The History and Current Status of the Multifiber Arrangement, (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1978), pp. 1-5 (hereafter cited as History and Current Status of the MFA).

and U.S.ITC , History and Current Status of the MFA. One should note that all of the agreements beginning with the Japanese voluntary export controls cover both textile and apparel products.

4. These growth rates are determined from imports measured in millions of equivalent square yards. Data were provided by the Office of Textiles, U.S. Department of Commerce.

5. The delay to negotiate bilateral agreements by the EEC member states was in part due to their lack of agreement over the allocation of imports within the EEC. Furthermore, the community debate over comprehensive or selected agreements further delayed an EEC trade position vis-a-vis textiles.

6. U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration , “Administration Textile Program,” news release, 15 Feb. 1979.

7. Trade data were provided by the Office of Textiles.

8. Mr. Battle's statement was quoted in International Business and Economic Research Corporation , “The MFA and Protectionism in Textiles and Apparel: The Cost of Import Quotas to the United States,” Washington, D.C., July 1981.

9. See statement by Shelley Appleton, secretary-treasurer, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, before the Trade Subcommittee, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, 21 July 1980.

10.

10. For a description of the positions taken by the U.S., EEC, and LDC spokespersons at the July 13-20 meetings in Geneva, see “MFA Talks Stalled as U.S., EC, Third World Fail to Agree on Draft,” U.S. Import Weekly, 22 July 1981, pp. A12-A14.

The Textile Industry

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References