This paper examines two core topics in international business. The first section analyzes trade wars — specifically involving chickens and tires between the U.S., Russia, and China — through the lens of comparative advantage, arguing that trade barriers generally harm consumers while benefiting narrow domestic interests. The second section applies Hofstede's cultural dimensions framework to compare Brazilian and American business cultures, highlighting differences in risk aversion, individualism, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance. The paper concludes that while national security and domestic employment concerns can justify some trade protections, the overall economic costs outweigh the gains, and that American companies must develop a nuanced understanding of Brazilian culture to succeed in that market.
The paper demonstrates framework-driven comparative analysis: it introduces an established theoretical model (comparative advantage in Part 1; Hofstede's dimensions in Part 2) and then applies each dimension systematically to a real-world context. This technique allows the writer to move from abstract principle to concrete implication without drifting into unsupported assertion.
The paper is organized into two self-contained analytical sections. The first addresses trade policy, moving from theoretical grounding (comparative advantage) through counterarguments (national security, employment) to an overall cost–benefit conclusion. The second section addresses cross-cultural business, moving from macro-level cultural dimensions through firm-to-firm implications to a practical recommendation for American companies. Each section follows an introduce-complicate-conclude logic that mirrors standard argumentative essay structure.
In general, trade wars are not beneficial to the people in the countries involved. In each of the cases examined here — Russia's restrictions on American chickens and U.S. tariffs on Chinese tires — trade barriers appear to have been erected primarily for political reasons. In both instances, the barriers seem designed to protect domestic jobs from foreign competition. The problem with that approach is that competition keeps prices down for consumers. This relates directly to the theory of comparative advantage. If China can produce tires at a lower cost than the United States can, then the U.S. should import its tires from China. Likewise, if the U.S. can produce chickens at a lower cost than China can, then China — and Russia — should import American chickens.
However, trade wars arise from complex situations that go far beyond what Ricardo described. With respect to chickens, for example, the underlying issue is food security. Most nations take the view that food security is a critical national security issue. Being able to feed itself helped Britain survive World War Two. China's entire economic overhaul since 1979 has been driven in large part by the need to eliminate the famines that caused rural unrest and threatened the Communist Party's rule.
With an issue like tires, the United States is working to protect domestic employment. While tires may be less a national security concern than food, tires are a product in which the U.S. would want to maintain some domestic production capacity. In addition, domestic jobs are protected in certain sectors, even at the expense of consumer prices.
Despite these alternate considerations, the economic gains from trade wars are spurious at best. Prices tend to rise. Local producers, knowing that the government will protect them, reduce their level of innovation, resulting in even higher costs of production in the future. Trade barriers can also spur innovation by other countries, as those countries seek to improve efficiency to offset the tariffs that have been erected.
These differences can have a significant impact on business activities. At the broader cultural level, the government is much more actively involved in the economy in Brazil than in the United States. Where a firm can conduct business in the U.S. with little more than routine government paperwork, in Brazil the government may take an active role in transactions of all sizes. The public interest and the greater good are taken into consideration when making decisions, not just the firm-specific economic consequences of a deal. It may be difficult for American companies to adjust to this high level of government intervention — especially when that intervention occurs after a deal has been reached. Difficulties in dealing with the Brazilian government may be compounded by the country's relatively high rate of corruption (Michener, 2011).
You’re 44% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.