Overview
U.S. export controls are relational: an item's technical facts, destination, end user, and end use shape authorization, while a firm's connected operations shape how far consequences travel. The series moves from classification and screening to the measured perimeter, where EAR-subject export value rose from about 33% in 2010 to about 60% in 2024, largely through EAR99. It then compares firm exposure and tests the defined 2014 Russia oil-sector restriction against China. The study finds lower targeted exports and, among firms with positive activity, lower non-targeted exports, other-destination exports, total exports, and payroll relative to the comparison group. Production, compliance, services, reputation, and uncertainty are plausible channels, not separately identified effects; security benefits and net welfare are not measured.
Learning outcomes
- Authorization depends on technical classification, destination, end user, end use, and applicable conditions; EAR99 is not a blanket exemption.
- EAR-subject export value rose from about 33% of U.S. exports in 2010 to about 60% in 2024, largely through EAR99.
- Relative to China, the 2014 Russia restriction was associated with lower targeted-export probability and, among firms with positive values, lower broader export values and payroll.
- Production links, compliance work, services, reputation, and uncertainty are plausible channels, but the study does not separately identify them or quantify security benefits.
Keywords
Preview every chapter · Unlock full text, audio, and video from chapter 4
PlansFAQ
When is a U.S. export controlled?
Under the EAR, the answer depends on the item's technical characteristics and classification, destination, end user, end use, and other restrictions; EAR99 is not a blanket exemption.
Did the 2014 Russia oil-sector export controls affect only targeted products?
No. Relative to comparable China exporters, the study found lower targeted exports and, among firms with positive values, lower non-targeted exports, other-destination exports, total exports, and payroll; it does not isolate each mechanism.
How did the U.S. export-control perimeter change from 2010 to 2024?
Measured EAR-subject export value rose from about 33% to about 60%, largely because EAR99 rose from about 23% to about 45%; this is not a measure of license volume or compliance cost.
What do the Russia results establish about export-control costs?
They support a policy-linked firm-level contraction among the studied Russia-exposed exporters, including lower intensive-margin exports and payroll, but do not quantify compliance costs, security benefits, or net welfare.