<p>The major reasons that I understand are that:</p>

<ul>
<li><p><s>the Chinese government subsidizes shipping.</s></p></li>
<li><p>the US Postal Service, eBay China, and Hong Kong Post office have a trilateral agreement called the ePacket service which roughly speaking, allows shipping of small packages to the US at bulk pricing (instead of at the price for individual sales).</p></li>
</ul>

<p>I don't think it's common for there to be "free" shipping though.</p>

<p><a href="https://www.ft.com/content/4f4d1240-024a-11e6-99cb-83242733f755" rel="nofollow noreferrer">I'm retracting the part about China subsidizing exporters.</a></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-13T19:09:11.180Z
"Chinese government subsidizes shipping" Any source for this?
Giskard
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-13T19:10:58.787Z
Also is it not possible that arrival to the US (perhaps even to individual states) is in bulk, and delivery to specific addresses is negotiated with the Postal service? This would greatly decrease transport costs.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-13T19:43:20.963Z
I do recall that the Chinese government DID subsidize places like the China Post to make exports cheaper, but since then China's government has dropped a lot of export subsidies. So I'll retract that part. https://www.ft.com/content/4f4d1240-024a-11e6-99cb-83242733f755
Kitsune Cavalry
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-13T19:50:39.347Z
As for the exact nature of the ePackets agreement, I am not sure of the minutia, but I don't think it quite works as you describe. There's supposedly a 2kg limit for small sellers. Of course international agreements are not my strong suit in econ, so, I'm free to hear from someone more qualified on this topic.
Kitsune Cavalry
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-13T19:52:01.153Z
Most articles I'm finding on the ePackets agreement are politically motivated (for obvious reasons) which does not help matters, lol.
Kitsune Cavalry
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-13T19:53:16.713Z
I don't think small sellers sell the $3 lights. I think it is a giant factory with a retailer who owns warehouse in the US. Shipping to the warehouse is in bulk, shipping from the warehouse uses the postal service.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-13T20:00:12.560Z
I think that's a plausible explanation.
Kitsune Cavalry
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-13T18:31:29.987Z
2017-03-13T19:44:51.537Z
2017-03-13T19:44:51.537Z
Kitsune Cavalry
<p>How is it possible that Chinese vendors are able to ship a small / light $3 part to a doorstep in the US for free?  When shipping items the opposite way via USPS it is often greater than the cost of the part making it cost infeasible to return.   Is shipping somehow subsidized?</p>

<international-trade><china><subsidies>
How is it possible that shipping of eBay items from China to US is 'free'?
gatorback
# How is it possible that shipping of eBay items from China to US is 'free'?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-03-13)

How is it possible that Chinese vendors are able to ship a small / light $3 part to a doorstep in the US for free? When shipping items the opposite way via USPS it is often greater than the cost of the part making it cost infeasible to return. Is shipping somehow subsidized?

**Tags:** international-trade, china, subsidies


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2017-03-13. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

The major reasons that I understand are that:

* ~~the Chinese government subsidizes shipping.~~
* the US Postal Service, eBay China, and Hong Kong Post office have a trilateral agreement called the ePacket service which roughly speaking, allows shipping of small packages to the US at bulk pricing (instead of at the price for individual sales).

I don't think it's common for there to be "free" shipping though.

[I'm retracting the part about China subsidizing exporters.](https://www.ft.com/content/4f4d1240-024a-11e6-99cb-83242733f755)

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: "Chinese government subsidizes shipping" Any source for this?  
> **username_2**: Also is it not possible that arrival to the US (perhaps even to individual states) is in bulk, and delivery to specific addresses is negotiated with the Postal service? This would greatly decrease transport costs.  
> **username_1**: I do recall that the Chinese government DID subsidize places like the China Post to make exports cheaper, but since then China's government has dropped a lot of export subsidies. So I'll retract that part. https://www.ft.com/content/4f4d1240-024a-11e6-99cb-83242733f755  
> **username_1**: As for the exact nature of the ePackets agreement, I am not sure of the minutia, but I don't think it quite works as you describe. There's supposedly a 2kg limit for small sellers. Of course international agreements are not my strong suit in econ, so, I'm free to hear from someone more qualified on this topic.  
> **username_1**: Most articles I'm finding on the ePackets agreement are politically motivated (for obvious reasons) which does not help matters, lol.  
> **username_2**: I don't think small sellers sell the $3 lights. I think it is a giant factory with a retailer who owns warehouse in the US. Shipping to the warehouse is in bulk, shipping from the warehouse uses the postal service.  
> **username_1**: I think that's a plausible explanation.  

---

