Taxes antidumping et règle des faits disponibles
AbstractBecause of the high duties it imposes on imported goods, the antidumping procedure has become an important impediment to free trade. A possible explanation for these high taxes is the ?facts available? rule that allows the agency that administer antidumping to set charges on the basis of information provided solely by domestic firms. This paper focuses on this important feature of the duty determination process. Taking into account a ?domestic politics? effect through a bias toward domestic firms in the agency?s preferences, we show that the facts available rule can imply high antidumping duties both directly and indirectly. Classification JEL : F13, D82.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Presses de Sciences-Po in its journal Revue économique.
Volume (Year): 57 (2006)
Issue (Month): 5 ()
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.cairn.info/revue-economique.htm
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
- D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Bruce A. Blonigen, 2002.
"Evolving Discretionary Practices of U.S. Antidumping Activity,"
University of Oregon Economics Department Working Papers
2003-20, University of Oregon Economics Department, revised 01 Aug 2003.
- Bruce A. Blonigen, 2006. "Evolving discretionary practices of U.S. antidumping activity," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 39(3), pages 874-900, August.
- Bruce A. Blonigen, 2003. "Evolving Discretionary Practices of U.S Antidumping Activity," NBER Working Papers 9625, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Gasmi, Farid & Hansen, Wendy L. & Laffont, Jean Jacques, 1997. "Une analyse empirique des décisions en matière d’antidumping aux États-Unis," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 73(1), pages 423-456, mars-juin.
- Vincent Aussilloux & Gilles Mourre, 2001. "Une révision souhaitable de la procédure antidumping à l'OMC," Revue Française d'Économie, Programme National Persée, vol. 15(4), pages 19-53.
- Moore, Michael O., 2005. ""Facts available" dumping allegations: when will foreign firms cooperate in antidumping petitions?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 185-204, March.
- Philippe Kohler & Michael O. Moore, 2001. "Injury-Based Protection with Auditing under Imperfect Information," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 68(1), pages 42-59, July.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Jean-Baptiste de Vathaire).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.