Tariff-jumping antidumping duties
AbstractUsing a newly constructed database, this paper examines the tariff-jumping response of all firm and product combinations subject to U.S. AD investigations from 1980-1990. The results strongly support the hypothesis that tariff-jumping is only a realistic option for multinational firms from industrialized countries. Because many firms subject to U.S. AD investigations and eventual duties do not have these characteristics, tariff-jumping of U.S. AD protection is relatively modest. It may also explain why developing countries have been more concerned about addressing AD protection in the WTO than industrialized countries. While the raw numbers show a high tariff-response rate for Japanese firms, this is due almost solely to the fact that many of these firms have substantial multinational experience, not due to any Japanese-specific response per se. I also find little evidence that certain U.S. Department of Commerce procedures that use information from the domestic petitioners (rather than the foreign firms) to calculate dumping margins has any impact on tariff-jumping responses.
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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal Journal of International Economics.
Volume (Year): 57 (2002)
Issue (Month): 1 (June)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505552
Other versions of this item:
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 & Robert C. Feenstra, 1996.
"Protectionist Threats and Foreign Direct Investment,"
NBER Working Papers
5475, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Bruce A. Blonigen & Robert C. Feenstra, 1997. "Protectionist Threats and Foreign Direct Investment," NBER Chapters, in: The Effects of U.S. Trade Protection and Promotion Policies, pages 55-80 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Robert Feenstra & Bruce A. Blonigen & Harris Dellas, 2003. "Protectionist Threats and Foreign Direct Investment," Working Papers 961, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
- Bruce A. Blonigen & Robert C. Feenstra, . "Protectionist Threats And Foreign Direct Investment," Department of Economics 96-01, California Davis - Department of Economics.
- Gallaway, Michael P. & Blonigen, Bruce A. & Flynn, Joseph E., 1999. "Welfare costs of the U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty laws," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 211-244, December.
- Thomas J. Prusa, 1997.
"The Trade Effects of U.S. Antidumping Actions,"
in: The Effects of U.S. Trade Protection and Promotion Policies, pages 191-214
National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Buckley, Peter J & Casson, Mark, 1981. "The Optimal Timing of a Foreign Direct Investment," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 91(361), pages 75-87, March.
- Flam, Harry, 1994. "EC members fighting about surplus VERs, FDI and Japanese cars," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1-2), pages 117-131, February.
- René Belderbos, 1997. "Antidumping and tariff Jumping: Japanese firms’ DFI in the European union and the United States," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer, vol. 133(3), pages 419-457, September.
- Brander, James A. & Spencer, Barbara J., 1987. "Foreign direct investment with unemployment and endogenous taxes and tariffs," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(3-4), pages 257-279, May.
- Motta, Massimo, 1992. "Multinational firms and the tariff-jumping argument : A game theoretic analysis with some unconventional conclusions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 1557-1571, December.
- Ellingsen, Tore & Warneryd, Karl, 1999.
"Foreign Direct Investment and the Political Economy of Protection,"
International Economic Review,
Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 40(2), pages 357-79, May.
- Ellingsen, T. & Warneryd, K., 1993. "Foreign direct investment and the political economy of protection," Discussion Paper 1993-8, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
- Smith, Alasdair, 1987. "Strategic investment, multinational corporations and trade policy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(1-2), pages 89-96.
- Haaland, J.I. & Wooton, I., 1995. "Anti-Dumping Jumping: Reciprocal Anti-Dumping and Indutrial Location," Papers 22/95, Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration-.
- Belderbos, Rene & Vandenbussche, Hylke & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 1999. "Undertakings and Antidumping Jumping FDI in Europe," CEPR Discussion Papers 2320, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Levinsohn, James A., 1989. "Strategic trade policy when firms can invest abroad: When are tariffs and quotas equivalent?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(1-2), pages 129-146, August.
- Blonigen, Bruce A. & Ohno, Yuka, 1998. "Endogenous protection, foreign direct investment and protection-building trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 205-227, December.
- Kogut, Bruce & Chang, Sea Jin, 1996. "Platform Investments and Volatility Exchange Rates: Direct Investment in the U.S. by Japanese Electronic Companies," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 78(2), pages 221-31, May.
- Prusa, Thomas J., 1992. "Why are so many antidumping petitions withdrawn?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1-2), pages 1-20, August.
- Barrell, Ray & Pain, Nigel, 1999. "Trade restraints and Japanese direct investment flows," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 29-45, January.
This item has more than 25 citations. To prevent cluttering this page, these citations are listed on a separate page. reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.