IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jecprf/v10y2007i2p89-109.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Determinants of Withdrawals of Anti‐Dumping Complaints in the EU

Author

Listed:
  • Aleksander Rutkowski

Abstract

The study proposes a model explaining what determines the emergence (or re‐emergence) of collusion between complainants and defendants during anti‐dumping (AD) investigations. Based on theoretical and empirical evidence, we assume that collusion results in withdrawals of complaints and is thus observable. The probability of collusion can be explained by the variables from four areas: domestic political economy, international strategic trade policy, international industry‐level bargaining, and industry and product characteristics. The model is verified with probit regressions for the EU AD cases, having good explanatory power.

Suggested Citation

  • Aleksander Rutkowski, 2007. "Determinants of Withdrawals of Anti‐Dumping Complaints in the EU," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 10(2), pages 89-109.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jecprf:v:10:y:2007:i:2:p:89-109
    DOI: 10.1080/17487870701346449
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/17487870701346449
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/17487870701346449?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert W. Staiger & Frank A. Wolak, 1989. "Strategic Use of Antidumping Law to Enforce Tacit International Collusion," NBER Working Papers 3016, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. repec:hoo:wpaper:e-89-20 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maurizio Zanardi, 2004. "Antidumping law as a collusive device," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 37(1), pages 95-122, February.
    2. Xenia Matschke & Anja Schöttner, 2013. "Antidumping as Strategic Trade Policy under Asymmetric Information," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 80(1), pages 81-105, July.
    3. Blonigen, Bruce A. & Liebman, Benjamin H. & Pierce, Justin R. & Wilson, Wesley W., 2013. "Are all trade protection policies created equal? Empirical evidence for nonequivalent market power effects of tariffs and quotas," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 369-378.
    4. Martin Theuringer & Pia Weiss, 2001. "Do Anti-Dumping Rules Facilitate the Abuse of Market Dominance?," International Trade 0108002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Anderson, Simon P. & Schmitt, Nicolas & Thisse, Jacques-Francois, 1995. "Who benefits from antidumping legislation?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(3-4), pages 321-337, May.
    6. Maurizio Zanardi, 2004. "Anti‐dumping: What are the Numbers to Discuss at Doha?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 403-433, March.
    7. Dobrin R. Kolev & Thomas J. Prusa, 2021. "Dumping and double crossing: The (in)effectiveness of cost-based trade policy under incomplete information," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Thomas J Prusa (ed.), Economic Effects of Antidumping, chapter 7, pages 129-152, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Robert W. Staiger & Frank A. Wolak, 1994. "Measuring Industry-Specific Protection: Antidumping in the United States," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 25(1994 Micr), pages 51-118.
    9. Aradhna Aggrawal, 2003. "The WTO antidumping code: Issues for review in Post-Doha negotiations," Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, New Delhi Working Papers 99, Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, New Delhi, India.
    10. Thomas J. Prusa, 2021. "The Trade Effects of U.S. Antidumping Actions," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Thomas J Prusa (ed.), Economic Effects of Antidumping, chapter 3, pages 21-43, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    11. Aleksander Rutkowski, 2007. "Determinants of Withdrawals of Anti-Dumping Complaints in the EU," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 10(2), pages 89-109.
    12. Jens Metge & Pia Weiss, 2011. "Protecting The Domestic Market: Industrial Policy And Strategic Firm Behavior," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 56(02), pages 159-174.
    13. Bruce A. Blonigen & Thomas J. Prusa, 2001. "Antidumping," NBER Working Papers 8398, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Park, Soonchan, 2009. "The trade depressing and trade diversion effects of antidumping actions: The case of China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 542-548, September.
    15. Vosgerau, Hans-Jürgen, 1993. "Trade policy and competition policy in Europe: Complementarities and contradictions," Discussion Papers, Series II 198, University of Konstanz, Collaborative Research Centre (SFB) 178 "Internationalization of the Economy".
    16. Colin A. Carter & Tina L. Saitone & K. Aleks Schaefer, 2019. "Managed trade: The USMexico sugar suspension agreements," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 52(3), pages 1195-1222, August.
    17. Aleksander Rutkowski, 2007. "Withdrawals of Anti‐dumping Complaints in the EU: A Sign of Collusion," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(3), pages 470-503, March.
    18. Patrice Cassagnard, 2009. "Antidumping, Social Quality of Goods and Smear Campaign," Working papers of CATT hal-01880359, HAL.
    19. Chad P. Bown & Rachel McCulloch, 2012. "Antidumping and Market Competition: Implications for Emerging Economies," Working Papers 50, Brandeis University, Department of Economics and International Business School.
    20. Gnutzmann-Mkrtchyan, Arevik & Hoffstadt, Martin, 2020. "Use and Abuse of Antidumping by Global Cartels," Hannover Economic Papers (HEP) dp-677, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jecprf:v:10:y:2007:i:2:p:89-109. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/GPRE20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.