Liberalization and protection: antidumping duties in the Indian pharmaceutical industry
AbstractIn this paper we investigate whether antidumping (AD) actions in the Indian pharmaceutical industry have restricted trade from countries that were named to be dumping, or whether trade was diverted to other countries not named in these petitions. We found no evidence of trade diversion. It is bad news for consumers, as a restrictive trade policy translates into higher prices for the importing good. In a country where only 30% of the population can afford access to modern drugs, the trade effect due to AD laws must be carefully evaluated.
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 Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal Journal of Economic Policy Reform.
Volume (Year): 11 (2008)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/GPRE19
Other versions of this item:
- Nisha Malhotra & Shavin Malhotra, 2008. "Liberalization and protection: antidumping duties in the Indian pharmaceutical industry," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 11(2), pages 115-122.
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Hylke VANDENBUSSCHE & Christian VIEGELAHN, 2012.
"Indian Antidumping Measures against China: Evidence from Monthly Trade Data,"
Discussion Papers (IRES - Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales)
2012025, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
- Hylke Vandenbussche & Christian Viegelahn, 2012. "Indian Antidumping Measures against China: Evidence from Monthly Trade Data," LICOS Discussion Papers 32212, LICOS - Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance, KU Leuven.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael McNulty).
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.