IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iat95u/50715.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

ITC Injury Determination and the Abuse of Antidumping Law: Evidence from the United States Manufacturing Industries

Author

Listed:
  • Staiger, Robert W.
  • Wolak, Frank K.

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Staiger, Robert W. & Wolak, Frank K., 1995. "ITC Injury Determination and the Abuse of Antidumping Law: Evidence from the United States Manufacturing Industries," 1995: Understanding Technical Barriers to Agricultural Trade Conference, December 1995, Tucson, Arizona 50715, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iat95u:50715
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.50715
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/50715/files/StaigerRobertW..pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.50715?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Hartigan, James C & Kamma, Sreenivas & Perry, Philip R, 1989. "The Injury Determination Category and the Value of Relief from Dumping," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 71(1), pages 183-186, February.
    3. Thomas J. Prusa, 2021. "Why are so many antidumping petitions withdrawn?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Thomas J Prusa (ed.), Economic Effects of Antidumping, chapter 2, pages 1-20, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Anderson, James E, 1992. "Domino Dumping, I: Competitive Exporters," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(1), pages 65-83, March.
    5. Harrison, Ann, 1991. "The new trade protection : price effects of antidumping and countervailing measures in the United States," Policy Research Working Paper Series 808, The World Bank.
    6. J. M. Finger, 1981. "The Industry-Country Incidence of "Less than Fair Value" Cases in US Import Trade," NBER Chapters, in: Export Diversification and the New Protectionism: The Experiences of Latin America, pages 260-279, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Hansen, Wendy L., 1990. "The International Trade Commission and the Politics of Protectionism," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 84(1), pages 21-46, March.
    8. Anderson, Keith B, 1993. "Agency Discretion or Statutory Direction: Decision Making at the U.S. International Trade Commission," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 36(2), pages 915-935, October.
    9. Thomas J. Prusa, 1991. "The Selection of Antidumping Cases for ITC Determination," NBER Chapters, in: Empirical Studies of Commercial Policy, pages 47-74, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Moore, Michael O, 1992. "Rules or Politics? An Empirical Analysis of ITC Anti-dumping Decisions," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 30(3), pages 449-466, July.
    11. Patrick Messerlin, 1989. "The ec antidumping regulations: A first economic appraisal, 1980–85," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 125(3), pages 563-587, September.
    12. John M. Abowd, 1990. "The NBER Immigration, Trade, and Labor Markets Data Files," NBER Working Papers 3351, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Salvatore, Dominick, 1987. "Import penetration, exchange rates, and protectionism in the United States," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 125-141.
    14. Patrick A. Messerlin, 1990. "Anti-Dumping Regulations or Pro-Cartel Law? The EC Chemical Cases," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(4), pages 465-492, December.
    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. 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.
    2. Bruce A. Blonigen & Jee-Hyeong Park, 2004. "Dynamic Pricing in the Presence of Antidumping Policy: Theory and Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(1), pages 134-154, March.
    3. 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..
    4. Bruce A. Blonigen & Thomas J. Prusa, 2001. "Antidumping," NBER Working Papers 8398, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Nelson, Douglas, 2006. "The political economy of antidumping: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 554-590, September.
    6. Kokko, Ari & Gustavsson Tingvall, Patrik & Videnord, Josefin, 2017. "Which Antidumping Cases Reach the WTO?," Ratio Working Papers 286, The Ratio Institute.
    7. Jae W. Chung, 1998. "Effects of U.S. Trade Remedy Law Enforcement under Uncertainty: The Case of Steel," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 151-159, July.
    8. Robert W. Staiger & Frank A. Wolak, 1996. "Differences in the Uses and Effects of Antidumping Law across Import Sources," NBER Chapters, in: The Political Economy of American Trade Policy, pages 385-422, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Jozef Konings & Hylke Vandenbussche & Linda Springael, 2001. "Import Diversion under European Antidumping Policy," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 1(3), pages 283-299, September.
    10. Laura Rovegno, 2013. "Trade protection and market power: evidence from US antidumping and countervailing duties," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 149(3), pages 443-476, September.
    11. Michel DE VROEY, 2013. "What can civil society expect from academic macroeconomics?," LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 2013022, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    12. Blonigen, Bruce A. & Bown, Chad P., 2003. "Antidumping and retaliation threats," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 249-273, August.
    13. Laura ROVEGNO, 2013. "Endogenous trade restrictions and exporters’ pricing," LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 2013023, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    14. 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.
    15. Meredith A. Crowley, 2001. "Antidumping policy under imperfect competition," Working Paper Series WP-01-21, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
    16. Bruce Blonigen & Thomas Prusa, 2003. "The Cost of Antidumping: the Devil is in the Details," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(4), pages 233-245.
    17. 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.
    18. Chung, Jae W., 1999. "Insights Into Trade Protection under U.S. Trade Remedy Laws," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 375-387, May.
    19. Maya Cohen-Meidan, "undated". "Vertical Integration and Trade Protection: The Case of Antidumping Duties," Discussion Papers 08-034, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    20. Aquilante, Tommaso, 2018. "Undeflected pressure? The protectionist effect of political partisanship on US antidumping policy," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 455-470.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    International Relations/Trade;

    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:ags:iat95u:50715. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iatrcea.html .

    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.