This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

What explains the proliferation of antidumping laws?

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
VANDENBUSSCHE, Hylke (UniversitŽ catholique de Louvain (UCL). Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE))
ZANARDI, Maurizio

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

A recent phenomenon is the rapid spread of Antidumping (AD) laws mainly amongst developing countries (i.e. China, India, Mexico). Between 1980 and 2003 the number of countries in the world with an AD law more than doubled going from 36 to 97 countries. This proliferation of trade protection laws amongst developing countries is likely to have substantial implications for trade as recently shown by Vandenbussche and Zanardi (2007). The purpose of this paper is to use a duration analysis to investigate the determinants leading a country to adopt an AD law. We also analyze the related question of what explains the heterogeneity between countries that can be observed in terms of the time between adoption and their first use of the AD law. We find strong evidence that retaliatory motives are at the heart of the proliferation decision as countries that were targeted by AD actions of traditional users in the past (i.e., US, EU) are much more likely to adopt an AD law. Also, our evidence suggests that past trade liberalization substantially increases the probability of a country to adopt an AD law. In addition, we find that the size of the chemicals sector and the extent of steel imports are positively correlated with the probability to adopt. The amount of inward FDI on the other hand has a clear negative effect on the probability to adopt. While short term macroeconomic factors like GDP growth and exchange rate volatility seem to matter less for adoption, asymmetric regional shocks and the development level of a country seem to raise the probability of starting to use an AD law. Our results are robust to several specifications of duration models.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. 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.

File URL: http://www.uclouvain.be/cps/ucl/doc/core/documents/coredp2007_66.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE) in its series CORE Discussion Papers with number 2007066.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: 01 Aug 2007
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:cor:louvco:2007066

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Voie du Roman Pays 34, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium)
Phone: 32(10)474321
Fax: +32 10474301
Email:
Web page: http://www.uclouvain.be/core
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Alain GILLIS).

Related research
Keywords: antidumping; trade liberalization; GATT/WTO;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:
F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
F14 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Country and Industry Studies of Trade

References listed on IDEAS
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.:

  1. Rauch, James E., 1999. "Networks versus markets in international trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 7-35, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  2. Sarosh Kuruvilla & Subesh Das & Hyunji Kwon & Soonwon Kwon, 2002. "Trade Union Growth and Decline in Asia," British Journal of Industrial Relations, Blackwell Publishers Ltd/London School of Economics, vol. 40(3), pages 431-461, 09. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  3. Vandenbussche, Hylke & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 1996. "European Anti-dumping Policy and the Profitability of National and International Collusion," CEPR Discussion Papers 1469, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  4. Moore, Michael O. & Zanardi, Maurizio, 2006. "Does antidumping use contribute to trade liberalization? : an empirical analysis," Discussion Paper 61, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research. [Downloadable!]
  5. Robert Staiger & Frank Wolak, 1994. "Measuring Industry Specific Protection: Antidumping in the United States," International Trade 9410004, EconWPA. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  6. Sapir, Andre & Trachtman, Joel P., 2008. "Subsidization, price suppression, and expertise: causation and precision in Upland Cotton," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(01), pages 183-209, January. [Downloadable!]
  7. Grossman, Gene M & Helpman, Elhanan, 1994. "Protection for Sale," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(4), pages 833-50, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  8. Mario Cleves & William W. Gould & Roberto G. Gutierrez & Yulia Marchenko, 2008. "An Introduction to Survival Analysis Using Stata, 2nd Edition," Stata Press books, StataCorp LP, number saus, November-. [Downloadable!]
  9. Blonigen, Bruce A. & Bown, Chad P., 2003. "Antidumping and retaliation threats," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 249-273, August. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  10. Thomas J. Prusa, 2001. "On the spread and impact of anti-dumping," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 34(3), pages 591-611, August. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  11. 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. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  12. Prusa, Thomas J., 1992. "Why are so many antidumping petitions withdrawn?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1-2), pages 1-20, August. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  13. Maurizio Zanardi, 2004. "Anti-dumping: What are the Numbers to Discuss at Doha?," The World Economy, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 27(3), pages 403-433, 03. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  14. Robert M. Feinberg & Kara M. Reynolds, 2006. "The Spread of Antidumping Regimes and the Role of Retaliation in Filings," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 72(4), pages 877–890, April.
    Other versions:
  15. repec:cup:jechis:v:60:y:2008:i:02:p:335-360_00 is not listed on IDEAS
  16. Dougas A. Irwin, 1998. "Did Late Nineteenth Century U.S. Tariffs Promote Infant Industries? Evidence from the Tinplate Industry," NBER Working Papers 6835, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  17. Choi, E Kwan & Harrigan, James, 2004. "Handbook of International Trade," Staff General Research Papers 11375, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  18. Niels, Gunnar & ten Kate, Adriaan, 2006. "Antidumping policy in developing countries: Safety valve or obstacle to free trade?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 618-638, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  19. Knetter, Michael M. & Prusa, Thomas J., 2003. "Macroeconomic factors and antidumping filings: evidence from four countries," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 1-17, October. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  20. Hillman, Arye L, 1982. "Declining Industries and Political-Support Protectionist Motives," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(5), pages 1180-87, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  21. Finger,J. Michael & Francis Ng & Wangchuk, Sonam, 2001. "Antidumping as safeguard policy," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2730, The World Bank. [Downloadable!]
  22. kishore gawande & pravin krishna, 2005. "The Political Economy of Trade Policy: Empirical Approaches," International Trade 0503003, EconWPA. [Downloadable!]
  23. James Devault, 1996. "The welfare effects of U.S. antidumping duties," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 19-33, January. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  24. Konings, Jozef & Springael, Linda & Vandenbussche, Hylke, 2001. "Import Diversion under European Antidumping Policy," CEPR Discussion Papers 2785, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
Full references

Cited by:
(explanations, 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.)

  1. Huasheng Song & Hylke Vandenbussche, 2008. "Trade Policy and Innovation," LICOS Discussion Papers 20008, LICOS - Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance, K.U.Leuven. [Downloadable!]
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? RePEc also has a blog.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-19.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.