Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

What explains the proliferation of antidumping laws?

Contents:

Author Info

  • VANDENBUSSCHE, Hylke

    (Université catholique de Louvain (UCL). Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE))

  • ZANARDI, Maurizio

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

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

Bibliographic Info

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

as in new window
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 10474304
Email:
Web page: http://www.uclouvain.be/core
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: antidumping; trade liberalization; GATT/WTO;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

References

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.:
as in new window
  1. Thomas J. Prusa, 1999. "On the Spread and Impact of Antidumping," NBER Working Papers 7404, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  2. James Devault, 1996. "The welfare effects of U.S. antidumping duties," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 19-33, January.
  3. Hylke Vandenbussche & Jozef Konings & Linda Springael, 1999. "Import Diversion under European Antidumping Policy," NBER Working Papers 7340, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  4. 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.
  5. Michael O. Moore, 2007. "Antidumping Reform In The Wto: A Pessimistic Appraisal," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(3), pages 357-379, 08.
  6. Thomas J. Prusa, 1997. "The Trade Effects of U.S. Antidumping Actions," NBER Chapters, in: The Effects of U.S. Trade Protection and Promotion Policies, pages 191-214 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  7. Grossman, G.M. & Helpman, E., 1992. "Protection for Sale," Papers 162, Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School - Public and International Affairs.
  8. Blonigen, Bruce A. & Bown, Chad P., 2003. "Antidumping and retaliation threats," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 249-273, August.
  9. 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.
  10. Michael M. Knetter & Thomas J. Prusa, 2000. "Macroeconomic Factors and Antidumping Filings: Evidence from Four Countries," NBER Working Papers 8010, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  11. Maurizio Zanardi, 2004. "Antidumping: what are the numbers to discuss at Doha?," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9831, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  12. Moore, M.O. & Zanardi, M., 2006. "Does Antidumping Use Contribute to Trade Liberalization? An Empirical Analysis," Discussion Paper 2006-61, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
  13. Mario Cleves & William W. Gould & Roberto G. Gutierrez & Yulia Marchenko, 2010. "An Introduction to Survival Analysis Using Stata," Stata Press books, StataCorp LP, edition 3, number saus3, April.
  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.
  15. Thomas Prusa & Susan Skeath, 2002. "The economic and strategic motives for antidumping filings," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer, vol. 138(3), pages 389-413, September.
  16. Rauch, James E., 1999. "Networks versus markets in international trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 7-35, June.
  17. Irwin, Douglas A., 2000. "Did Late-Nineteenth-Century U S. Tarriffs Promote Infant Industries? Evidence From the Tinplate Industry," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 60(02), pages 335-360, June.
  18. kishore gawande & pravin krishna, 2005. "The Political Economy of Trade Policy: Empirical Approaches," International Trade 0503003, EconWPA.
  19. VEUGELERS, Reinhilde & VANDENBUSSCHE, Hylke, 1997. "European anti-dumping policy and the profitability of national and international collusion," SESO Working Papers 1997005, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Applied Economics.
  20. Finger,J. Michael & Francis Ng & Wangchuk, Sonam, 2001. "Antidumping as safeguard policy," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2730, The World Bank.
  21. Sarosh Kuruvilla & Subesh Das & Hyunji Kwon & Soonwon Kwon, 2002. "Trade Union Growth and Decline in Asia," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 40(3), pages 431-461, 09.
  22. Chad P. Bown, 2008. "The Wto And Antidumping In Developing Countries," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(2), pages 255-288, 06.
  23. Robert Staiger & Frank Wolak, 1994. "Measuring Industry Specific Protection: Antidumping in the United States," International Trade 9410004, EconWPA.
  24. Bruce A. Blonigen & Thomas J. Prusa, 2001. "Antidumping," NBER Working Papers 8398, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  25. Hillman, Arye L, 1982. "Declining Industries and Political-Support Protectionist Motives," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(5), pages 1180-87, December.
  26. Prusa, Thomas J., 1992. "Why are so many antidumping petitions withdrawn?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1-2), pages 1-20, August.
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. repec:cup:jechis:v:60:y:2008:i:02:p:335-360_00 is not listed on IDEAS
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. VANDENBUSSCHE, Hylke & ZANARDI, Maurizio, . "The chilling trade effects of antidumping proliferation," CORE Discussion Papers RP -2355, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
  2. Jozef Konings & Hylke Vandenbussche, 2009. "Antidumping Protection hurts Exporters:Firm-level evidence from France," LICOS Discussion Papers 24109, LICOS - Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance, KU Leuven.
  3. Kaz Miyagiwa & Aminata Sissoko, 2013. "The free-rider problem and the optimal duration of research joint ventures: theory and evidence from the Eureka program," Working Papers 1302, Florida International University, Department of Economics.
  4. Bown, Chad P. & Tovar, Patricia, 2011. "Trade liberalization, antidumping, and safeguards: Evidence from India's tariff reform," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 115-125, September.
  5. Robert Feinberg, 2013. "Antidumping and Industrial Organization," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 365-368, June.
  6. Christian Gormsen, 2011. "Anti-dumping with heterogeneous firms," Economie Internationale, CEPII research center, issue 125, pages 41-64.
  7. Martin, Alberto & Vergote, Wouter, 2008. "On the role of retaliation in trade agreements," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 61-77, September.
  8. Chad P. Bown & Baybars Karacaovali & Patricia Tovar, 2014. "What Do We Know About Preferential Trade Agreements and Temporary Trade Barriers?," Working Papers 201418, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Economics.
  9. Jozef Konings & Hylke Vandenbussche, 2013. "Antidumping protection hurts exporters: firm-level evidence," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer, vol. 149(2), pages 295-320, June.
  10. Dinlersoz, Emin & Dogan, Can, 2010. "Tariffs versus anti-dumping duties," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 436-451, June.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cor:louvco:2007066. See general 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: (Alain GILLIS).

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.