Are Imports to Blame?: Attribution of Injury Under the 1974 Trade Act
AbstractUnder Section 201 of the 1974 Trade Act, a domestic industry can obtain temporary protection against imports by demonstrating before the International Trade Commission that it has been injured, and that imports have been the"substantial cause" of injury --i.e.,"a cause which is important and not less than any other cause." To date, the ITC lacks a coherent framework for selecting a menu of other factors which might be considered as causes of injury, and for weighing the effects of these other factors against those of imports.This paper sets forth a straightforward economic and statistical framework for use in Section 201 cases. This framework is based on the fact that if the domestic industry is competitive, injury can arise from one or more of three broad sources: adverse shifts in market demand, adverse shifts in domestic supply, or increased imports. We show how these sources of injury can be distinguished in theory, and statistically evaluated in practice. As an illustrative example, we apply the framework to the case of the copper industry, which petitioned the ITC for relief in 1984. Although that industry has indeed suffered injury, we show that the "substantial cause" was not imports, but instead increasing costs and decreasing demand.
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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc in its series NBER Working Papers with number 1640.
Date of creation: Jun 1985
Date of revision:
Publication status: published as Pindyck, Robert S. and Julio J. Rotemberg. "Are Imports to Blame?: Attribution of Injury Under the 1974 Trade Act," Journal of Law and Economics, April 1987.
Note: ITI IFM
Contact details of provider:
Postal: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.
Web page: http://www.nber.org
More information through EDIRC
Other versions of this item:
- Pindyck, Robert S & Rotemberg, Julio J, 1987. "Are Imports to Blame? Attribution of Injury under the 1974 Trade Act," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 30(1), pages 101-22, April.
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- KITANO Taiju & OHASHI Hiroshi, 2007.
"Did U.S. Safeguard Resuscitate Harley Davidson in the 1980s?,"
07026, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
- Kitano, Taiju & Ohashi, Hiroshi, 2009. "Did US safeguards resuscitate Harley-Davidson in the 1980s?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 186-197, November.
- Taiju Kitano & Hiroshi Ohashi, 2009. "Did US Safeguards Resuscitate Harley-Davidson in the 1980s?," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-612, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
- Stefano Federico, 2012. "Industry dynamics and competition from low-wage countries: evidence on Italy," Temi di discussione (Economic working papers) 879, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
- Carter, Colin & Chadee, Doren & Darko, Kwame, 1999. "Are Subsidies to be Blamed? A Reexamination of U.S. Countervailing Duty on Hog Imports From Canada," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 21(7), pages 823-830, December.
- David Sharp & Kenneth Zantow, 2005. "Attribution of injury in the shrimp antidumping case: A simultaneous equations approach," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 6(5), pages 1-10.
- repec:ebl:ecbull:v:6:y:2005:i:5:p:1-10 is not listed on IDEAS
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.