IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/coecpo/v18y2000i2p145-158.html

Does NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) Chapter 19 make a difference? Dispute settlement and the incentive structure of U.S./Canada unfair trade petitions

Author

Listed:
  • K. Jones

Abstract

NAFTA Chapter 19 sets up bilateral review panels to replace the domestic judicial appeals process of resolving disputes among NAFTA members over the enforcement of unfair trade laws. In principle, such panels can change the incentive structure of filing unfair trade law petitions by reducing the likelihood of an affirmative finding of injurious unfair trade. Using data from U.S. and Canadian unfair trade petition filings, empirical tests show support for this hypothesis. However, a more comprehensive settlement of conflicts will require progressive legal integration, including an extension of national treatment measures to alleged “unfair trade” that is not currently envisaged under the NAFTA.

Suggested Citation

  • K. Jones, 2000. "Does NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) Chapter 19 make a difference? Dispute settlement and the incentive structure of U.S./Canada unfair trade petitions," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 18(2), pages 145-158, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:coecpo:v:18:y:2000:i:2:p:145-158
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1465-7287.2000.tb00013.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7287.2000.tb00013.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1465-7287.2000.tb00013.x?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. Feinberg, Robert M. & Hirsch, Barry T., 1989. "Industry rent seeking and the filing of unfair trade complaints," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 325-340.
    2. 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 "Why are so many antidumping petitions withdrawn?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Thomas J Prusa (ed.), Economic Effects of Antidumping, chapter 2, pages 1-20, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte.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..
    3. Mirus, Rolf, 1994. "Binational panels in the settlement of trade disputes: A Canadian perspective of the review of dumping and subsidy determinations under the Canada-U.S," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 121-136.
    4. Coughlin, Cletus C & Terza, Joseph V & Khalifah, Noor Aini, 1989. "The Determinants of Escape Clause Petitions," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 71(2), pages 341-347, May.
    5. Lenway, Stefanie & Morck, Randall & Yeung, Bernard, 1996. "Rent Seeking, Protectionism and Innovation in the American Steel Industry," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(435), pages 410-421, March.
    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


    Cited by:

    1. Gunning-Trant, Caroline & Carter, Colin A., 2003. "Trade Remedy Laws And Nafta Agricultural Trade," Working Papers 11962, University of California, Davis, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    2. Thomas J. Prusa & Robert Teh, 2010. "Protection Reduction and Diversion: PTAs and the Incidence of Antidumping Disputes," NBER Working Papers 16276, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Bruce A. Blonigen, 2006. "Evolving discretionary practices of U.S. antidumping activity," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 39(3), pages 874-900, August.
    4. Teh, Robert & Prusa, Thomas J. & Budetta, Michele, 2007. "Trade remedy provisions in regional trade agreements," WTO Staff Working Papers ERSD-2007-03, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.

    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. Kokko, Ari & Gustavsson Tingvall, Patrik & Videnord, Josefin, 2017. "Which Antidumping Cases Reach the WTO?," Ratio Working Papers 286, The Ratio Institute.
    2. Robert M. Feinberg & Kara M. Reynolds, 2006. "The Spread of Antidumping Regimes and the Role of Retaliation in Filings," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 72(4), pages 877-890, April.
    3. 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.
    4. David Godsell & Michael Welker & Ning Zhang, 2017. "Earnings Management During Antidumping Investigations in Europe: Sample‐Wide and Cross‐Sectional Evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 55(2), pages 407-457, May.
    5. Becker Bettina & Theuringer Martin, 2001. "Macroeconomic Determinants of Contingent Protection: The Case of the European Union," Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 50(3), pages 350-374, December.
    6. Mustapha Sadni Jallab & Monnet Benoît Patrick Gbakou & René Sandretto, 2008. "L'influence des facteurs macroéconomiques sur les ouvertures d'enquêtes antidumping : le cas de l'Union Européenne et des États-Unis," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 118(4), pages 573-600.
    7. Aggarwal, Aradhna, 2004. "Macro Economic Determinants of Antidumping: A Comparative Analysis of Developed and Developing Countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1043-1057, June.
    8. 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.
    9. Nelson, Douglas, 2006. "The political economy of antidumping: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 554-590, September.
    10. René Belderbos, 1997. "Antidumping and tariff Jumping: Japanese firms’ DFI in the European union and the United States," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 133(3), pages 419-457, September.
    11. Maurizio Zanardi, 2004. "Antidumping law as a collusive device," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 37(1), pages 95-122, February.
    12. 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.
    13. J. Mutti & R. Sampson & B. Yeung, 2000. "The effects of the Uruguay round: empirical evidence from U.S. industry," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 18(1), pages 59-69, January.
    14. Blonigen, Bruce A. & Liebman, Benjamin H. & Pierce, Justin R. & Wilson, Wesley W., 2013. "Are all trade protection policies created equal? Empirical evidence for nonequivalent market power effects of tariffs and quotas," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 369-378.
    15. Nogues, Julio J. & Baracat, Elias, 2005. "Political economy of antidumping and safeguards in Argentina," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3587, The World Bank.
    16. Yi Liu & Ning Zhang, 2015. "Sustainability of Trade Liberalization and Antidumping: Evidence from Mexico’s Trade Liberalization toward China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(9), pages 1-20, August.
    17. Jan Baran, 2015. "The impact of antidumping on EU trade," IBS Working Papers 12/2015, Instytut Badan Strukturalnych.
    18. Rehbein, Kathleen & Starks, Laura T., 1995. "Changes in U.S. trade policies: the wealth effects on Japanese steel firms," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 309-327, September.
    19. Staiger, Robert W., 1995. "International rules and institutions for trade policy," Handbook of International Economics, in: G. M. Grossman & K. Rogoff (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 29, pages 1495-1551, Elsevier.
    20. Dobrin R. Kolev & Thomas J. Prusa, 2021. "Dumping and double crossing: The (in)effectiveness of cost-based trade policy under incomplete information," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Thomas J Prusa (ed.), Economic Effects of Antidumping, chapter 7, pages 129-152, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..

    More about this item

    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:bla:coecpo:v:18:y:2000:i:2:p:145-158. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/weaaaea.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.