IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ecinqu/v55y2017i2p655-681.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Antidumping Echoing

Author

Listed:
  • Chrysostomos Tabakis
  • Maurizio Zanardi

Abstract

This paper examines the determinants of "echoing" in antidumping (AD) cases (i.e., different countries sequentially imposing AD measures on the same product from the same exporter). We develop a dynamic game in which two competing importers can choose to impose an AD duty on a third exporting country in one of two periods, if at all. Assuming that governments are politically motivated (favoring their import competing industries), we find that a country imposes an AD duty in the first (second) period independently of the other country’s actions if its political-economy parameter is "very high" ("high"). Instead, it never introduces AD measures when its political-economy parameter is below a critical "low" threshold. Echoing occurs for intermediate values of the political-economy parameter: a country chooses to impose an AD duty in the second period if and only if the competing importer has done so in the first period. Using a novel AD dataset, we document that echoing is a common practice among both traditional and new users of AD. In line with the conclusions of the theoretical model, the econometric results show that AD measures are more likely to be introduced in response to other countries’ measures when governments care to some extent, but not too much, about their import-competing industries. Thus, this paper shows that countries’ political-economy-driven trade policies are interdependent and should not be analyzed in isolation.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Chrysostomos Tabakis & Maurizio Zanardi, 2017. "Antidumping Echoing," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(2), pages 655-681, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:ecinqu:v:55:y:2017:i:2:p:655-681
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/ecin.12369
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael O. Moore & Maurizio Zanardi, 2011. "Trade Liberalization and Antidumping: Is There a Substitution Effect?," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(4), pages 601-619, November.
    2. Park, Soonchan, 2009. "The trade depressing and trade diversion effects of antidumping actions: The case of China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 542-548, September.
    3. Joseph Farrell & Garth Saloner, 1985. "Standardization, Compatibility, and Innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(1), pages 70-83, Spring.
    4. Maurizio Zanardi, 2004. "Anti-dumping: What are the Numbers to Discuss at Doha?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 403-433, March.
    5. Vandenbussche, Hylke & Zanardi, Maurizio, 2010. "The chilling trade effects of antidumping proliferation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(6), pages 760-777, August.
    6. Bown, Chad P. & Crowley, Meredith A., 2006. "Policy externalities: How US antidumping affects Japanese exports to the EU," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 696-714, September.
    7. Hamilton, Jonathan H. & Slutsky, Steven M., 1990. "Endogenous timing in duopoly games: Stackelberg or cournot equilibria," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 29-46, March.
    8. Hylke Vandenbussche & Maurizio Zanardi, 2008. "What explains the proliferation of antidumping laws?," Economic Policy, CEPR;CES;MSH, vol. 23, pages 93-138, January.
    9. Mailath George J., 1993. "Endogenous Sequencing of Firm Decisions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 169-182, February.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Bown, Chad P. & Crowley, Meredith A., 2013. "Import protection, business cycles, and exchange rates: Evidence from the Great Recession," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 50-64.
    13. Bown, Chad P. & Crowley, Meredith A., 2007. "Trade deflection and trade depression," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 176-201, May.
    14. Rodney D. Ludema & Anna Maria Mayda, 2013. "Do terms-of-trade effects matter for trade agreements? Theory and evidence from WTO Countries," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 128(4), pages 1837-1893.
    15. Michael O. Moore & Maurizio Zanardi, 2009. "Does antidumping use contribute to trade liberalization in developing countries?," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 42(2), pages 469-495, May.
    16. 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.
    17. Durling, James P. & Prusa, Thomas J., 2006. "The trade effects associated with an antidumping epidemic: The hot-rolled steel market, 1996-2001," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 675-695, September.
    18. Blonigen, Bruce A. & Bown, Chad P., 2003. "Antidumping and retaliation threats," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 249-273, August.
    19. Russell Hillberry & Phillip McCalman, 2016. "Import dynamics and demands for protection," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 49(3), pages 1125-1152, August.
    20. Andreea C. Nita & Maurizio Zanardi, 2013. "The First Review of European Union Antidumping Reviews," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(12), pages 1455-1477, December.
    21. Brenton, Paul, 2001. "Anti-dumping policies in the EU and trade diversion," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 593-607, September.
    22. Daughety, Andrew F & Reinganum, Jennifer F, 1994. "Asymmetric Information Acquisition and Behavior in Role Choice Models: An Endogenously Generated Signaling Game," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 35(4), pages 795-819, November.
    23. Cadot, Olivier & de Melo, Jaime & Tumurchudur, Bolormaa, 2007. "Anti-Dumping Sunset Reviews: The Uneven Reach of WTO Disciplines," CEPR Discussion Papers 6502, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    24. Robson, Arthur J, 1990. "Duopoly with Endogenous Strategic Timing: Stackelberg Regained," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 31(2), pages 263-274, May.
    25. Bodhisattva Ganguli, 2008. "The Trade Effects of Indian Antidumping Actions," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(5), pages 930-941, November.
    26. Michael O. Moore, 2006. "An Econometric Analysis of U.S. Antidumping Sunset Review Decisions," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 142(1), pages 122-150, April.
    27. Sydney Gourlay & Kara M. Reynolds, 2011. "Political Economy of Antidumping Reviews: The Impact of Discretion at the International Trade Administration," Working Papers 2012-15, American University, Department of Economics.
    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. Crowley, M. & Song, H. & Meng, N., 2016. "Tariff Scares: Trade policy uncertainty and foreign market entry by Chinese firms," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1676, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    2. Meredith A. Crowley & Huasheng Song, 2015. "Policy Shocks and Stock Market Returns: Evidence from Chinese Solar Panels," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1529, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.

    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:ecinqu:v:55:y:2017:i:2:p:655-681. 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: (Christopher F. Baum) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/weaaaea.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.