IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Trade Liberalization and Antidumping: Is There a Substitution Effect?

  • Michael O. Moore
  • Maurizio Zanardi

Many nations have undergone significant trade liberalization in the last twenty years even as they have increased their use of contingent protection measures. This raises the question of whether some of the trade liberalization efforts, at times accomplished through painful reforms, have been undone through a substitution from tariffs to non- tariff barriers. Among the new forms of protection, antidumping is the most relevant, as its use has spread from few developed countries to a large set of developing countries that are now among the most intense users of this instrument. This paper uses a newly developed database to examine to what extent the use of antidumping in a large set of countries is systematically influenced by the reduction of applied sectoral tariffs. The data set includes information on 29 developing and 7 developed countries from 1991 through 2002. After controlling for time-varying sectoral information as well as macroeconomic conditions, we find evidence of a substitution effect only for heavy users of antidumping among developing countries. In particular, a one standard deviation increase in sectoral trade liberalization increases the probability of observing an antidumping initiation by 32 percent. There is no similar statistically significant result for other developing countries or developed countries. We also find robust evidence of retaliation and deflection effects as determinant of antidumping filings across all subsamples.

(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

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:
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 under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Wiley Blackwell in its journal Review of Development Economics.

Volume (Year): 15 (2011)
Issue (Month): 4 (November)
Pages: 601-619

in new window

Handle: RePEc:bla:rdevec:v:15:y:2011:i:4:p:601-619
Contact details of provider: Web page:

Order Information: Web:

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. Bown, Chad P. & Crowley, Meredith A., 2007. "Trade deflection and trade depression," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 176-201, May.
  2. Michael P. Leidy, 1997. "Macroeconomic Conditions and Pressures for Protection under Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws: Empirical Evidence from the United States," IMF Staff Papers, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 44(1), pages 132-144, March.
  3. Choi, E. Kwan & Harrigan, James, 2003. "Handbook of International Trade," Staff General Research Papers 11375, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  4. Vandenbussche, H. & Zanardi, M., 2006. "The Global Chilling Effects of Antidumping Proliferation," Discussion Paper 2006-12, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
  5. 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.
  6. Simon P. Anderson & Nicolas Schmitt, 2003. "Nontariff Barriers and Trade Liberalization," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 41(1), pages 80-97, January.
  7. Carmen M. Reinhart & Kenneth S. Rogoff, 2004. "The Modern History of Exchange Rate Arrangements: A Reinterpretation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 119(1), pages 1-48, February.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. Robert M. Feinberg & Kara M. Olson, 2005. "Tariff Liberalization and Increased Administrative Protection: Is There a Quid Pro Quo?," International Trade 0501001, EconWPA.
  11. Bruce A. Blonigen & Thomas J. Prusa, 2001. "Antidumping," NBER Working Papers 8398, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  12. Blonigen, Bruce A. & Bown, Chad P., 2003. "Antidumping and retaliation threats," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 249-273, August.
  13. 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.
  14. Alessandro Nicita & Marcelo Olarreaga, 2007. "Trade, Production, and Protection Database, 1976--2004," World Bank Economic Review, World Bank Group, vol. 21(1), pages 165-171.
  15. Peter Egger & Douglas Nelson, . "How Bad is Antidumping?: Evidence from Panel Data," Discussion Papers 07/17, University of Nottingham, GEP.
  16. 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.
  17. Maurizio Zanardi, 2002. "Antidumping: What are the Numbers?," Working Papers 2002_15, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow.
  18. Bown, Chad P., 2005. "Global antidumping database version 1.0," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3737, The World Bank.
  19. Feinberg, Robert M, 1989. "Exchange Rates and "Unfair Trade."," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 71(4), pages 704-07, November.
  20. Robert M. Feinberg, 2005. "U.S. Antidumping Enforcement and Macroeconomic Indicators Revisited: Do Petitioners Learn?," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer, vol. 141(4), pages 612-622, December.
  21. Douglas Irwin, 2004. "The Rise of U.S. Antidumping Actions in Historical Perspective," NBER Working Papers 10582, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  22. Chad P. Bown, 2008. "The Wto And Antidumping In Developing Countries," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(2), pages 255-288, 06.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

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

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:rdevec:v:15:y:2011:i:4:p:601-619. 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: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing)

or (Christopher F. Baum)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.