IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/chieco/v20y2009i3p542-548.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The trade depressing and trade diversion effects of antidumping actions: The case of China

Author

Listed:
  • Park, Soonchan

Abstract

China is by far the main target of antidumping (AD) litigation for most of its major trading partners. Recently, however, China itself has started using AD instrument intensively and was, in fact, the third leading country in initiating AD investigations between 2002 and 2004. This paper empirically investigates the impact of China's AD activities on trade by employing the system GMM estimator. The empirical results show that AD protection has significant trade depressing and trade diversion effects. These findings are consistent with Prusa [Prusa, T.A., 2001. On the Spread and Impact of Antidumping, Canadian Journal of Economics 34, 591-611.] and Brenton [Brenton, P., 2001. Anti-dumping policies in the EU and trade diversion, European Journal of Political Economy 17, 593-607] that investigate the trade effects of AD actions in the US and EU, respectively.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:chieco:v:20:y:2009:i:3:p:542-548
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043-951X(09)00038-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vandenbussche, Hylke & Zanardi, Maurizio, 2006. "The Global Chilling Effects of Antidumping Proliferation," CEPR Discussion Papers 5597, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. 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.
    3. Robert W. Staiger & Frank A. Wolak, 1989. "Strategic Use of Antidumping Law to Enforce Tacit International Collusion," NBER Working Papers 3016, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Arellano, Manuel & Bover, Olympia, 1995. "Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 29-51, July.
    5. Choi, E. Kwan & Harrigan, James, 2003. "Handbook of International Trade," Staff General Research Papers Archive 11375, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Blundell, Richard & Bond, Stephen, 1998. "Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 115-143, August.
    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. Hausman, Jerry, 2015. "Specification tests in econometrics," Applied Econometrics, Publishing House "SINERGIA PRESS", vol. 38(2), pages 112-134.
    11. Nickell, Stephen J, 1981. "Biases in Dynamic Models with Fixed Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(6), pages 1417-1426, November.
    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. Wilfried Pauwels & Hylke Vandenbussche & Marcel Weverbergh, 2001. "Strategic Behaviour under European Antidumping Duties," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 75-99.
    14. 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.
    15. Corinne M. Krupp & Patricia S. Pollard, 1996. "Market Responses to Antidumping Laws: Some Evidence from the U.S. Chemical Industry," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 29(1), pages 199-227, February.
    16. Patrick A. Messerlin, 2004. "China in the World Trade Organization: Antidumping and Safeguards," World Bank Economic Review, World Bank Group, vol. 18(1), pages 105-130.
    17. Manuel Arellano & Stephen Bond, 1991. "Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 58(2), pages 277-297.
    18. Bodhisattva Ganguli, 2008. "The Trade Effects of Indian Antidumping Actions," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(5), pages 930-941, November.
    19. Robert M. Feinberg & Kara M. Reynolds, 2007. "Tariff Liberalisation and Increased Administrative Protection: Is There a Quid Pro Quo?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(6), pages 948-961, June.
    20. Stephen Bond, 2002. "Dynamic panel data models: a guide to microdata methods and practice," CeMMAP working papers CWP09/02, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    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. Ning Meng & Chris Milner & Huasheng Song, 2016. "Differences in the determinants and targeting of antidumping: China and India compared," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(43), pages 4083-4097, September.
    2. ZHANG Hongyong, 2017. "Political Connections and Antidumping Investigations: Evidence from China," Discussion papers 17092, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    3. Chrysostomos Tabakis & Maurizio Zanardi, 2017. "Antidumping Echoing," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(2), pages 655-681, April.
    4. Yan Zhang, 2017. "Impact of Latin-American and Caribbean Antidumping Measures on Chinese Exports," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 97857, Inter-American Development Bank.

    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:eee:chieco:v:20:y:2009:i:3:p:542-548. 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: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/chieco .

    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.