IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jcecon/v53y2025i1p165-181.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Tit-for-tat in antidumping: How did China fight its antidumping wars with its trading partners?

Author

Listed:
  • Lee, Wonkyung
  • Ma, Hong
  • Xu, Yuan

Abstract

Existing studies have examined the determinants of antidumping measures in different countries. Much less attention has been paid to the role of high-frequency bilateral relations in imposing temporary trade barriers. Using quarterly data on antidumping cases from 1997Q1 to 2020Q4, this paper examines the bilateral relationship between China and its major trading partners in imposing antidumping. A bivariate vector autoregressive methodology is employed and Granger causality tests are carried out. We find that antidumping investigations against China by the US significantly lead to and predict the investigations against the US by China, suggesting that the US is the first mover and China is the follower that retaliates. In contrast, in bilateral relations between China and the European Union, Korea, or Japan, there is no evidence of significant causality in either direction. Furthermore, we find that China retaliates against the US both within and across industries. While China’s retaliatory measures have shown some effectiveness in terminating outstanding US investigations, this is not always the case. However, this tit-for-tat behavior does effectively deter future investigations by the US.

Suggested Citation

  • Lee, Wonkyung & Ma, Hong & Xu, Yuan, 2025. "Tit-for-tat in antidumping: How did China fight its antidumping wars with its trading partners?," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 165-181.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jcecon:v:53:y:2025:i:1:p:165-181
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jce.2024.12.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147596724000702
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jce.2024.12.002?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
    ---><---

    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. Dario Caldara & Matteo Iacoviello, 2022. "Measuring Geopolitical Risk," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 112(4), pages 1194-1225, April.
    2. Lu, Yi & Tao, Zhigang & Zhang, Yan, 2013. "How do exporters respond to antidumping investigations?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 290-300.
    3. Bown, Chad P. & Crowley, Meredith A., 2014. "Emerging economies, trade policy, and macroeconomic shocks," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 261-273.
    4. Lyon, Thomas & Lu, Yao & Shi, Xinzheng & Yin, Qie, 2013. "How do investors respond to Green Company Awards in China?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 1-8.
    5. Mr. Douglas A. Irwin, 2005. "The Rise of U.S. Antidumping Activity in Historical Perspective," IMF Working Papers 2005/031, International Monetary Fund.
    6. Michael M. Knetter & Thomas J. Prusa, 2021. "Macroeconomic factors and antidumping filings: evidence from four countries," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Thomas J Prusa (ed.), Economic Effects of Antidumping, chapter 8, pages 153-169, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Chad P. Bown, 2008. "The Wto And Antidumping In Developing Countries," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(2), pages 255-288, June.
    8. David A. Jaeger & M. Daniele Paserman, 2008. "The Cycle of Violence? An Empirical Analysis of Fatalities in the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(4), pages 1591-1604, September.
    9. Amit K. Khandelwal & Pablo D. Fajgelbaum, 2022. "The Economic Impacts of the US–China Trade War," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 14(1), pages 205-228, August.
    10. 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.
    11. Bohara, Alok K & Kaempfer, William H, 1991. "A Test of Tariff Endogeneity in the United States," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(4), pages 952-960, September.
    12. Dumitrescu, Elena-Ivona & Hurlin, Christophe, 2012. "Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 1450-1460.
    13. 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.
    14. Douglas A. Irwin, 2005. "The Rise of US Anti‐dumping Activity in Historical Perspective," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 651-668, May.
    15. 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.
    16. Robert M. Feinberg, 2005. "U.S. Antidumping Enforcement and Macroeconomic Indicators Revisited: Do Petitioners Learn?," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 141(4), pages 612-622, December.
    17. Thomas Osang & Jaden Warren, 2019. "Retaliatory Antidumping by China: A New Look at the Evidence," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 45(2), pages 161-178, April.
    18. Hong Ma & Lingsheng Meng, 2023. "Heterogeneous impacts of the Section 301 tariffs: Evidence from the revision of product lists," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 56(1), pages 164-190, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Georgios Georgiadis & Johannes Gräb, 2016. "Growth, Real Exchange Rates and Trade Protectionism since the Financial Crisis," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(5), pages 1050-1080, November.
    2. Koichi Kagitani & Yasunobu Tomoda, 2022. "Foreign macroeconomic conditions and antidumping actions: evidence from the USA," International Economics and Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 863-883, October.
    3. Metiu, Norbert, 2021. "Anticipation effects of protectionist U.S. trade policies," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    4. Yi Liu & Jun Deng, 2016. "Antidumping under International Fragmentation: Evidence from China," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(1), pages 306-316, February.
    5. Kokko, Ari & Gustavsson Tingvall, Patrik & Videnord, Josefin, 2017. "Which Antidumping Cases Reach the WTO?," Ratio Working Papers 286, The Ratio Institute.
    6. Neha Bhardwaj Upadhayay, 2020. "Uncovering the proliferation of contingent protection through channels of retaliation, gender and development assistance," Erudite Ph.D Dissertations, Erudite, number ph20-02 edited by Julie Lochard & Catherine Bros, September.
    7. Kuenzel, David J., 2020. "WTO tariff commitments and temporary protection: Complements or substitutes?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    8. Lake, James & Linask, Maia K., 2016. "Could tariffs be pro-cyclical?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 124-146.
    9. Neha Bhardwaj Upadhayay, 2024. "The Link Between Aid-for-Trade and Contingent Protection," Foreign Trade Review, , vol. 59(4), pages 455-500, November.
    10. 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.
    11. Chung, Sunghoon & Lee, Joonhyung & Osang, Thomas, 2016. "Did China tire safeguard save U.S. workers?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 22-38.
    12. Tan Li & Wei Xiao, 2022. "US antidumping investigations and employment adjustment in Chinese manufacturing firms," Economics of Transition and Institutional Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 159-182, January.
    13. Rou Li, 2018. "The Research on Factors Which Affect Anti-dumping Investigation: Based on Probit Model," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 13(3), pages 252-252, February.
    14. Magdalene Silberberger & Anja Slany & Christian Soegaard & Frederik Stender, 2022. "The Aftermath of Anti-Dumping: Are Temporary Trade Barriers Really Temporary?," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 677-704, September.
    15. Furceri, Davide & Ostry, Jonathan D. & Papageorgiou, Chris & Wibaux, Pauline, 2023. "Retaliation through Temporary Trade Barriers," CEPR Discussion Papers 17853, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    16. Li, Yue & Li, Wanli, 2022. "Are innovative exporters vulnerable to anti-dumping investigations?," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    17. Kara M. Reynolds, 2009. "From Agreement to Application: An Analysis of Determinations under the WTO Antidumping Agreement," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(5), pages 969-985, November.
    18. 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.
    19. Bown, Chad P. & Crowley, Meredith A., 2014. "Emerging economies, trade policy, and macroeconomic shocks," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 261-273.
    20. Hylke Vandenbussche & Maurizio Zanardi, 2008. "What explains the proliferation of antidumping laws? [‘Antidumping Laws in the US; Use and Welfare Consequences’]," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 23(53), pages 94-138.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Antidumping measures; Tit-for-tat retaliation; US–China trade relations; Granger causality;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • F14 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Empirical Studies of Trade
    • F51 - International Economics - - International Relations, National Security, and International Political Economy - - - International Conflicts; Negotiations; Sanctions

    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:eee:jcecon:v:53:y:2025:i:1:p:165-181. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622864 .

    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.