IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Antidumping duties and price undertakings: A welfare analysis

  • Wu, Shih-Jye
  • Chang, Yang-Ming
  • Chen, Hung-Yi

In this paper we examine differences in welfare implications between two trade protection measures: antidumping (AD) duties and price undertakings. Based on a stylized model of duopolistic competition under an effective AD law, we first analyze the case where a foreign firm convicted of dumping is required to pay an AD duty. We then examine the case in which a convicted foreign firm has the option of (i) paying an AD duty or (ii) accepting an undertaking by raising product price to its “normal value.” Taking into account the GATT/WTO policy that an AD duty rate must not exceed the margin of dumping, we show conditions under which a foreign firm chooses to evade its AD fine by a price undertaking. We find that the welfare-maximizing AD duty rate for a dumped product depends crucially on its normal value. If the foreign product's normal value is “critically high,” the optimal AD rate is set to fully reflect the dumping margin. Otherwise, the optimal AD rate is set lower than the dumping margin. From the perspective of social welfare, these findings help to identify the economic conditions under which one policy instrument is chosen over the other against foreign dumping.

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: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1059056013000488
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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 Elsevier in its journal International Review of Economics & Finance.

Volume (Year): 29 (2014)
Issue (Month): C ()
Pages: 97-107

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:reveco:v:29:y:2014:i:c:p:97-107
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620165

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. Hillman, Arye L, 1990. " Protectionist Policies as the Regulation of International Industry," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 101-10, November.
  2. Yang-Ming Chang & Philip G. Gayle, 2006. "The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act: An Economic Analysis," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 73(2), pages 530–545, October.
  3. Blonigen, Bruce A. & Bown, Chad P., 2003. "Antidumping and retaliation threats," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 249-273, August.
  4. Belderbos, R. & Vandenbussche, H. & Veugelers, R., 2004. "Antidumping duties, undertakings, and foreign direct investment in the EU," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 429-453, April.
  5. Dinlersoz, Emin & Dogan, Can, 2010. "Tariffs versus anti-dumping duties," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 436-451, June.
  6. Anderson, S. P. & Schmitt, N. & Thisse, J.-F., . "Who benefits from antidumping legislation?," CORE Discussion Papers RP -1146, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
  7. James Brander & Paul Krugman, 1980. "A "Reciprocal Dumping" Model of International Trade," Working Papers 405, Queen's University, Department of Economics.
  8. Michael O. Moore, 2005. "VERs and Price Undertakings under the WTO," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(2), pages 298-310, 05.
  9. Laura ROVEGNO & Hylke VANDENBUSSCHE, 2011. "A comparative analysis of EU Antidumping rules and application," Discussion Papers (IRES - Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales) 2011023, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
  10. Jota Ishikawa & Kaz Miyagiwa, 2008. "Price undertakings, VERs, and foreign direct investment: the case of foreign rivalry," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 41(3), pages 954-970, August.
  11. Nelson, Douglas, 2006. "The political economy of antidumping: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 554-590, September.
  12. Reitzes, James D, 1993. "Antidumping Policy," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 34(4), pages 745-63, November.
  13. Maurizio Zanardi, 2006. "Antidumping: a problem in international trade," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9821, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  14. Vandenbussche, Hylke & Wauthy, Xavier, 2001. "Inflicting injury through product quality: how European antidumping policy disadvantages European producers," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 101-116, March.
  15. Leonard K. Cheng & Larry D. Qiu & Kit Pong Wong, 2001. "Anti-dumping measures as a tool of protectionism: A mechanism design approach," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 34(3), pages 639-660, August.
  16. Collie, David R. & Vandenbussche, Hylke, 2006. "Tariffs and the Byrd amendment," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 750-758, September.
  17. Evenett, Simon J., 2006. "The simple analytics of U.S. antidumping orders: Bureaucratic discretion, anti-importer bias, and the Byrd amendment," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 732-749, September.
  18. Dixit, Avinash, 1988. "Anti-dumping and countervailing duties under oligopoly," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 55-68, January.
  19. James E. Anderson, 1993. "Domino Dumping, II: Anti-dumping," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 219, Boston College Department of Economics.
  20. Shih-Jye Wu & Yang-Ming Chang & Hung-Yi Chen, 2011. "Antidumping Petition: To File or Not To File," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 31(1), pages 631-643.
  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. 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.
  23. Niels, Gunnar, 2000. " What Is Antidumping Policy Really About?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(4), pages 467-92, September.
  24. Hillman, Arye L & Ursprung, Heinrich W, 1988. "Domestic Politics, Foreign Interests, and International Trade Policy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(4), pages 719-45, September.
  25. Xiwang Gao & Kaz Miyagiwa, 2005. "Antidumping protection and R&D competition," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 38(1), pages 211-227, February.
  26. Anderson, James E, 1992. "Domino Dumping, I: Competitive Exporters," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(1), pages 65-83, March.
  27. Fischer, Ronald D., 1992. "Endogenous probability of protection and firm behavior," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1-2), pages 149-163, February.
  28. Miyagiwa, Kaz & Ohno, Yuka, 2007. "Dumping as a signal of innovation," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 221-240, March.
  29. Finger, J M & Hall, H Keith & Nelson, Douglas R, 1982. "The Political Economy of Administered Protection," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(3), pages 452-66, June.
  30. Prusa, Thomas J., 1992. "Why are so many antidumping petitions withdrawn?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1-2), pages 1-20, August.
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:eee:reveco:v:29:y:2014:i:c:p:97-107. 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: (Zhang, Lei)

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.