IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Size matters! Who is bashing whom in trade war?


  • Miyagiwa, Kaz
  • Song, Huasheng
  • Vandenbussche, Hylke


In this paper we present a dynamic model of trade wars in contingent protection. We find that “market size” matters in trade wars in the sense that countries are more likely to initiate anti-dumping cases against countries having sufficiently smaller home markets relative to their own, but less likely against countries with larger markets. We test this “selective-targeting hypothesis” using World Bank data of worldwide anti-dumping filings during the years 1995–2014, and find strong support for it. Thus, our study indicates the importance of relative market size in understanding recent patterns of anti-dumping filings and contingent protection in world trade.

Suggested Citation

  • Miyagiwa, Kaz & Song, Huasheng & Vandenbussche, Hylke, 2016. "Size matters! Who is bashing whom in trade war?," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 33-45.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:reveco:v:45:y:2016:i:c:p:33-45
    DOI: 10.1016/j.iref.2016.05.001

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    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

    1. Brander, James & Krugman, Paul, 1983. "A 'reciprocal dumping' model of international trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3-4), pages 313-321, November.
    2. 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.
    3. Chad P. Bown, 2008. "The Wto And Antidumping In Developing Countries," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(2), pages 255-288, June.
    4. Jacques-François Thisse, 2010. "Toward A Unified Theory Of Economic Geography And Urban Economics," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(1), pages 281-296.
    5. Dixit, Avinash K. & Grossman, Gene M., 1986. "Targeted export promotion with several oligopolistic industries," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3-4), pages 233-249, November.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Grossman, Gene M & Helpman, Elhanan, 1994. "Protection for Sale," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(4), pages 833-850, September.
    9. Blonigen, Bruce A. & Bown, Chad P., 2003. "Antidumping and retaliation threats," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 249-273, August.
    10. Martin, Alberto & Vergote, Wouter, 2008. "On the role of retaliation in trade agreements," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 61-77, September.
    11. 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.
    12. Baomin Dong, 2013. "Cost-Based Anti-dumping as a Repeated Game," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 89, pages 95-105, June.
    13. 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.
    14. Prusa, Thomas J., 1992. "Why are so many antidumping petitions withdrawn?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1-2), pages 1-20, August.
    15. John Kennan & Raymond Riezman, 2013. "Do Big Countries Win Tariff Wars?," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: International Trade Agreements and Political Economy, chapter 4, pages 45-51 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    16. Gunnar Niels & Joseph Francois, 2006. "Business Cycles, the Exchange Rate, and Demand for Antidumping Protection in Mexico," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(3), pages 388-399, August.
    17. Xiaohua Bao & Larry D. Qiu, 2011. "Is China's Antidumping More Retaliatory than that of the US?," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(2), pages 374-389, May.
    18. Poonam Gupta, 1999. "Why Do Firms Pay Antidumping Duty?," IMF Working Papers 99/166, International Monetary Fund.
    19. Constantinos Syropoulos, 2002. "Optimum Tariffs and Retaliation Revisited: How Country Size Matters," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 69(3), pages 707-727.
    20. 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.
    21. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. repec:eee:reveco:v:53:y:2018:i:c:p:185-202 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item


    Reciprocal dumping; Anti-dumping; Market size;

    JEL classification:

    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • F14 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Empirical Studies of Trade
    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets


    Access and download statistics


    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:reveco:v:45:y:2016:i:c:p:33-45. 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: .

    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.