IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jecomi/v13y2025i3p67-d1605475.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Macroeconomic Determinants of Anti-Dumping Filings: Analyzing the Role of GDP, Growth Rate, and Merchandise Trade Balance in Reporting and Targeted Countries

Author

Listed:
  • Victoria Pistikou

    (Department of Economics, Democritus University of Thrace, University Campus, 69100 Komotini, Greece
    Department of History, Politics and International Relations, School of Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities, Neapolis University Pafos, Paphos 8042, Cyprus)

  • Anastasios Ketsetsidis

    (Department of Economics, Democritus University of Thrace, University Campus, 69100 Komotini, Greece)

  • Soultana Anna Toumpalidou

    (Department of Economics, Democritus University of Thrace, University Campus, 69100 Komotini, Greece)

Abstract

This study aims to explore the relationship between macroeconomic factors and the decision to file an anti-dumping (AD) initiation, focusing on the post-WTO period from 1995 to 2022 for both reporting and targeted countries. We analyze the 20 most frequent users of the AD mechanism and the 20 most frequently targeted countries through econometric analysis to determine how gross domestic product (GDP) volume, GDP growth rate, and merchandise trade balance (MTB) influence the frequency of AD initiations. Our findings indicate that at least half of the sampled countries exhibit a significant correlation between AD filings and at least one of the macroeconomic variables examined. In many cases, GDP volume and MTB not only affect a country’s decision to initiate an AD investigation but also influence how often it becomes a target of such measures. Although the results are fragmented across different economies, they highlight the role of the macroeconomic environment in shaping the decision to resort to AD mechanisms. By adopting a dual perspective, considering both reporting and targeted countries, and incorporating MTB as a key variable, this research extends beyond previous studies to provide deeper insights into the macroeconomic determinants of AD measures. These findings suggest that macroeconomic conditions play a crucial role in shaping trade defense policies, highlighting the need for policymakers to consider broader economic trends when formulating AD regulations.

Suggested Citation

  • Victoria Pistikou & Anastasios Ketsetsidis & Soultana Anna Toumpalidou, 2025. "Macroeconomic Determinants of Anti-Dumping Filings: Analyzing the Role of GDP, Growth Rate, and Merchandise Trade Balance in Reporting and Targeted Countries," Economies, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-24, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jecomi:v:13:y:2025:i:3:p:67-:d:1605475
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7099/13/3/67/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7099/13/3/67/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chad P. Bown & Rachel McCulloch, 2012. "Antidumping and Market Competition: Implications for Emerging Economies," Working Papers 50, Brandeis University, Department of Economics and International Business School.
    2. 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.
    3. Zanardi, Maurizio, 2006. "Antidumping: A problem in international trade," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 591-617, September.
    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. Xufang Zhang & Changyou Sun & Jason Gordon & Ian A. Munn, 2020. "Determinants of Temporary Trade Barriers in Global Forest Products Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-13, May.
    2. 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.
    3. Yi Liu & Ning Zhang, 2015. "Sustainability of Trade Liberalization and Antidumping: Evidence from Mexico’s Trade Liberalization toward China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(9), pages 1-20, August.
    4. Jan Baran, 2015. "The impact of antidumping on EU trade," IBS Working Papers 12/2015, Instytut Badan Strukturalnych.
    5. C. Simon Fan & Yifan Hu, 2006. "A Signaling Model of Quality and Export: with application to dumping," DEGIT Conference Papers c011_058, DEGIT, Dynamics, Economic Growth, and International Trade.
    6. Iqra Yaseen & Mohammad Shafi Sofi, 2024. "Anatomy of trade disputes: mapping patterns and trends of WTO dispute initiations (1995–2023)," DECISION: Official Journal of the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Springer;Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, vol. 51(4), pages 503-516, December.
    7. Lorenzo Trimarchi, 2020. "Trade Policy and the China Syndrome," Working Papers ECARES 2020-15, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    8. 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.
    9. Peter Egger & Douglas Nelson, 2011. "How Bad Is Antidumping? Evidence from Panel Data," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 93(4), pages 1374-1390, November.
    10. Rou Li, 2018. "The Research on Anti-dumping, Cost and Chinese Export: Based on Multilateral Resistance Term of Gravity Model," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 13(4), pages 210-210, March.
    11. 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.
    12. repec:wsr:pbrief:y:2021:i:050 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Ileana Raquel Jalile, 2020. "Protectionism, competitiveness and business cycles: The Argentinean case," Asociación Argentina de Economía Política: Working Papers 4359, Asociación Argentina de Economía Política.
    14. Chia-Lin Chang & Sung-Po Chen & Michael McAleer, 2013. "Globalization and knowledge spillover: international direct investment, exports and patents," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(4), pages 329-352, June.
    15. 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.
    16. Sérgio Kannebley Júnior & Glauco Avelino Sampaio Oliveira, 2019. "Documento de Trabalho 02/2019 - Probabilidade de investigação e aplicação de medidas antidumping para a indústria brasileira: Efeitos para a concorrência," Documentos de Trabalho 2019020, Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (Cade), Departamento de Estudos Econômicos.
    17. Moore, M.O. & Zanardi, M., 2006. "Does Antidumping Use Contribute to Trade Liberalization? An Empirical Analysis," Discussion Paper 2006-61, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    18. Kokko, Ari & Gustavsson Tingvall, Patrik & Videnord, Josefin, 2017. "Which Antidumping Cases Reach the WTO?," Ratio Working Papers 286, The Ratio Institute.
    19. Gianpaolo Rossini, 2019. "State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) and Non Transparent Trade Policies," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 5(3), pages 433-453, October.
    20. Jonathan Perraton, 2004. "Joseph Stiglitz's, Globalization and its Discontents," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(6), pages 897-905.
    21. Cheng‐Hau Peng & Hong Hwang & Kuo‐Feng Kao, 2023. "Is price undertaking a more friendly protection policy than an anti‐dumping duty?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(1), pages 120-134, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:gam:jecomi:v:13:y:2025:i:3:p:67-:d:1605475. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.