IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i9p3839-d355406.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Determinants of Temporary Trade Barriers in Global Forest Products Industry

Author

Listed:
  • Xufang Zhang

    (Forest Analytics Department, Texas A&M Forest Service, College Station, TX 77845, USA)

  • Changyou Sun

    (Department of Forestry, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS 39762, USA)

  • Jason Gordon

    (Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA)

  • Ian A. Munn

    (Department of Forestry, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS 39762, USA)

Abstract

Imposing temporary trade barriers (TTBs) as remedy actions against imports has become popular among global countries in recent decades. Many countries have employed these trade barriers to protect domestic firms from possible injury by unfair international trade. This study evaluated the main factors that influenced the implementation of TTBs in the forest products industry from 1995 to 2015 for two scenarios: a global and developing countries scenario; and a paper and non-paper products scenario. A two-step sample selection model was employed to assess the determinants of the decision to impose TTBs and the frequency to implement TTBs for the scenario of global and developing countries. From the perspective of forest products, determinants of applying TTBs on paper and non-paper products were examined with the probit regression. For the scenario of global and developing countries, the import, employment in agriculture, forest coverage rate, inflation, and GDP per capita were significant determinants. For the scenario of paper and non-paper products, variables of the forest area, imports, exports, GDP per capita, tariff rate, expenditure on education, and employment in agriculture were significant. The results show that a country with a large per capita GDP is more likely to file more TTBs against others. One implication is that countries should be cautious to impose TTBs, as it may cause the attention to shift from the inefficiencies of domestic forest firms to the unfair trade actions of exporters.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:9:p:3839-:d:355406
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/9/3839/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/9/3839/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Patrice Bougette and Christophe Charlier, 2018. "Antidumping and Feed-In Tariffs as Good Buddies? Modeling the EU-China Solar Panel Dispute," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 6).
    2. 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.
    3. Chad P. Bown, 2011. "Taking Stock of Antidumping, Safeguards and Countervailing Duties, 1990–2009," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(12), pages 1955-1998, December.
    4. 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.
    5. Igor Bagayev & Ronald B. Davies & Panos Hatzipanayotou & Panos Konstantinou & Marie Rau, 2017. "Non-Tariff Barriers, Enforcement, and Revenues: The Use of Anti-Dumping as a Revenue Generating Trade Policy," Working Papers 201706, School of Economics, University College Dublin.
    6. Mei, Bin & Sun, Changyou, 2008. "Event analysis of the impact of mergers and acquisitions on the financial performance of the U.S. forest products industry," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(5), pages 286-294, April.
    7. Elhanan Helpman & Marc Melitz & Yona Rubinstein, 2008. "Estimating Trade Flows: Trading Partners and Trading Volumes," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 123(2), pages 441-487.
    8. Krupp, Corinne, 1994. "Antidumping Cases in the U.S. Chemical Industry: A Panel Data Approach," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(3), pages 299-311, September.
    9. J. Michael Finger & Julio J. Nogués, 2002. "The Unbalanced Uruguay Round Outcome: The New Areas in Future WTO Negotiations," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(3), pages 321-340, March.
    10. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    11. Robert M. Feinberg & Kara M. Reynolds, 2008. "Friendly Fire? The Impact of US Antidumping Enforcement on US Exporters," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 144(2), pages 366-378, July.
    12. Bruce Wilson, 2007. "Compliance by WTO Members with Adverse WTO Dispute Settlement Rulings: The Record to Date," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 397-403, June.
    13. Chad P. Bown, 2008. "The Wto And Antidumping In Developing Countries," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(2), pages 255-288, June.
    14. Blonigen, Bruce A. & Bown, Chad P., 2003. "Antidumping and retaliation threats," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 249-273, August.
    15. Sun, Xing & Sun, Changyou & Munn, Ian A. & Hussain, Anwar, 2009. "Knowledge of three regeneration programs and application behavior among Mississippi nonindustrial private forest landowners: A two-step sample selection approach," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 187-204, August.
    16. Robert C. Johnson & Guillermo Noguera, 2017. "A Portrait of Trade in Value-Added over Four Decades," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 99(5), pages 896-911, December.
    17. Shuichiro Kajima & Yuta Uchiyama & Ryo Kohsaka, 2020. "Intellectual Property Strategies for Timber and Forest Products: The Case of Regional Collective Trademark Applications by Japanese Forestry Associations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, March.
    18. Buongiorno, Joseph & Johnston, Craig & Zhu, Shushuai, 2017. "An assessment of gains and losses from international trade in the forest sector," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 209-217.
    19. Sven M. Anders & Julie A. Caswell, 2007. "Standards as Barriers Versus Standards as Catalysts: Assessing the Impact of HACCP Implementation on U.S. Seafood Imports," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(2), pages 310-321.
    20. Tibor Besedeš & Thomas J. Prusa, 2017. "The Hazardous Effects Of Antidumping," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(1), pages 9-30, January.
    21. Ling-Yun He & Geng Huang, 2020. "Tariff Reduction and Environment: Evidence from CAFTA and Chinese Manufacturing Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-25, March.
    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. Tai‐Liang Chen & Ying Kuang, 2023. "Endogenous timing, strategic tariff game and bilateral trade in vertical oligopoly," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 74-96, February.

    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. Jaime DE MELO & Ben SHEPHERD, 2018. "The Economics of Non-Tariff Measures: A Primer," Working Papers P212, FERDI.
    2. Kokko, Ari & Gustavsson Tingvall, Patrik & Videnord, Josefin, 2017. "Which Antidumping Cases Reach the WTO?," Ratio Working Papers 286, The Ratio Institute.
    3. 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.
    4. 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, February.
    5. Metiu, Norbert, 2021. "Anticipation effects of protectionist U.S. trade policies," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    6. 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.
    7. Bo Xiong & John Beghin, 2017. "Disentangling Demand-Enhancing And Trade-Cost Effects Of Maximum Residue Regulations," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: John Christopher Beghin (ed.), Nontariff Measures and International Trade, chapter 6, pages 105-108, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. 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.
    9. Kohler, Wilhelm & Kukharskyy, Bohdan, 2019. "Offshoring under uncertainty," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 158-180.
    10. Kuenzel, David J., 2020. "WTO tariff commitments and temporary protection: Complements or substitutes?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    11. Avsar, Veysel, 2014. "Partisanship and antidumping," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 190-195.
    12. Wilhelm Kohler & Bohdan Kukharskyy, 2018. "Offshoring under Uncertainty," CESifo Working Paper Series 7173, CESifo.
    13. 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.
    14. Michael Moore, 2015. "Sanctuary markets and antidumping: an empirical analysis of U.S. exporters," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 151(2), pages 309-328, May.
    15. Pramila Crivelli & Jasmin Groeschl, 2016. "The Impact of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures on Market Entry and Trade Flows," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(3), pages 444-473, March.
    16. Min Zhu & Thomas J. Prusa, 2023. "The impact of preferential trade agreements on the duration of antidumping protection," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 56(2), pages 553-592, May.
    17. 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.
    18. Feinberg Robert M., 2011. "Antidumping as a Development Issue," Global Economy Journal, De Gruyter, vol. 11(3), pages 1-17, September.
    19. Chad Brown & Paola Conconi & Aksel Erbahar & Lorenzo Trimarchi, 2020. "Trade Protection Along Supply Chains," Working Papers ECARES 2020-52, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    20. Vandenbussche, Hylke & Zanardi, Maurizio, 2010. "The chilling trade effects of antidumping proliferation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(6), pages 760-777, August.

    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:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:9:p:3839-:d:355406. 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.