IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jincot/v1y2001i3p283-299.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Import Diversion under European Antidumping Policy

Author

Listed:
  • Jozef Konings
  • Hylke Vandenbussche

    ()

  • Linda Springael

Abstract

This Paper studies empirically the effects of European antidumping actions on import diversion from importers ‘named’ in an antidumping investigation, and potentially subject to protectionist measures, to countries ‘not named’ in the investigation. For this purpose we use a unique data set at the 8-digit product level. The amount of import diversion can be regarded as an indication of the effectiveness of antidumping policy, which is used to protect the home industry from foreign imports. We find that trade diversion in the European Union caused by antidumping actions - in contrast to the US - is limited, suggesting that the EU’s antidumping policy is more effective in keeping imports out. This result holds even after controlling for selection-bias in the antidumping investigation procedure. A number of explanations for this difference in trade diversion as a result of antidumping policy between the EU and US are formulated.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Jozef Konings & Hylke Vandenbussche & Linda Springael, 2001. "Import Diversion under European Antidumping Policy," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 1(3), pages 283-299, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:jincot:v:1:y:2001:i:3:p:283-299
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1015269804381
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/A:1015269804381
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James J. Heckman, 1976. "The Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation, Sample Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for Such Models," NBER Chapters,in: Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, Volume 5, number 4, pages 475-492 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Robert W. Staiger & Frank A. Wolak, 1994. "Measuring Industry-Specific Protection: Antidumping in the United States," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 25(1994 Micr), pages 51-118.
    3. Veugelers, Reinhilde & Vandenbussche, Hylke, 1999. "European anti-dumping policy and the profitability of national and international collusion," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 1-28, January.
    4. Harrison, Ann, 1991. "The new trade protection : price effects of antidumping and countervailing measures in the United States," Policy Research Working Paper Series 808, The World Bank.
    5. Feenstra, Robert C., 1995. "Estimating the effects of trade policy," Handbook of International Economics,in: G. M. Grossman & K. Rogoff (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 30, pages 1553-1595 Elsevier.
    6. Robert C. Feenstra, 1997. "The Effects of U.S. Trade Protection and Promotion Policies," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number feen97-1.
    7. 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.
    8. Blonigen, Bruce A. & Ohno, Yuka, 1998. "Endogenous protection, foreign direct investment and protection-building trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 205-227, December.
    9. Moore, Michael O, 1992. "Rules or Politics? An Empirical Analysis of ITC Anti-dumping Decisions," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 30(3), pages 449-466, July.
    10. Hansen, Wendy L & Prusa, Thomas J, 1996. "Cumulation and ITC Decision-Making: The Sum of the Parts Is Greater Than the Whole," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 34(4), pages 746-769, October.
    11. 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 452-466, June.
    12. Staiger, Robert W. & Wolak, Frank A., 1992. "The effect of domestic antidumping law in the presence of foreign monopoly," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3-4), pages 265-287, May.
    13. 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 745-763, November.
    14. A. Lasagni, 2000. "Does country-targeted anti-dumping policy by the EU create trade diversion?," Economics Department Working Papers 2000-EP02, Department of Economics, Parma University (Italy).
    15. Lyons, Bruce & Matraves, Catherine & Moffatt, Peter, 2001. "Industrial Concentration and Market Integration in the European Union," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 68(269), pages 1-26, February.
    16. Anderson, James E., 1993. "Domino dumping II: Anti-dumping," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1-2), pages 133-150, August.
    17. Anderson, James E, 1992. "Domino Dumping, I: Competitive Exporters," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(1), pages 65-83, March.
    18. Prusa, Thomas J., 1992. "Why are so many antidumping petitions withdrawn?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1-2), pages 1-20, August.
    19. Fischer, Ronald D., 1992. "Endogenous probability of protection and firm behavior," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1-2), pages 149-163, February.
    20. Messerlin, Patrick A & Reed, Geoffrey, 1995. "Antidumping Policies in the United States and the European Community," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 105(433), pages 1565-1575, November.
    21. Bruce A. Blonigen & Thomas J. Prusa, 2001. "Antidumping," NBER Working Papers 8398, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    22. Brenton, Paul, 2001. "Anti-dumping policies in the EU and trade diversion," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 593-607, September.
    23. Tharakan, P. K. M. & Waelbroeck, J., 1994. "Antidumping and countervailing duty decisions in the E.C. and in the U.S.: An experiment in comparative political economy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 171-193, January.
    24. Robert Baldwin & Jeffrey Steagall, 1994. "An analysis of ITC decisions in antidumping, countervailing duty and safeguard cases," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 130(2), pages 290-308, June.
    25. Das, Satya P., 1992. "Market uncertainties and cyclical dumping," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 71-82, January.
    26. René Belderbos, 1997. "Antidumping and tariff Jumping: Japanese firms’ DFI in the European union and the United States," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 133(3), pages 419-457, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    antidumping measures; trade diversion; econometric testing;

    JEL classification:

    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • L50 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - General

    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:kap:jincot:v:1:y:2001:i:3:p:283-299. 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: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: http://springer.com .

    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.