IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jincot/v6y2006i3p253-275.html

Antidumping as Anticompetitive Practice Evidence from the United States and the European Union

Author

Listed:
  • Mustapha Jallab

  • James Kobak

Abstract

This paper discusses and develops certain observable indices of the nature and effects of dumping and antidumping policy. The object is to analyze each antidumping procedure introduced by the United States (US) and the European Union (EU) for the 1998–2001 period. Using conservative criteria, we find that 68.2% of the antidumping procedures introduced by the EU appear to have a questionable economic foundation, meaning that the identified factors suggest that the conduct challenged is unlikely to have any significantly anticompetitive effect. We similarly find a questionable economic foundation in 76% of the analyzed cases in the US. The recommendation that we propose is that it may be appropriate to modify the antidumping law to take into account at a preliminary stage the factors that may indicate the presence or absence of potential anticompetitive effects. Copyright Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Suggested Citation

  • Mustapha Jallab & James Kobak, 2006. "Antidumping as Anticompetitive Practice Evidence from the United States and the European Union," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 253-275, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jincot:v:6:y:2006:i:3:p:253-275
    DOI: 10.1007/s10842-006-0026-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10842-006-0026-y
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10842-006-0026-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas J. Prusa, 2021. "Why are so many antidumping petitions withdrawn?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Thomas J Prusa (ed.), Economic Effects of Antidumping, chapter 2, pages 1-20, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Vincent Aussilloux & Gilles Mourre, 2001. "Une révision souhaitable de la procédure antidumping à l'OMC," Revue Française d'Économie, Programme National Persée, vol. 15(4), pages 19-53.
    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. Lukas J. Hornung & Nico Stöckmann, 2024. "Protectionism in Disguise? EU Anti-Dumping Measures Targeting PRC Iron and Steel Products," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 1-31, December.

    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. Maurizio Zanardi, 2004. "Antidumping law as a collusive device," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 37(1), pages 95-122, February.
    2. Becker Bettina & Theuringer Martin, 2001. "Macroeconomic Determinants of Contingent Protection: The Case of the European Union," Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 50(3), pages 350-374, December.
    3. Meredith A. Crowley, 2004. "Antidumping Policy Under Imperfect Competition: Theory and Evidence," Econometric Society 2004 North American Summer Meetings 443, Econometric Society.
    4. Nogues, Julio J. & Baracat, Elias, 2005. "Political economy of antidumping and safeguards in Argentina," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3587, The World Bank.
    5. Hylke Vandenbussche & Maurizio Zanardi, 2008. "What explains the proliferation of antidumping laws? [‘Antidumping Laws in the US; Use and Welfare Consequences’]," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 23(53), pages 94-138.
    6. Michel DE VROEY, 2013. "What can civil society expect from academic macroeconomics?," LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 2013022, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    7. Colin A. Carter & Caroline Gunning-Trant, 2010. "U.S. trade remedy law and agriculture: trade diversion and investigation effects," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 43(1), pages 97-126, February.
    8. 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.
    9. Jan Baran, 2015. "The impact of antidumping on EU trade," IBS Working Papers 12/2015, Instytut Badan Strukturalnych.
    10. Rehbein, Kathleen & Starks, Laura T., 1995. "Changes in U.S. trade policies: the wealth effects on Japanese steel firms," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 309-327, September.
    11. Staiger, Robert W., 1995. "International rules and institutions for trade policy," Handbook of International Economics, in: G. M. Grossman & K. Rogoff (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 29, pages 1495-1551, Elsevier.
    12. Dobrin R. Kolev & Thomas J. Prusa, 2021. "Dumping and double crossing: The (in)effectiveness of cost-based trade policy under incomplete information," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Thomas J Prusa (ed.), Economic Effects of Antidumping, chapter 7, pages 129-152, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    13. Konings, Jozef & Vandenbussche, Hylke, 2008. "Heterogeneous responses of firms to trade protection," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 371-383, December.
    14. Gunning-Trant, Caroline & Carter, Colin A., 2003. "Trade Remedy Laws And Nafta Agricultural Trade," Working Papers 11962, University of California, Davis, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    15. repec:rye:wpaper:wp078 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Blonigen, Bruce A. & Bown, Chad P., 2003. "Antidumping and retaliation threats," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 249-273, August.
    17. David Godsell & Michael Welker & Ning Zhang, 2017. "Earnings Management During Antidumping Investigations in Europe: Sample‐Wide and Cross‐Sectional Evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 55(2), pages 407-457, May.
    18. Christian Gormsen, 2011. "Antidumping with heterogeneous firms," Post-Print hal-00663024, HAL.
    19. Neha Bhardwaj Upadhayay, 2024. "The Link Between Aid-for-Trade and Contingent Protection," Foreign Trade Review, , vol. 59(4), pages 455-500, November.
    20. 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.
    21. Melvin, Michael & Sun, Qian, 1997. "U.S. protectionist policy and stock prices of U.S. import-competing and Korean and Taiwanese export-oriented firms," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 25-38, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • L12 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Monopoly; Monopolization Strategies
    • L41 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Monopolization; Horizontal Anticompetitive Practices

    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:6:y:2006:i:3:p:253-275. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://springer.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.