IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/qua/journl/v2y2005i1p3-35.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do Developing Countries Benefit from Antidumping Laws? An Assessment Based upon a Theoretical Dumping Model

Author

Listed:
  • Mario D. Tello

    (Universidad Catolica de Peru)

Abstract

This paper develops an international Dumping model ofimperfect competition based upon developed and developing countries' comparative advantage. The main results of the analysis indicate: a) without trade impediments and a coordinated competition policy between trading countries, dumped products from foreign firms are beneficial for the dumped country under a broad range of market structures of these products because they increased social welfare. These benefits arise from cheaper imports and increasing competition in the domestic market; b) absence of a coordinated competition policy between trading countries may produce losses for the dumped country under imperfectly competitive markets; c) traditional antidumping duty suggested by the gatt not necessarily is welfare improving for the dumped country. Moreover, the welfare analysis suggests that antidumping tariffs are the least convenient trade policy for the dumped country. The first best policy is free trade together with a coordinated competition policy between countries; d) the model allows to identify alternative second best instruments for dumped countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Mario D. Tello, 2005. "Do Developing Countries Benefit from Antidumping Laws? An Assessment Based upon a Theoretical Dumping Model," EconoQuantum, Revista de Economia y Finanzas, Universidad de Guadalajara, Centro Universitario de Ciencias Economico Administrativas, Departamento de Metodos Cuantitativos y Maestria en Economia., vol. 2(1), pages 3-35, Julio-Dic.
  • Handle: RePEc:qua:journl:v:2:y:2005:i:1:p:3-35
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://econoquantum.cucea.udg.mx/index.php/EQ/article/view/166
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://econoquantum.cucea.udg.mx/index.php/EQ/issue/view/25
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    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. Anderson, Simon P. & Schmitt, Nicolas & Thisse, Jacques-Francois, 1995. "Who benefits from antidumping legislation?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(3-4), pages 321-337, May.
    3. repec:bla:jecsur:v:14:y:2000:i:4:p:467-92 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Dixit, Avinash, 1988. "Anti-dumping and countervailing duties under oligopoly," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 55-68, January.
    5. 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..
    6. Guash, J. Luis & Rajapatirana, Sarath, 1998. "Total strangers or soul mates? - antidumping and competition policies in Latin America and the Caribbean," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1958, The World Bank.
    7. Anne O. Krueger, 1978. "Foreign Trade Regimes and Economic Development: Liberalization Attempts and Consequences," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number krue78-1.
    8. Mario Tello, 1993. "Mecanismos hacia el crecimiento económico," Libros PUCP / PUCP Books, Fondo Editorial - Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, edition 1, number lde-1993-02, April.
    9. Ito, Takatoshi & Rose, Andrew K. (ed.), 2005. "International Trade in East Asia," National Bureau of Economic Research Books, University of Chicago Press, number 9780226378961, August.
    10. J.M. Finger, 2002. "Dumping and Antidumping: The Rhetoric and the Reality of Protection in Industrial Countries," Chapters, in: Institutions and Trade Policy, chapter 9, pages 96-118, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Isgut, Alberto & Tello, Mario & Veiderpass, Ann, 1998. "Microeconomic Adjustment During Structural Reforms: The Nicaraguan Manufacturing Sector 1991-1995," Working Papers in Economics 11, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    12. Lahiri, Sajal & Sheen, Jeffrey, 1990. "On Optimal Dumping," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(400), pages 127-136, Supplemen.
    13. Bernard Hoekman & Peter Holmes, 1999. "Competition Policy, Developing Countries and the WTO," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(6), pages 875-893, August.
    14. F. H. Hahn, 1962. "The Stability of the Cournot Oligopoly Solution," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 29(4), pages 329-331.
    15. Gallaway, Michael P. & Blonigen, Bruce A. & Flynn, Joseph E., 1999. "Welfare costs of the U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty laws," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 211-244, December.
    16. Takatoshi Ito & Andrew K. Rose, 2005. "International Trade in East Asia," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number ito_05-1.
    17. Gunnar Niels, 2000. "What is Antidumping Policy Really About?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(4), pages 467-492, September.
    18. Collie, David, 1991. "Anti-dumping and countervailing duties under oligopoly : A comment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 1185-1187, July.
    19. Krishna, Raj, 1997. "Antidumping in law and practice," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1823, The World Bank.
    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. Wu, Shih-Jye & Chang, Yang-Ming & Chen, Hung-Yi, 2014. "Antidumping duties and price undertakings: A welfare analysis," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 97-107.
    2. Ian Wooton & Maurizio Zanardi, 2002. "Trade and Competition Policy: Anti-Dumping versus Anti-trust," Working Papers 2002_6, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow, revised Oct 2002.
    3. Kohler, Philippe & O. Moore, Michael, 2003. "Domestic Welfare Effects of Foreign Strategic Trade Policies," Journal of Economic Integration, Center for Economic Integration, Sejong University, vol. 18, pages 573-586.
    4. Jan Haaland & Ian Wooton, 1998. "Antidumping jumping: Reciprocal antidumping and industrial location," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 134(2), pages 340-362, June.
    5. Alberto Gallegos David, 2019. "Optimal Reciprocal Dumping in a Managed Trade Regime," Remef - Revista Mexicana de Economía y Finanzas Nueva Época REMEF (The Mexican Journal of Economics and Finance), Instituto Mexicano de Ejecutivos de Finanzas, IMEF, vol. 14(2), pages 189-202, Abril-Jun.
    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. 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.
    8. Richard E. Baldwin, 2011. "Multilateralising Regionalism: Spaghetti Bowls as Building Blocks on the Path to Global Free Trade," Chapters, in: Miroslav N. Jovanović (ed.), International Handbook on the Economics of Integration, Volume I, chapter 2, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Conconi, P., 2000. "Trade Bloc Formation Under Imperfect Competition," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 571, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    10. Christian Gormsen, 2011. "Antidumping with heterogeneous firms," Post-Print hal-00663024, HAL.
    11. Laura ROVEGNO, 2013. "Endogenous trade restrictions and exporters’ pricing," LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 2013023, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    12. Carolyn L. Evans & Shane M. Sherlund, 2011. "Are Antidumping Duties for Sale? Case‐Level Evidence on the Grossman‐Helpman Protection for Sale Model," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 78(2), pages 330-357, October.
    13. Christian Gormsen, 2011. "Anti-dumping with heterogeneous firms," International Economics, CEPII research center, issue 125, pages 41-64.
    14. Felbermayr, Gabriel & Sandkamp, Alexander, 2020. "The trade effects of anti-dumping duties: Firm-level evidence from China," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    15. Nelson, Douglas, 2006. "The political economy of antidumping: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 554-590, September.
    16. Simon P. Anderson & Nicolas Schmitt, 2003. "Nontariff Barriers and Trade Liberalization," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 41(1), pages 80-97, January.
    17. Kokko, Ari & Gustavsson Tingvall, Patrik & Videnord, Josefin, 2017. "Which Antidumping Cases Reach the WTO?," Ratio Working Papers 286, The Ratio Institute.
    18. Chang, Yang-Ming & Raza, Mian F., 2023. "Dumping, antidumping duties, and price undertakings," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 131-151.
    19. José Daniel Reyes, 2013. "Trade Liberalization and the Adoption of Antidumping Laws in Developing Countries," Revista Equidad y Desarrollo, Universidad de la Salle, December.
    20. Brander, James A., 1995. "Strategic trade policy," Handbook of International Economics, in: G. M. Grossman & K. Rogoff (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 27, pages 1395-1455, Elsevier.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Dumping; antidumping tariffs; international imperfectly competitive markets; social welfare.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F12 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Models of Trade with Imperfect Competition and Scale Economies; Fragmentation
    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • I31 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - General Welfare, Well-Being

    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:qua:journl:v:2:y:2005:i:1:p:3-35. 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: Sandra Ivett Portugal Padilla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dmudgmx.html .

    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.