IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Trade protection and market power: evidence from US antidumping and countervailing duties

  • Laura Rovegno

    ()

Contingent protection measures were originally intended to protect domestic producers from what were considered to be “unfairly” cheap imports. However, due to the way in which these policies are designed and implemented, they have been heavily criticised for their greatly disruptive effects on markets, and particularly on competition. The analysis presented in this paper contributes to the debate by studying the impact of US antidumping (AD) and countervailing (CV) duties on domestic producers’ price-cost margins (PCM). To this end, the study takes advantage of a long panel of 4-digit industries in the United States covering 26 years of AD/CV activity, including the periods before and after the changes to AD/CV laws introduced following the Uruguay Round (UR). It finds evidence of a positive effect of AD/CV duties on PCM for the period prior to the UR, but the effect seems to disappear in the years following the UR. The analysis accounts for potential endogeneity in AD/CV duties, as well as the intensity of the protection granted. Copyright Kiel Institute 2013

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10290-013-0160-7
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 under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Springer in its journal Review of World Economics.

Volume (Year): 149 (2013)
Issue (Month): 3 (September)
Pages: 443-476

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:spr:weltar:v:149:y:2013:i:3:p:443-476
Contact details of provider: Postal: Kiellinie 66, D-24105 Kiel
Phone: +49 431 8814-1
Fax: +49 431 8814528
Web page: http://link.springer.de/link/service/journals/10290/index.htm
Email:


More information through EDIRC

Order Information: Web: http://link.springer.de/orders.htm

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Robert C. Feenstra, 1996. "U.S. Imports, 1972-1994: Data and Concordances," NBER Working Papers 5515, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  2. Stephen J Redding & Peter K Schott & Andrew B Bernard, 2007. "Multi-product Firms and Trade Liberalization," 2007 Meeting Papers 44, Society for Economic Dynamics.
  3. R Blundell & Steven Bond, . "Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data model," Economics Papers W14&104., Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
  4. Mark J. Melitz, 2002. "The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity," NBER Working Papers 8881, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  5. Arellano, Manuel & Bond, Stephen, 1991. "Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(2), pages 277-97, April.
  6. Crowley, Meredith A., 2006. "Do safeguard tariffs and antidumping duties open or close technology gaps?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 469-484, March.
  7. Andrew B. Bernard & J. Bradford Jensen & Peter K. Schott, 2003. "Falling Trade Costs, Heterogeneous Firms, and Industry Dynamics," NBER Working Papers 9639, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  8. Justin Pierce & Peter Schott, 2009. "A Concordance Between Ten-Digit U.S. Harmonized System Codes and SIC/NAICS Product Classes and Industries," Working Papers 09-41, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
  9. Arellano, Manuel & Bover, Olympia, 1995. "Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 29-51, July.
  10. Bruce A. Blonigen & Jee-Hyeong Park, 2004. "Dynamic Pricing in the Presence of Antidumping Policy: Theory and Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(1), pages 134-154, March.
  11. Pavcnik, Nina, 2002. "Trade Liberalization, Exit, and Productivity Improvement: Evidence from Chilean Plants," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(1), pages 245-76, January.
  12. Andrew B. Bernard & Jonathan Eaton & J. Bradford Jenson & Samuel Kortum, 2000. "Plants and Productivity in International Trade," NBER Working Papers 7688, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  13. Nelson, Douglas, 2006. "The political economy of antidumping: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 554-590, September.
  14. Anderson, T. W. & Hsiao, Cheng, 1982. "Formulation and estimation of dynamic models using panel data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 47-82, January.
  15. Justin Pierce, 2009. "Plant-Level Responses to Antidumping Duties: Evidence from U.S. Manufacturers," Working Papers 09-38r, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau, revised Jul 2011.
  16. 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 746-69, October.
  17. VANDENBUSSCHE, Hylke & ZANARDI, Maurizio, . "The chilling trade effects of antidumping proliferation," CORE Discussion Papers RP -2355, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
  18. THARAKAN, P. K. Mathew & GREENAWAY, David & THARAKAN, Joe, . "Cumulation and injury determination of the European Community in antidumping cases," CORE Discussion Papers RP -1348, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
  19. 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, vol. 133(3), pages 419-457, September.
  20. Hylke Vandenbussche & Jozef Konings & Linda Springael, 1999. "Import Diversion under European Antidumping Policy," NBER Working Papers 7340, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  21. Fabio Spadi, 2002. "Discriminatory Safeguards in the Light of the Admission of the People's Republic of China to the World Trade Organization," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(2), pages 421-443, July.
  22. Thomas Prusa & Susan Skeath, 2002. "The economic and strategic motives for antidumping filings," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer, vol. 138(3), pages 389-413, September.
  23. Konings, Jozef & Vandenbussche, Hylke, 2008. "Heterogeneous responses of firms to trade protection," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 371-383, December.
  24. Thomas Prusa & Michael Knetter, 2000. "Macroeconomic Factors and Antidumping Filings: Evidence from Four Countries," Departmental Working Papers 200023, Rutgers University, Department of Economics.
  25. Andrew B. Bernard & J. Bradford Jensen & Peter K. Schott, 2003. "Survival of the Best Fit: Exposure to Low-Wage Countries and the (Uneven) Growth of US Manufacturing Plants," Working Paper Series WP03-3, Peterson Institute for International Economics.
  26. J. M. Finger, 1981. "The Industry-Country Incidence of "Less than Fair Value" Cases in US Import Trade," NBER Chapters, in: Export Diversification and the New Protectionism: The Experience of Latin America, pages 260-279 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  27. Bown, Chad P. & Crowley, Meredith A., 2006. "Policy externalities: How US antidumping affects Japanese exports to the EU," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 696-714, September.
  28. James Nieberding, 1999. "The Effect of U.S. Antidumping Law on Firms' Market Power: An Empirical Test," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 65-84, February.
  29. Eric J. Bartelsman & Wayne Gray, 1996. "The NBER Manufacturing Productivity Database," NBER Technical Working Papers 0205, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  30. Hansen, Wendy L & Prusa, Thomas J, 1997. "The Economics and Politics of Trade Policy: An Empirical Analysis of ITC Decision Making," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(2), pages 230-45, May.
  31. Robert M. Feinberg & Kara M. Reynolds, 2006. "The Spread of Antidumping Regimes and the Role of Retaliation in Filings," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 72(4), pages 877–890, April.
  32. 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.
  33. Bruce A. Blonigen & Stephen E. Haynes, 2002. "Antidumping Investigations and the Pass-Through of Antidumping Duties and Exchange Rates," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(4), pages 1044-1061, September.
  34. Miyagiwa, Kaz & Ohno, Yuka, 1995. "Closing the Technology Gap under Protection," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(4), pages 755-70, September.
  35. Robert C. Feenstra & John Romalis & Peter K. Schott, 2002. "U.S. Imports, Exports, and Tariff Data, 1989-2001," NBER Working Papers 9387, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  36. Maurizio Zanardi, 2000. "Antidumping Law as a Collusive Device," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 487, Boston College Department of Economics.
  37. Roeger, Werner, 1995. "Can Imperfect Competition Explain the Difference between Primal and Dual Productivity Measures? Estimates for U.S. Manufacturing," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(2), pages 316-30, April.
  38. Thomas J. Prusa, 1996. "The Trade Effects of U.S. Antidumping Actions," NBER Working Papers 5440, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  39. Feinberg, Robert M. & Hirsch, Barry T., 1989. "Industry rent seeking and the filing of unfair trade complaints," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 325-340.
  40. Edward C. Kokkelenberg & Donna R. Sockell, 1985. "Union membership in the United States, 1973û1981," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 38(4), pages 497-543, July.
  41. Bruce A. Blonigen & Chad P. Bown, 2001. "Antidumping and Retaliation Threats," NBER Working Papers 8576, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  42. 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 449-66, July.
  43. Bruce A. Blonigen & Benjamin H. Liebman & Wesley W. Wilson, 2007. "Trade Policy and Market Power: The Case of the US Steel Industry," NBER Working Papers 13671, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  44. Robert Baldwin & Jeffrey Steagall, 1994. "An analysis of ITC decisions in antidumping, countervailing duty and safeguard cases," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer, vol. 130(2), pages 290-308, June.
  45. 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 452-66, June.
  46. Steve Bond, 2002. "Dynamic panel data models: a guide to microdata methods and practice," CeMMAP working papers CWP09/02, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
  47. Corinne M. Krupp & Patricia S. Pollard, 1996. "Market Responses to Antidumping Laws: Some Evidence from the U.S. Chemical Industry," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 29(1), pages 199-227, February.
  48. Miyagiwa, Kaz & Ohno, Yuka, 1999. "Credibility of Protection and Incentives to Innovate," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 40(1), pages 143-63, February.
  49. Robert C. Feenstra, 1997. "U.S. Exports, 1972-1994: With State Exports and Other U.S. Data," NBER Working Papers 5990, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  50. Bernard, Andrew B. & Jensen, J. Bradford & Schott, Peter K., 2006. "Trade costs, firms and productivity," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(5), pages 917-937, July.
  51. Windmeijer, Frank, 2005. "A finite sample correction for the variance of linear efficient two-step GMM estimators," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 126(1), pages 25-51, May.
  52. Prusa, Thomas J., 1992. "Why are so many antidumping petitions withdrawn?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1-2), pages 1-20, August.
  53. Robert M. Feinberg, 2005. "U.S. Antidumping Enforcement and Macroeconomic Indicators Revisited: Do Petitioners Learn?," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer, vol. 141(4), pages 612-622, December.
  54. David Roodman, 2006. "How to Do xtabond2: An Introduction to "Difference" and "System" GMM in Stata," Working Papers 103, Center for Global Development.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:weltar:v:149:y:2013:i:3:p:443-476. 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: (Guenther Eichhorn)

or (Christopher F Baum)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.