IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/applec/v48y2016i43p4083-4097.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Differences in the determinants and targeting of antidumping: China and India compared

Author

Listed:
  • Ning Meng
  • Chris Milner
  • Huasheng Song

Abstract

Despite both being developing countries, China and India have markedly contrasting patterns in their use and targeting of antidumping (AD) measures. We explore the factors driving AD use by these two countries, considering in turn macroeconomic, strategic and other determinants. We find more regular or systematic features of AD use by China, while India displays a less systematic pattern of AD use. Economic growth, AD club effect and free trade agreement participation are shown to constrain AD use by China. Compared to India, AD use by China is also more sensitive across industries. Furthermore, China targets developed countries more than developing countries, while India is less discriminating with respect to the country type it targets.

Suggested Citation

  • Ning Meng & Chris Milner & Huasheng Song, 2016. "Differences in the determinants and targeting of antidumping: China and India compared," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(43), pages 4083-4097, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:applec:v:48:y:2016:i:43:p:4083-4097
    DOI: 10.1080/00036846.2016.1150954
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00036846.2016.1150954
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Thomas Prusa & Susan Skeath, 2002. "The economic and strategic motives for antidumping filings," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 138(3), pages 389-413, September.
    4. 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.
    5. Michael O. Moore & Maurizio Zanardi, 2009. "Does antidumping use contribute to trade liberalization in developing countries?," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 42(2), pages 469-495, May.
    6. Blonigen, Bruce A., 2006. "Working the system: Firm learning and the antidumping process," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 715-731, September.
    7. Vuong, Quang H, 1989. "Likelihood Ratio Tests for Model Selection and Non-nested Hypotheses," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(2), pages 307-333, March.
    8. 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.
    9. Blonigen, Bruce A. & Bown, Chad P., 2003. "Antidumping and retaliation threats," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 249-273, August.
    10. Thomas J. Prusa, 2001. "On the spread and impact of anti-dumping," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 34(3), pages 591-611, August.
    11. 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.
    12. Knetter, Michael M. & Prusa, Thomas J., 2003. "Macroeconomic factors and antidumping filings: evidence from four countries," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 1-17, October.
    13. Park, Soonchan, 2009. "The trade depressing and trade diversion effects of antidumping actions: The case of China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 542-548, September.
    14. Bown, Chad P. & Tovar, Patricia, 2011. "Trade liberalization, antidumping, and safeguards: Evidence from India's tariff reform," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 115-125, September.
    15. Mah, Jai S. & Kim, Yong Dae, 2006. "Antidumping duties and macroeconomic variables: The case of Korea," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 157-162, February.
    16. Crowley Meredith A., 2010. "Split Decisions in Antidumping Cases," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-26, July.
    17. Cameron, A. Colin & Trivedi, Pravin K., 1990. "Regression-based tests for overdispersion in the Poisson model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 347-364, December.
    18. Gunnar Niels & Joseph Francois, 2006. "Business Cycles, the Exchange Rate, and Demand for Antidumping Protection in Mexico," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(3), pages 388-399, August.
    19. Xiaohua Bao & Larry D. Qiu, 2011. "Is China's Antidumping More Retaliatory than that of the US?," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(2), pages 374-389, May.
    20. Feinberg, Robert M, 1989. "Exchange Rates and "Unfair Trade."," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 71(4), pages 704-707, November.
    21. Michael P. Leidy, 1997. "Macroeconomic Conditions and Pressures for Protection under Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws: Empirical Evidence from the United States," IMF Staff Papers, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 44(1), pages 132-144, March.
    22. LO, Chu-Ping & LIU, Bih Jane, 2009. "Why India is mainly engaged in offshore service activities, while China is disproportionately engaged in manufacturing?," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 236-245, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    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:taf:applec:v:48:y:2016:i:43:p:4083-4097. 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: (Chris Longhurst). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAEC20 .

    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.