IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/ijecbs/v8y2001i1p75-99.html

Strategic Behaviour under European Antidumping Duties

Author

Listed:
  • Wilfried Pauwels
  • Hylke Vandenbussche
  • Marcel Weverbergh

Abstract

In this paper we develop a dynamic two-period model of imperfect competition to analyse the effects of European antidumping duties on firm behaviour and domestic welfare. Our model is one of the first to complement the European empirical literature on antidumping policy and can usefully be compared with papers dealing with the effects of US antidumping policy. We arrive at three important conclusions: (a) the strategic behaviour of European firms under European antidumping rules may run in the opposite direction compared to the incentives for US firms provided under the US antidumping rules; (b) US antidumping rules perform better than European rules in terms of domestic welfare and in terms of protecting domestic value added and employment; (c) the Strategic Trade Policy argument for protection need not apply for antidumping duties because the level of protection is endogenously determined by the firms involved.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:ijecbs:v:8:y:2001:i:1:p:75-99
    DOI: 10.1080/13571510151075297
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/13571510151075297
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13571510151075297?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. Robert W. Staiger & Frank A. Wolak, 1989. "Strategic Use of Antidumping Law to Enforce Tacit International Collusion," NBER Working Papers 3016, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Nirvikar Singh & Xavier Vives, 1984. "Price and Quantity Competition in a Differentiated Duopoly," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 15(4), pages 546-554, Winter.
    3. Fischer, Ronald D., 1992. "Endogenous probability of protection and firm behavior," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1-2), pages 149-163, February.
    4. Bruce A. Blonigen & Thomas J. Prusa, 2001. "Antidumping," NBER Working Papers 8398, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Jonathan Eaton & Gene M. Grossman, 1986. "Optimal Trade and Industrial Policy Under Oligopoly," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 101(2), pages 383-406.
    6. 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.
    7. Martin J. Osborne & Ariel Rubinstein, 1994. "A Course in Game Theory," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262650401, December.
    8. repec:fth:stanho:e-90-8 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Hylke Vandenbussche, 1996. "Is European antidumping protection against Central Europe too high?," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 132(1), pages 116-138, March.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Roberts, John & Sonnenschein, Hugo, 1976. "On the existence of Cournot equilbrium without concave profit functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 112-117, August.
    13. 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.
    14. Patrick Messerlin, 1989. "The ec antidumping regulations: A first economic appraisal, 1980–85," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 125(3), pages 563-587, September.
    15. Brander, James A. & Spencer, Barbara J., 1985. "Export subsidies and international market share rivalry," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1-2), pages 83-100, February.
    16. David R. Collie & Vo Phuong Mai Le, 2010. "Antidumping Regulations: Anti‐Competitive and Anti‐Export," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(5), pages 796-806, November.
    17. 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)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bruce Blonigen & Thomas Prusa, 2003. "The Cost of Antidumping: the Devil is in the Details," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(4), pages 233-245.
    2. Christian Gormsen, 2011. "Antidumping with heterogeneous firms," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) hal-00663024, HAL.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Christian Gormsen, 2011. "Antidumping with heterogeneous firms," Post-Print hal-00663024, HAL.
    6. Joseph, Siny & Lavoie, Nathalie, 2008. "Effectiveness of COOL in the U.S. Seafood Industry," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6260, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    7. Nelson, Douglas, 2006. "The political economy of antidumping: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 554-590, September.
    8. Christian Gormsen, 2011. "Anti-dumping with heterogeneous firms," International Economics, CEPII research center, issue 125, pages 41-64.
    9. Wang, Kuang-Cheng Andy & Chou, Ping-Yao & Liang, Wen-Jung, 2024. "Cost asymmetry, commodity taxes and antidumping policies," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 96(PC).
    10. Evenett, Simon J., 2006. "The simple analytics of U.S. antidumping orders: Bureaucratic discretion, anti-importer bias, and the Byrd amendment," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 732-749, September.
    11. David R. Collie & Vo Phuong Mai Le, 2010. "Antidumping Regulations: Anti‐Competitive and Anti‐Export," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(5), pages 796-806, November.
    12. 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.
    13. Ray-Yun Chang & Hong Hwang & Cheng-Hau Peng, 2020. "Antidumping protection and welfare in a differentiated duopoly," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 71(3), pages 421-446, July.
    14. Nada Hazem & Chahir Zaki, 2020. "Mind the Measure: On the Effects of Antidumping Investigations in Egypt," Journal of African Trade, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 1-14, December.
    15. Laura ROVEGNO & Hylke VANDENBUSSCHE, 2011. "A comparative analysis of EU Antidumping rules and application," LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 2011023, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    16. 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).
    17. Martin Theuringer & Pia Weiß, 2001. "Do Anti-Dumping Rules Facilitate the Abuse of Market Dominance?," IWP Discussion Paper Series 03/2001, Institute for Economic Policy, Cologne, Germany.
    18. repec:lic:licosd:34213 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Magdalene Silberberger & Anja Slany & Christian Soegaard & Frederik Stender, 2022. "The Aftermath of Anti-Dumping: Are Temporary Trade Barriers Really Temporary?," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 677-704, September.
    20. Cassagnard Patrice & Thiam Mamadou, 2024. "How does consumer quality misperception change European Union antidumping actions?," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 160(4), pages 1247-1275, November.
    21. Bruce A. Blonigen & Thomas J. Prusa, 2001. "Antidumping," NBER Working Papers 8398, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    22. 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.
    23. 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).
    24. Falvey, Rod & Wittayarungruangsri, Sarut, 2006. "Market size and antidumping in duopolistic competition," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 771-786, September.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Belderbos, R. & Vandenbussche, H. & Veugelers, R., 2004. "Antidumping duties, undertakings, and foreign direct investment in the EU," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 429-453, April.
    4. Nelson, Douglas, 2006. "The political economy of antidumping: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 554-590, September.
    5. Qiu, Larry D., 1995. "Why can't countervailing duties deter export subsidization?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(3-4), pages 249-272, November.
    6. Martin Theuringer & Pia Weiß, 2001. "Do Anti-Dumping Rules Facilitate the Abuse of Market Dominance?," IWP Discussion Paper Series 03/2001, Institute for Economic Policy, Cologne, Germany.
    7. Bruce Blonigen & Thomas Prusa, 2003. "The Cost of Antidumping: the Devil is in the Details," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(4), pages 233-245.
    8. 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.
    9. Jose Luis Moraga-Gonzalez & Jean-Marie Viaene, 2004. "Anti-dumping, Intra-industry Trade and Quality Reversals," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 04-124/2, Tinbergen Institute.
    10. 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.
    11. Yoshitomo Ogawa & Yoshiyasu Ono, 2011. "The Byrd Amendment as Facilitating a Tacit International Business Collusion," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(5), pages 877-893, November.
    12. Meredith A. Crowley, 2004. "Antidumping Policy Under Imperfect Competition: Theory and Evidence," Econometric Society 2004 North American Summer Meetings 443, Econometric Society.
    13. Elizabeth Schroeder & Victor Tremblay, 2015. "A Reappraisal of Strategic Trade Policy," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 435-442, December.
    14. Ma, Jie & Ulph, Alistair, 2004. "Advertising in a differentiated duopoly and its policy implications for an open economy," Discussion Paper Series In Economics And Econometrics 0406, Economics Division, School of Social Sciences, University of Southampton.
    15. Delia Ionaºcu & Kresimir Zigic, 2005. "Strategic Tariff Protection, Market Conduct, and Government Commitment Levels in Developing Economies," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp249, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
    16. Anomita Ghosh & Rupayan Pal, 2014. "Strategic trade policy for network goods oligopolies," Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai Working Papers 2014-039, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, India.
    17. Thomas J. Prusa, 2021. "The Trade Effects of U.S. Antidumping Actions," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Thomas J Prusa (ed.), Economic Effects of Antidumping, chapter 3, pages 21-43, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    18. Philippe Kohler & Michael O. Moore, 2003. "Domestic Welfare Effects of Foreign Strategic Trade Policies," Journal of Economic Integration, Center for Economic Integration, Sejong University, vol. 18, pages 573-586.
    19. Bruce A. Blonigen & Thomas J. Prusa, 2001. "Antidumping," NBER Working Papers 8398, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Vandenbussche, Hylke & Konings, Jozef, 2002. "Does Antidumping Protection Raise Market Power? Evidence from Firm Level Data," CEPR Discussion Papers 3571, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:ijecbs:v:8:y:2001:i:1:p:75-99. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CIJB20 .

    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.