IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

The Cost of Antidumping: the Devil is in the Details

  • Bruce Blonigen
  • Thomas Prusa

We argue that the costs of antidumping (AD) protection are substantially higher than standard tariff analysis would suggest. First, since AD duties are often adjusted during administrative reviews, the welfare cost of AD duties increases over time. These adjustments effectively transfer heavily distorted AD revenue to foreign firms. Second, AD duties are more costly than simply the visible costs of AD protection. There are significant additional costs associated with the prospect of protection imposed when foreign and domestic firms alter their profit maximizing behavior in order to influence the outcome of potential AD investigations. These costs may exceed the direct cost of AD duties.

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://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/134841280410004698996
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 Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal Journal of Economic Policy Reform.

Volume (Year): 6 (2003)
Issue (Month): 4 ()
Pages: 233-245

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:taf:jpolrf:v:6:y:2003:i:4:p:233-245
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/GPRE19

Order Information: Web: http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/GPRE19

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. Hillman, Arye L & Katz, Eliakim & Rosenberg, Jacob, 1987. "Workers as Insurance: Anticipated Government Assistance and Factor Demand," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(4), pages 813-20, December.
  2. W. Kip Viscusi & Joseph E. Harrington & John M. Vernon, 2005. "Economics of Regulation and Antitrust, 4th Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 4, volume 1, number 026222075x, December.
  3. Anderson, James E, 1992. "Domino Dumping, I: Competitive Exporters," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(1), pages 65-83, March.
  4. Thomas J. Prusa & Dobrin Kolev, 1999. "Dumping and Double Crossing: The (In)Effectiveness Of Cost-Based Trade Policy Under Incomplete Information," Departmental Working Papers 199901, Rutgers University, Department of Economics.
  5. Meredith A. Crowley, 2002. "Do safeguard tariffs and antidumping duties open or close technology gaps?," Working Paper Series WP-02-13, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
  6. Vandenbussche, Hylke & Wauthy, Xavier, 2001. "Inflicting injury through product quality: how European antidumping policy disadvantages European producers," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 101-116, March.
  7. Robert Baldwin & Jeffrey Steagall, 1994. "An analysis of ITC decisions in antidumping, countervailing duty and safeguard cases," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 130(2), pages 290-308, June.
  8. James Devault, 1996. "The welfare effects of U.S. antidumping duties," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 19-33, January.
  9. Miyagiwa, K. & Ohno, Y., 1993. "Closing the Technology Gap Under Protection," Working Papers 93-09, University of Washington, Department of Economics.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. Thomas J. Prusa, 1999. "On the Spread and Impact of Antidumping," NBER Working Papers 7404, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  13. Wendy L. Hansen & Thomas J. Prusa, 1996. "The Economics and Politics of Trade Policy: An Empirical Analysis of ITC Decision Making," Departmental Working Papers 199621, Rutgers University, Department of Economics.
  14. Angelika Eymann & Ludger Schuknecht, 1996. "Antidumping Policy In The European Community: Political Discretion Or Technical Determination," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(2), pages 111-131, 07.
  15. 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 745-63, November.
  16. Michael P. Leidy & Bernard M. Hoekman, 1990. "Production Effects of Price- and Cost-Based Anti-dumping Laws under Flexible Exchange Rates," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 23(4), pages 873-95, November.
  17. John S. Hughes & Stefanie Lenway & Judy Rayburn, 1997. "Stock Price Effects of U.S. Trade Policy Responses to Japanese Trading Practices in Semi-conductors," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 30(4), pages 922-42, November.
  18. Bruce A. Blonigen & Thomas J. Prusa, 2001. "Antidumping," NBER Working Papers 8398, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. Anderson, James E., 1993. "Domino dumping II: Anti-dumping," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1-2), pages 133-150, August.
  22. Kelly, Kenneth H & Morkre, Morris E, 1998. "Do Unfairly Traded Imports Injure Domestic Industries?," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(2), pages 321-32, May.
  23. Anderson, Keith B, 1993. "Agency Discretion or Statutory Direction: Decision Making at the U.S. International Trade Commission," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 36(2), pages 915-35, October.
  24. Fischer, Ronald D., 1992. "Endogenous probability of protection and firm behavior," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1-2), pages 149-163, February.
  25. Bruce A. Blonigen & Chad P. Bown, 2001. "Antidumping and Retaliation Threats," NBER Working Papers 8576, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  26. Thomas J. Prusa & Susan Skeath, 2001. "The Economic and Strategic Motives for Antidumping Filings," NBER Working Papers 8424, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  27. 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.
  28. Murray, Tracy & Rousslang, Donald J., 1989. "A method for estimating injury caused by unfair trade practices," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 149-164, December.
  29. Hartigan, James C & Kamma, Sreenivas & Perry, Philip R, 1989. "The Injury Determination Category and the Value of Relief from Dumping," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 71(1), pages 183-86, February.
  30. Blonigen, Bruce A. & Ohno, Yuka, 1998. "Endogenous protection, foreign direct investment and protection-building trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 205-227, December.
  31. 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.
  32. Robert C. Feenstra, 1992. "How Costly Is Protectionism?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 6(3), pages 159-178, Summer.
  33. Robert M. Feinberg & Seth Kaplan, 1993. "Fishing Downstream: The Political Economy of Effective Administered Protection," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 26(1), pages 150-58, February.
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:taf:jpolrf:v:6:y:2003:i:4:p:233-245. 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: (Michael McNulty)

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.