IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/canjec/v49y2016i3p1125-1152.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Import dynamics and demands for protection

Author

Listed:
  • Russell Hillberry
  • Phillip McCalman

Abstract

What kinds of changes in foreign competition lead domestic industries to seek import protection? To address this question, we use detailed monthly US import data to investigate changes in import composition during a 24‐month window immediately preceding the filing of a petition for import protection. A decomposition methodology allows a comparison of imports from two groups of countries supplying the same product: those that are named in the petition and those that are not. The same decomposition can be applied to products quite similar to the imports in question, but not subject to a petition. The results suggest that industries typically seek protection when faced with a specific pattern of shocks. First, a persistent positive relative supply shock favours imports from named countries. Second, a negative demand shock hits imports from all sources just prior to domestic industries’ petition for protection. The relative supply shock is a broad one; it applies both to named commodities and to the comparison product group. The import demand shock, by contrast, is narrow, hitting only named products. This negative import demand shock appears to be a key event in the run‐up to the filing of a petition. This latter shock has been missed by previous studies using more aggregated data. Dynamique des importations et demandes de protection. Quelles sortes de changements dans la concurrence étrangère conduisent des industries domestiques à demander qu'on les protège des importations? Pour analyser cette question, les auteurs utilisent les données mensuelles détaillées des importations aux États‐Unis pour examiner les changements dans la composition des importations au cours des 24 mois précédant le dépôt d'une pétition pour la protection contre l'importation. Une méthodologie de décomposition permet une comparaison avec les importations de deux groupes de pays qui offrent le même produit : ceux qui sont nommés dans la pétition et ceux qui ne le sont pas. Le même processus de décomposition peut être appliqué aux produits assez semblables aux importations en question, mais qui ne sont pas sujets à pétition. Les résultats suggèrent que les industries typiquement demandent protection quand elles sont confrontées à un pattern de chocs : d'abord, un choc positif persistant du côté de l'offre relative qui favorise les importations des pays nommés; ensuite, un choc négatif de la demande qui frappe les importations de partout pour les produits des industries domestiques juste avant la pétition demandant de la protection. Le choc relatif positif du côté de l'offre s'applique vastement à la fois aux biens nommés et à ceux du groupe de produits quasi‐semblables utilisés aux fins de comparaison. D'autre part, le choc relatif négatif dans la demande est assez étroit : il frappe seulement les produits nommés. Le choc négatif dans la demande d'importations semble être un événement clé dans les moments qui mènent au dépôt de la pétition. On n'a pas noté ce dernier choc dans les études antérieures utilisant des données agrégées.

Suggested Citation

  • Russell Hillberry & Phillip McCalman, 2016. "Import dynamics and demands for protection," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(3), pages 1125-1152, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:canjec:v:49:y:2016:i:3:p:1125-1152
    DOI: 10.1111/caje.12227
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/caje.12227
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/caje.12227?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Hummels, David L. & Schaur, Georg, 2010. "Hedging price volatility using fast transport," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 15-25, September.
    3. James C. Hartigan, 1996. "Predatory Dumping," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 29(1), pages 228-239, February.
    4. Robert W. Staiger & Kyle Bagwell, 1999. "An Economic Theory of GATT," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 215-248, March.
    5. Clarida, Richard H, 1993. "Entry, Dumping, and Shakeout," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(1), pages 180-202, March.
    6. Michael M. Knetter & Thomas J. Prusa, 2021. "Macroeconomic factors and antidumping filings: evidence from four countries," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Thomas J Prusa (ed.), Economic Effects of Antidumping, chapter 8, pages 153-169, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Kamal Saggi & Nese Sara, 2018. "National Treatment At The Wto: The Roles Of Product And Country Heterogeneity," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Kamal Saggi (ed.), Economic Analysis of the Rules and Regulations of the World Trade Organization, chapter 3, pages 46-75, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Andrew Gelman & Guido Imbens, 2013. "Why ask Why? Forward Causal Inference and Reverse Causal Questions," NBER Working Papers 19614, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Hillberry, Russell & Hummels, David, 2008. "Trade responses to geographic frictions: A decomposition using micro-data," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 527-550, April.
    10. Hansen, Wendy L., 1990. "The International Trade Commission and the Politics of Protectionism," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 84(1), pages 21-46, March.
    11. Grossman, Gene M., 1986. "Imports as a cause of injury: The case of the U.S. steel industry," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3-4), pages 201-223, May.
    12. Pindyck, Robert S & Rotemberg, Julio J, 1987. "Are Imports to Blame? Attribution of Injury under the 1974 Trade Act," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 30(1), pages 101-122, April.
    13. Blonigen, Bruce A. & Wilson, Wesley W., 2010. "Foreign subsidization and excess capacity," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 200-211, March.
    14. David Hummels & Peter J. Klenow, 2005. "The Variety and Quality of a Nation's Exports," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(3), pages 704-723, June.
    15. Chor, Davin & Manova, Kalina, 2012. "Off the cliff and back? Credit conditions and international trade during the global financial crisis," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 117-133.
    16. Bagwell, Kyle & Staiger, Robert W, 1990. "A Theory of Managed Trade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(4), pages 779-795, September.
    17. Krupp, Corinne, 1994. "Antidumping Cases in the U.S. Chemical Industry: A Panel Data Approach," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(3), pages 299-311, September.
    18. Kyle Bagwell & Robert W. Staiger, 2012. "Profit Shifting And Trade Agreements In Imperfectly Competitive Markets," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 53(4), pages 1067-1104, November.
    19. Jozef Konings & Hylke Vandenbussche, 2013. "Antidumping protection hurts exporters: firm-level evidence," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 149(2), pages 295-320, June.
    20. Kelly, Kenneth, 1988. "The Analysis of Causality in Escape Clause Cases," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(2), pages 187-207, December.
    21. Kamal Saggi, 2018. "Preferential Trade Agreements And Multilateral Tariff Cooperation," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Kamal Saggi (ed.), Economic Analysis of the Rules and Regulations of the World Trade Organization, chapter 6, pages 127-155, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    22. Feinberg, Robert M., 1989. "Imports as a threat to cartel stability," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 281-288, June.
    23. Werner Baer & Malcolm Gillis, 1981. "Export Diversification and the New Protectionism: The Experiences of Latin America," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number baer81-1, June.
    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. Kuenzel, David J., 2020. "WTO tariff commitments and temporary protection: Complements or substitutes?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    2. Phillip McCalman & Frank Stähler & Gerald Willmann, 2019. "Contingent trade policy and economic efficiency," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 155(2), pages 227-255, May.
    3. Chrysostomos Tabakis & Maurizio Zanardi, 2017. "Antidumping Echoing," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(2), pages 655-681, April.

    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. Maggi, Giovanni, 2014. "International Trade Agreements," Handbook of International Economics, in: Gopinath, G. & Helpman, . & Rogoff, K. (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 0, pages 317-390, Elsevier.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Meredith A. Crowley, 2007. "Cyclical dumping and U.S. antidumping protection: 1980-2001," Working Paper Series WP-07-21, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
    5. Neha Bhardwaj Upadhayay, 2020. "Uncovering the proliferation of contingent protection through channels of retaliation, gender and development assistance," Erudite Ph.D Dissertations, Erudite, number ph20-02 edited by Julie Lochard & Catherine Bros, Winter.
    6. Jae W. Chung, 1998. "Effects of U.S. Trade Remedy Law Enforcement under Uncertainty: The Case of Steel," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 151-159, July.
    7. Chad P. Bown, 2010. "China's WTO Entry: Antidumping, Safeguards, and Dispute Settlement," NBER Chapters, in: China's Growing Role in World Trade, pages 281-337, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. 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.
    9. Martin, Alberto & Vergote, Wouter, 2008. "On the role of retaliation in trade agreements," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 61-77, September.
    10. Kuenzel, David J., 2020. "WTO tariff commitments and temporary protection: Complements or substitutes?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    11. 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.
    12. Bown, Chad P. & Crowley, Meredith A., 2013. "Import protection, business cycles, and exchange rates: Evidence from the Great Recession," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 50-64.
    13. Kuenzel, David J., 2017. "WTO dispute determinants," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 157-179.
    14. Sandkamp, Alexander, 2020. "The trade effects of antidumping duties: Evidence from the 2004 EU enlargement," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    15. Chad P. Bown, 2011. "Taking Stock of Antidumping, Safeguards and Countervailing Duties, 1990–2009," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(12), pages 1955-1998, December.
    16. Groppo, Valeria & Piermartini, Roberta, 2014. "Trade policy uncertainty and the WTO," WTO Staff Working Papers ERSD-2014-23, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
    17. Felbermayr, Gabriel & Sandkamp, Alexander, 2020. "The trade effects of anti-dumping duties: Firm-level evidence from China," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    18. Kitano, Taiju & Ohashi, Hiroshi, 2009. "Did US safeguards resuscitate Harley-Davidson in the 1980s?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 186-197, November.
    19. Nelson, Douglas, 2006. "The political economy of antidumping: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 554-590, September.
    20. Chad Bown, 2013. "How Different Are Safeguards from Antidumping? Evidence from US Trade Policies Toward Steel," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 42(4), pages 449-481, June.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations

    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:wly:canjec:v:49:y:2016:i:3:p:1125-1152. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5982 .

    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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5982 .

    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.