Differences in the Uses and Effects of Antidumping Law across Import Sources
In: The Political Economy of American Trade Policy
This paper studies the differences in the uses and effects of U.S. antidumping law on imports and domestic output across the major regions exporting to the United States. Building on previous work (Staiger and Wolak, 1994), we extend our attempt to characterize the implications of the use of antidumping law for the behavior of U.S. imports and domestic output, and to distinguish between "outcome filers" (firms for which the prospect of an antidumping duty is an important ingredient in the decision to file) and "process filers" (firms for which filing is driven largely by a desire to secure the trade-restricting effects of the investigation process itself). In this paper we abstract from cross-industry heterogeneity in antidumping filing strategies and explore instead the heterogeneity of filing strategies against different import-source countries, allowing for the possibility that domestic firms may pursue independent filing strategies with respect to imports from different countries. We argue that the most likely target countries for process filers are those whose export production is primarily destined for the U.S. market and accounts for a relatively large and stable U.S. market share. These characteristics point to Canada and Mexico as countries against which process filing by U.S. firms is likely to occur. Analyzing the filing behavior against Canada and Mexico as well as four other regions, we find evidence in the filing behavior and in the nature of the trade impacts which accompany filing to suggest that Mexico and Canada are indeed the most likely targets of antidumping petitions filed by process filers in the United States.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
|This chapter was published in: ||This item is provided by National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc in its series NBER Chapters with number
8710.||Handle:|| RePEc:nbr:nberch:8710||Contact details of provider:|| Postal: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.|
Web page: http://www.nber.org
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- John M. Abowd, 1990. "The NBER Immigration, Trade, and Labor Markets Data Files," NBER Working Papers 3351, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- 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 183-186, February.
- 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 915-935, October.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberch:8710. 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: ()
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.