IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Under the Cover of Antidumping: Does Administered Protection Facilitate Domestic Collusion?

  • Kara M. Reynolds

Anecdotal evidence suggests that domestic firms can use the antidumping petition process to engage in collusion and increase domestic prices. In this paper, I test whether the antidumping petition process itself can help domestic firms raise prices. I propose a method to identify whether firms in the industry experience a structural break in the level of market power held by the firms at the time that they file their antidumping petition. I then use this methodology to analyze the impact of antidumping petitions on competition levels in two industries. I find little evidence that either of these industries increased their market power following the filing of petitions for trade relief, nor even from the protection that resulted from these petitions, suggesting that the widespread belief that antidumping leads to more market power may not always hold.

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://american.edu/cas/economics/research/upload/2013-5.pdf
File Function: First version, 2013
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by American University, Department of Economics in its series Working Papers with number 2013-05.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 2013
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:amu:wpaper:2013-05
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.american.edu/cas/economics/

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. Prusa, Thomas J., 1992. "Why are so many antidumping petitions withdrawn?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1-2), pages 1-20, August.
  2. Perron, P. & Bai, J., 1995. "Estimating and Testing Linear Models with Multiple Structural Changes," Cahiers de recherche 9552, Universite de Montreal, Departement de sciences economiques.
  3. Vandenbussche, Hylke & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 1996. "European Anti-dumping Policy and the Profitability of National and International Collusion," CEPR Discussion Papers 1469, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  4. Martin, Stephen, 1988. "The measurement of profitability and the diagnosis of market power," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 301-321.
  5. Taylor, Christopher T., 2004. "The economic effects of withdrawn antidumping investigations: is there evidence of collusive settlements?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 295-312, March.
  6. 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.
  7. James Nieberding, 1999. "The Effect of U.S. Antidumping Law on Firms' Market Power: An Empirical Test," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 65-84, February.
  8. Maurizio Zanardi, 2004. "Antidumping law as a collusive device," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 37(1), pages 95-122, February.
  9. Bruce E. Hansen, 2001. "The New Econometrics of Structural Change: Dating Breaks in U.S. Labour Productivity," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(4), pages 117-128, Fall.
  10. Aleksander Rutkowski, 2007. "Withdrawals of Anti-dumping Complaints in the EU: A Sign of Collusion," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(3), pages 470-503, 03.
  11. Corts, Kenneth S., 1998. "Conduct parameters and the measurement of market power," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 227-250, November.
  12. Konings, Jozef & Vandenbussche, Hylke, 2005. "Antidumping protection and markups of domestic firms," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 151-165, January.
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:amu:wpaper:2013-05. 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: (Thomas Meal)

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.