IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/amu/wpaper/2017-08.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How Do Countries Respond to Antidumping Filings? Dispute Settlement and Retaliatory Antidumping

Author

Listed:
  • Robert M. Feinberg
  • Kara M. Reynolds

Abstract

Empirical studies have found that countries may respond strategically to the antidumping petitions filed against their exporters through their own retaliatory actions. Although most previous studies have focused on retaliatory antidumping filings, in this paper we explore another potential avenue for strategic response—filing a complaint under the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Dispute Settlement Understanding. Using a panel of global antidumping filings between 1995 and 2011, we analyze under what conditions countries will choose to retaliate through either an antidumping petition or a WTO dispute, and to what degree these two strategies are complementary or act as substitutes. We find statistical evidence that countries are more likely to file a WTO dispute when they have also filed a retaliatory antidumping petition, suggesting that these two strategies may be complementary.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert M. Feinberg & Kara M. Reynolds, 2017. "How Do Countries Respond to Antidumping Filings? Dispute Settlement and Retaliatory Antidumping," Working Papers 2017-08, American University, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:amu:wpaper:2017-08
    DOI: 10.17606/rb9e-gb88
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.17606/rb9e-gb88
    File Function: First version, 2016
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17606/rb9e-gb88?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. Maurizio Zanardi, 2004. "Anti‐dumping: What are the Numbers to Discuss at Doha?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 403-433, March.
    2. Andrew T. Guzman & Beth A. Simmons, 2005. "Power Plays and Capacity Constraints: The Selection of Defendants in World Trade Organization Disputes," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(2), pages 557-598, June.
    3. Thomas J. Prusa & Susan Skeath, 2021. "The Economic and Strategic Motives for Antidumping Filings," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Thomas J Prusa (ed.), Economic Effects of Antidumping, chapter 11, pages 233-257, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. 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..
    5. Francois, Joseph & Niels, Gunnar, 2004. "Political Influence in a New Anti-Dumping Regime: Evidence from Mexico," CEPR Discussion Papers 4297, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Chad Bown & Kara Reynolds, 2015. "Trade flows and trade disputes," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 145-177, June.
    7. Blonigen, Bruce A. & Bown, Chad P., 2003. "Antidumping and retaliation threats," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 249-273, August.
    8. Thomas J. Prusa, 2021. "On the spread and impact of anti-dumping," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Thomas J Prusa (ed.), Economic Effects of Antidumping, chapter 4, pages 45-65, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    9. Johns, Leslie & Pelc, Krzysztof J., 2014. "Who Gets to Be In the Room? Manipulating Participation in WTO Disputes," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 68(3), pages 663-699, July.
    10. Robert M. Feinberg & Kara M. Reynolds, 2006. "The Spread of Antidumping Regimes and the Role of Retaliation in Filings," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 72(4), pages 877-890, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Robert M. Feinberg & Kara M. Reynolds, 2008. "Friendly Fire? The Impact of US Antidumping Enforcement on US Exporters," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 144(2), pages 366-378, July.
    2. Michael O. Moore & Maurizio Zanardi, 2011. "Trade Liberalization and Antidumping: Is There a Substitution Effect?," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(4), pages 601-619, November.
    3. Hylke Vandenbussche & Maurizio Zanardi, 2008. "What explains the proliferation of antidumping laws? [‘Antidumping Laws in the US; Use and Welfare Consequences’]," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 23(53), pages 94-138.
    4. Robert M. Feinberg & Kara M. Reynolds, 2006. "The Spread of Antidumping Regimes and the Role of Retaliation in Filings," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 72(4), pages 877-890, April.
    5. Avsar, Veysel, 2014. "Partisanship and antidumping," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 190-195.
    6. Ning Meng & Chris Milner & Huasheng Song, 2016. "Differences in the determinants and targeting of antidumping: China and India compared," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(43), pages 4083-4097, September.
    7. Kokko, Ari & Gustavsson Tingvall, Patrik & Videnord, Josefin, 2017. "Which Antidumping Cases Reach the WTO?," Ratio Working Papers 286, The Ratio Institute.
    8. Bown, Chad P., 2006. "The World Trade Organization and antidumping in developing countries," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4014, The World Bank.
    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. Moore, M.O. & Zanardi, M., 2006. "Does Antidumping Use Contribute to Trade Liberalization? An Empirical Analysis," Other publications TiSEM c0a19bf2-9849-4620-b109-e, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    11. Michael Moore, 2015. "Sanctuary markets and antidumping: an empirical analysis of U.S. exporters," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 151(2), pages 309-328, May.
    12. Veysel Avsar, 2013. "Antidumping, Retaliation Threats, and Export Prices," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 27(1), pages 133-148.
    13. Miyagiwa, Kaz & Song, Huasheng & Vandenbussche, Hylke, 2016. "Size matters! Who is bashing whom in trade war?," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 33-45.
    14. Nelson, Douglas, 2006. "The political economy of antidumping: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 554-590, September.
    15. Niels, Gunnar & ten Kate, Adriaan, 2006. "Antidumping policy in developing countries: Safety valve or obstacle to free trade?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 618-638, September.
    16. Bown, Chad P. & Crowley, Meredith A., 2006. "Policy externalities: How US antidumping affects Japanese exports to the EU," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 696-714, September.
    17. Baomin Dong, 2013. "Cost-Based Anti-dumping as a Repeated Game," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 89, pages 95-105, June.
    18. Robert Feinberg, 2013. "Antidumping and Industrial Organization," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 42(4), pages 365-368, June.
    19. Tobias D. Ketterer, 2016. "EU Anti-dumping and Tariff Cuts: Trade Policy Substitution?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(5), pages 576-596, May.
    20. Laura Rovegno, 2013. "Trade protection and market power: evidence from US antidumping and countervailing duties," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 149(3), pages 443-476, September.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

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

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:amu:wpaper:2017-08. 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: Thomas Meal (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.american.edu/cas/economics/ .

    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.