IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cor/louvco/2010064.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Innovation, antidumping and retaliation

Author

Listed:
  • MIYAGIWA, Kaz

    (Emory University, USA)

  • SONG, Huasheng

    (CRPE and College of Economics, Zhejiang University, China; Université catholique de Louvain, CORE, B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium)

  • VANDENBUSSCHE, Hylke

    () (Université catholique de Louvain, CORE and IRES, B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium; KULeuven-LICOS & CEPR)

Abstract

We study the effect of contingency trade policy in a multi-country oligopoly model with and without R&D opportunities. We show that firms benefit from unilateral protection but initiate antidumping (AD) only against the targets domiciled in substantially smaller countries. Also, AD filings are more likely when firms face R&D opportunities. These results are consistent with recent empirical findings, namely, (1) actions are mostly between industrial and developing countries, (2) developing countries use AD to retaliate against industrial countries, and (3) AD is concentrated in R&D-intensive industries. Interestingly, intellectual property rights violations in developing countries have no connection to AD filings.

Suggested Citation

  • MIYAGIWA, Kaz & SONG, Huasheng & VANDENBUSSCHE, Hylke, 2010. "Innovation, antidumping and retaliation," CORE Discussion Papers 2010064, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
  • Handle: RePEc:cor:louvco:2010064
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.uclouvain.be/cps/ucl/doc/core/documents/coredp2010_64web.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Belleflamme,Paul & Peitz,Martin, 2015. "Industrial Organization," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107687899, January.
    3. 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.
    4. Bown, Chad P. & Tovar, Patricia, 2011. "Trade liberalization, antidumping, and safeguards: Evidence from India's tariff reform," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 115-125, September.
    5. Gaudet, Gérard & Bian, Jiang, 1997. "Anti-dumping Laws and Oligopolistic Trade," Journal of Economic Integration, Center for Economic Integration, Sejong University, vol. 12, pages 62-86.
    6. Rabah Amir, 2005. "Supermodularity and Complementarity in Economics: An Elementary Survey," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 71(3), pages 636-660, January.
    7. Choi, E. Kwan & Harrigan, James, 2003. "Handbook of International Trade," Staff General Research Papers Archive 11375, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    8. Anderson, Simon P. & Schmitt, Nicolas & Thisse, Jacques-Francois, 1995. "Who benefits from antidumping legislation?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(3-4), pages 321-337, May.
    9. Winfried Pohlmeier & Luc Bauwens & David Veredas, 2007. "High frequency financial econometrics. Recent developments," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/136223, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    10. Veugelers, Reinhilde & Vandenbussche, Hylke, 1999. "European anti-dumping policy and the profitability of national and international collusion," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 1-28, January.
    11. Miyagiwa, Kaz & Ohno, Yuka, 2007. "Dumping as a signal of innovation," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 221-240, March.
    12. 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.
    13. Bruce A. Blonigen & Thomas J. Prusa, 2001. "Antidumping," NBER Working Papers 8398, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Robert M. Feinberg & Kara M. Reynolds, 2006. "The Spread of Antidumping Regimes and the Role of Retaliation in Filings," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 72(4), pages 877-890, April.
    15. Thomas J. Prusa, 2001. "On the spread and impact of anti-dumping," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 34(3), pages 591-611, August.
    16. 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.
    17. Xiwang Gao & Kaz Miyagiwa, 2005. "Antidumping protection and R&D competition," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 38(1), pages 211-227, February.
    18. Bown, Chad P. & Hoekman, Bernard & Ozden, Caglar, 2003. "The pattern of US antidumping: the path from initial filing to WTO dispute settlement," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(03), pages 349-371, November.
    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. Hylke VANDENBUSSCHE & Christian VIEGELAHN, 2011. "No Protectionist Surprises: EU Antidumping Policy Before and During the Great Recession," Discussion Papers (IRES - Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales) 2011021, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    R&D; antidumping; intellectual property rights; reciprocal dumping;

    JEL classification:

    • F12 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Models of Trade with Imperfect Competition and Scale Economies; Fragmentation
    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets

    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:cor:louvco:2010064. 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: (Alain GILLIS). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/coreebe.html .

    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 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.

    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.