IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/2785.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Import Diversion under European Antidumping Policy

Author

Listed:
  • Konings, Jozef
  • Springael, Linda
  • Vandenbussche, Hylke

Abstract

This Paper studies empirically the effects of European antidumping actions on import diversion from importers ‘named’ in an antidumping investigation, and potentially subject to protectionist measures, to countries ‘not named’ in the investigation. For this purpose we use a unique data set at the 8-digit product level. The amount of import diversion can be regarded as an indication of the effectiveness of antidumping policy, which is used to protect the home industry from foreign imports. We find that trade diversion in the European Union caused by antidumping actions - in contrast to the US - is limited, suggesting that the EU’s antidumping policy is more effective in keeping imports out. This result holds even after controlling for selection-bias in the antidumping investigation procedure. A number of explanations for this difference in trade diversion as a result of antidumping policy between the EU and US are formulated.

Suggested Citation

  • Konings, Jozef & Springael, Linda & Vandenbussche, Hylke, 2001. "Import Diversion under European Antidumping Policy," CEPR Discussion Papers 2785, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  • Handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:2785
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.cepr.org/active/publications/discussion_papers/dp.php?dpno=2785
    Download Restriction: CEPR Discussion Papers are free to download for our researchers, subscribers and members. If you fall into one of these categories but have trouble downloading our papers, please contact us at subscribers@cepr.org
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Feenstra, Robert C., 1995. "Estimating the effects of trade policy," Handbook of International Economics, in: G. M. Grossman & K. Rogoff (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 30, pages 1553-1595, Elsevier.
    2. 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.
    3. Robert W. Staiger & Frank A. Wolak, 1994. "Measuring Industry-Specific Protection: Antidumping in the United States," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 25(1994 Micr), pages 51-118.
    4. James J. Heckman, 1976. "The Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation, Sample Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for Such Models," NBER Chapters, in: Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, Volume 5, number 4, pages 475-492, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Thomas J. Prusa, 2021. "Why are so many antidumping petitions withdrawn?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Thomas J Prusa (ed.), Economic Effects of Antidumping, chapter 2, pages 1-20, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Anderson, James E, 1992. "Domino Dumping, I: Competitive Exporters," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(1), pages 65-83, March.
    7. Wendy L Hansen & Thomas J Prusa, 2021. "Cumulation and ITC decision-making: The sum of the parts is greater than the whole," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Thomas J Prusa (ed.), Economic Effects of Antidumping, chapter 9, pages 171-194, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. 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.
    9. Harrison, Ann, 1991. "The new trade protection : price effects of antidumping and countervailing measures in the United States," Policy Research Working Paper Series 808, The World Bank.
    10. Anderson, James E., 1993. "Domino dumping II: Anti-dumping," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1-2), pages 133-150, August.
    11. Fischer, Ronald D., 1992. "Endogenous probability of protection and firm behavior," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1-2), pages 149-163, February.
    12. Messerlin, Patrick A & Reed, Geoffrey, 1995. "Antidumping Policies in the United States and the European Community," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 105(433), pages 1565-1575, November.
    13. Bruce A. Blonigen & Thomas J. Prusa, 2001. "Antidumping," NBER Working Papers 8398, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Robert C. Feenstra, 1997. "The Effects of U.S. Trade Protection and Promotion Policies," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number feen97-1, December.
    15. Bruce A. Blonigen & Yuka Ohno, 2019. "Endogenous Protection, Foreign Direct Investment and Protection-building Trade," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Foreign Direct Investment, chapter 6, pages 205-233, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    16. Wilfried Pauwels & Hylke Vandenbussche & Marcel Weverbergh, 2001. "Strategic Behaviour under European Antidumping Duties," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 75-99.
    17. Moore, Michael O, 1992. "Rules or Politics? An Empirical Analysis of ITC Anti-dumping Decisions," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 30(3), pages 449-466, July.
    18. Paul Brenton, 2014. "Anti-dumping policies in the EU and trade diversion," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: INTERNATIONAL TRADE, DISTRIBUTION AND DEVELOPMENT Empirical Studies of Trade Policies, chapter 4, pages 67-81, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    19. Finger, J M & Hall, H Keith & Nelson, Douglas R, 1982. "The Political Economy of Administered Protection," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(3), pages 452-466, June.
    20. Reitzes, James D, 1993. "Antidumping Policy," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 34(4), pages 745-763, November.
    21. A. Lasagni, 2000. "Does country-targeted anti-dumping policy by the EU create trade diversion?," Economics Department Working Papers 2000-EP02, Department of Economics, Parma University (Italy).
    22. Bruce Lyons & Catherine Matraves & Peter Moffatt, 2001. "Industrial Concentration and Market Integration in the European Union," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 68(269), pages 1-26, February.
    23. Tharakan, P. K. M. & Waelbroeck, J., 1994. "Antidumping and countervailing duty decisions in the E.C. and in the U.S.: An experiment in comparative political economy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 171-193, January.
    24. Robert Baldwin & Jeffrey Steagall, 1994. "An analysis of ITC decisions in antidumping, countervailing duty and safeguard cases," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 130(2), pages 290-308, June.
    25. Das, Satya P., 1992. "Market uncertainties and cyclical dumping," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 71-82, January.
    26. René Belderbos, 1997. "Antidumping and tariff Jumping: Japanese firms’ DFI in the European union and the United States," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 133(3), pages 419-457, September.
    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. Nelson, Douglas, 2006. "The political economy of antidumping: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 554-590, September.
    2. Bruce Blonigen & Thomas Prusa, 2003. "The Cost of Antidumping: the Devil is in the Details," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(4), pages 233-245.
    3. 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.
    4. Thomas J. Prusa, 2021. "The Trade Effects of U.S. Antidumping Actions," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Thomas J Prusa (ed.), Economic Effects of Antidumping, chapter 3, pages 21-43, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Kokko, Ari & Gustavsson Tingvall, Patrik & Videnord, Josefin, 2017. "Which Antidumping Cases Reach the WTO?," Ratio Working Papers 286, The Ratio Institute.
    6. Meredith A. Crowley, 2001. "Antidumping policy under imperfect competition," Working Paper Series WP-01-21, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
    7. Meredith A. Crowley, 2004. "Antidumping Policy Under Imperfect Competition: Theory and Evidence," Econometric Society 2004 North American Summer Meetings 443, Econometric Society.
    8. Wu, Shih-Jye & Chang, Yang-Ming & Chen, Hung-Yi, 2014. "Antidumping duties and price undertakings: A welfare analysis," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 97-107.
    9. Falvey, Rod & Wittayarungruangsri, Sarut, 2006. "Market size and antidumping in duopolistic competition," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 771-786, September.
    10. Belderbos, R. & Vandenbussche, H. & Veugelers, R., 2004. "Antidumping duties, undertakings, and foreign direct investment in the EU," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 429-453, April.
    11. Joo Yeon Sun & Seungrae Lee, 2017. "Anti-dumping Duty and Firm Heterogeneity: Evidence from Korea," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(9), pages 2007-2030, September.
    12. Bruce A. Blonigen & Yuka Ohno, 2019. "Endogenous Protection, Foreign Direct Investment and Protection-building Trade," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Foreign Direct Investment, chapter 6, pages 205-233, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    13. Vandenbussche, Hylke & Zanardi, Maurizio, 2010. "The chilling trade effects of antidumping proliferation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(6), pages 760-777, August.
    14. Wilfried Pauwels & Hylke Vandenbussche & Marcel Weverbergh, 2001. "Strategic Behaviour under European Antidumping Duties," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 75-99.
    15. Blonigen, Bruce A. & Bown, Chad P., 2003. "Antidumping and retaliation threats," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 249-273, August.
    16. Laura ROVEGNO & Hylke VANDENBUSSCHE, 2011. "A comparative analysis of EU Antidumping rules and application," LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 2011023, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    17. 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.
    18. Alfonso Mendieta, 2005. "Alternative Effects of Antidumping Policy: Should Mexican Authorities be Worried?," Economía Mexicana NUEVA ÉPOCA, CIDE, División de Economía, vol. 0(1), pages 41-69, January-J.
    19. 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.
    20. Meredith A. Crowley, 2007. "Cyclical dumping and U.S. antidumping protection: 1980-2001," Working Paper Series WP-07-21, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Antidumping Measures; Econometric Testing; Trade Diversion;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • L50 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - General

    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:cpr:ceprdp:2785. 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://www.cepr.org .

    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: (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cepr.org .

    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.