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

Does Antidumping Use Contribute to Trade Liberalization in Developing Countries

  • Michael Owen Moore

    ()

    (Department of Economics/Institute for International Economic Policy, George Washington University)

  • Maurizio Zanardi

    ()

    (Université Libre de Bruxelles)

Some supporters of antidumping have argued that this procedure serves as a kind of “safety valve” for protectionist pressure. In this paper, we investigate whether there is empirical evidence that the use of antidumping actions has contributed to ongoing tariff reductions over the period 1988 to 2004 in a sample of 23 developing countries, some of which have become aggressive users of antidumping in recent years. The evidence is not supportive of the safety valve argument for these countries. Instead, evidence suggests that past use of antidumping may have led to less rather than more trade liberalization.

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://www.gwu.edu/~iiep/assets/docs/papers/Moore_Zanardi_IIEPWP2008_1.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by The George Washington University, Institute for International Economic Policy in its series Working Papers with number 2008-01.

as
in new window

Length: 34 pages
Date of creation: Jun 2008
Date of revision:
Publication status: Published in the Canadian Journal of Economics volume 42, No. 2, May 2009, pp. 469-495
Handle: RePEc:gwi:wpaper:2008-01
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.gwu.edu/~iiep/
Email:


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.:

as in new window
  1. Thomas J. Prusa, 1999. "On the Spread and Impact of Antidumping," NBER Working Papers 7404, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  2. Reinhart, Carmen & Rogoff, Kenneth, 2004. "The modern history of exchange rate arrangements: A reinterpretation," MPRA Paper 14070, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  3. Vandenbussche, Hylke & Zanardi, Maurizio, 2006. "The Global Chilling Effects of Antidumping Proliferation," CEPR Discussion Papers 5597, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  4. Gwartney, James & Lawson, Robert, 2003. "The concept and measurement of economic freedom," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 405-430, September.
  5. Joseph Francois & Will Martin, 2002. "Formula Approaches for Market Access Negotiations," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 02-125/2, Tinbergen Institute.
  6. Michael Moore & Maurizio Zanardi, 2011. "Trade Liberalization and Antidumping: Is There a Substitution Effect?," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/136352, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  7. Robert M. Feinberg & Kara M. Olson, 2005. "Tariff Liberalization and Increased Administrative Protection: Is There a Quid Pro Quo?," International Trade 0501001, EconWPA.
  8. 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.
  9. Maurizio Zanardi, 2006. "Antidumping: a problem in international trade," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9821, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  10. Chad P. Bown, 2008. "The Wto And Antidumping In Developing Countries," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(2), pages 255-288, 06.
  11. Moore, Michael O. & Suranovic, Steven M., 1992. "Lobbying vs. administered protection : Endogenous industry choice and national welfare," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3-4), pages 289-303, May.
  12. Amiti, Mary & Konings, Jozef, 2005. "Trade Liberalization, Intermediate Inputs and Productivity: Evidence from Indonesia," CEPR Discussion Papers 5104, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  13. Gunnar Niels & Joseph Francois, 2006. "Business Cycles, the Exchange Rate, and Demand for Antidumping Protection in Mexico," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(3), pages 388-399, 08.
  14. Finger, J. Michael & Nogues, Julio J., 2008. "Safeguards and antidumping in Latin American trade liberalization," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4680, The World Bank.
  15. Bruce A. Blonigen & Thomas J. Prusa, 2001. "Antidumping," NBER Working Papers 8398, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
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:gwi:wpaper:2008-01. 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: (Kyle Renner)

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.