IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hkm/wpaper/192013.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How Do Exporters Respond to Antidumping Investigations?

Author

Listed:
  • Yi Lu

    (National University of Singapore)

  • Zhigang Tao

    (The University of Hong Kong and Hong Kong Institute for Monetary Research)

  • Yan Zhang

    (Shanghai University of Finance and Economics)

Abstract

Using monthly transaction data covering all Chinese exporters over the 2000-2006 period, we investigate how Chinese exporters respond to U.S. antidumping investigations. We find that antidumping investigations cause a substantial decrease in the total export volume at the HS-6 digit product level, and that this trade-dampening effect is due to a significant decrease in the number of exporters, yet a modest decrease in the export volume per surviving exporter. We also find that the bulk of the decrease in the number of exporters is exerted by less productive exporters, by direct exporters as opposed to trade intermediaries, and by single-product direct exporters as opposed to their multi-product counterparts. Combined with the existing studies on the effects that antidumping investigations have on protected firms, our study helps piece together a complete picture of the effects of antidumping investigations.

Suggested Citation

  • Yi Lu & Zhigang Tao & Yan Zhang, 2013. "How Do Exporters Respond to Antidumping Investigations?," Working Papers 192013, Hong Kong Institute for Monetary Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:hkm:wpaper:192013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.hkimr.org/uploads/publication/364/wp-no-19_2013-final-.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Thomas Chaney, 2008. "Distorted Gravity: The Intensive and Extensive Margins of International Trade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(4), pages 1707-1721, September.
    3. Christian Broda & David E. Weinstein, 2006. "Globalization and the Gains From Variety," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 121(2), pages 541-585.
    4. David H. Autor & David Dorn & Gordon H. Hanson, 2013. "The China Syndrome: Local Labor Market Effects of Import Competition in the United States," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(6), pages 2121-2168, October.
    5. 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.
    6. Marc J. Melitz & Gianmarco I. P. Ottaviano, 2008. "Market Size, Trade, and Productivity," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 75(1), pages 295-316.
    7. Vandenbussche, Hylke & Zanardi, Maurizio, 2010. "The chilling trade effects of antidumping proliferation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(6), pages 760-777, August.
    8. Blonigen, Bruce A. & Bown, Chad P., 2003. "Antidumping and retaliation threats," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 249-273, August.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Justin R. Pierce & Peter K. Schott, 2016. "The Surprisingly Swift Decline of US Manufacturing Employment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(7), pages 1632-1662, July.
    12. Konings, Jozef & Vandenbussche, Hylke, 2008. "Heterogeneous responses of firms to trade protection," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 371-383, December.
    13. Peter Egger & Douglas Nelson, 2011. "How Bad Is Antidumping? Evidence from Panel Data," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 93(4), pages 1374-1390, November.
    14. Costas Arkolakis, 2010. "Market Penetration Costs and the New Consumers Margin in International Trade," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 118(6), pages 1151-1199.
    15. Bown, Chad P. & Crowley, Meredith A., 2007. "Trade deflection and trade depression," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 176-201, May.
    16. Chad P. Bown, 2011. "Taking Stock of Antidumping, Safeguards and Countervailing Duties, 1990–2009," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(12), pages 1955-1998, December.
    17. Guido W. Imbens & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2009. "Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(1), pages 5-86, March.
    18. Marianne Bertrand & Esther Duflo & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2004. "How Much Should We Trust Differences-In-Differences Estimates?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 119(1), pages 249-275.
    19. Ahn, JaeBin & Khandelwal, Amit K. & Wei, Shang-Jin, 2011. "The role of intermediaries in facilitating trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 73-85, May.
    20. Zanardi, Maurizio, 2006. "Antidumping: A problem in international trade," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 591-617, September.
    21. Marc J. Melitz, 2003. "The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(6), pages 1695-1725, November.
    22. Blonigen, Bruce A., 2002. "Tariff-jumping antidumping duties," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 31-49, June.
    23. Pierce, Justin R., 2011. "Plant-level responses to antidumping duties: Evidence from U.S. manufacturers," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 222-233.
    24. Bruce A. Blonigen & Thomas J. Prusa, 2001. "Antidumping," NBER Working Papers 8398, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    25. Gallaway, Michael P. & Blonigen, Bruce A. & Flynn, Joseph E., 1999. "Welfare costs of the U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty laws," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 211-244, December.
    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. Liza Jabbour & Enrico Vanino & Zhigang Tao & Yan Zhang, 2016. "The good, the bad and the ugly: Chinese imports, EU anti-dumping measures and firm performance," Discussion Papers 2016-16, University of Nottingham, GEP.
    2. Kun Tracy Wang & Dejia Li, 2016. "Market Reactions to the First-Time Disclosure of Corporate Social Responsibility Reports: Evidence from China," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 138(4), pages 661-682, November.
    3. Hu, Cui & Tan, Yong, 2016. "Export spillovers and export performance in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 75-89.
    4. Alexander-Nikolai Sandkamp & Erdal Yalcin, 2016. "Chinas Marktwirtschaftsstatus und die Anti-Dumping-Gesetzgebung der EU," ifo Schnelldienst, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 69(04), pages 50-59, February.
    5. Chandra, Piyush, 2016. "Impact of temporary trade barriers: Evidence from China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 24-48.
    6. ZHANG Hongyong, 2017. "Political Connections and Antidumping Investigations: Evidence from China," Discussion papers 17092, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    7. Alexander-Nikolai Sandkamp & Erdal Yalcin, 2016. "China’s Market Economy Status and European Anti-Dumping Regulation," CESifo Forum, Ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 17(1), pages 77-85, April.
    8. Hangtian Xu, 2014. "Revisit' the Silk Road: A Quasi-Experiment Approach Estimating the Effects of Railway Speed-Up Project on China-Central Asia Exports," ERSA conference papers ersa14p78, European Regional Science Association.
    9. repec:bla:worlde:v:40:y:2017:i:6:p:1128-1154 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. repec:bla:apacel:v:31:y:2017:i:1:p:66-78 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Dylan Minor, 2015. "The Value of Corporate Citizenship: Protection," Harvard Business School Working Papers 16-021, Harvard Business School.
    12. Hu, Cui & Lin, Faqin & Tan, Yong & Tang, Yihong, 2017. "How Exporting Firms Respond to Technical Barriers to Trade?," MPRA Paper 80946, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. repec:bla:ecinqu:v:55:y:2017:i:1:p:9-30 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. repec:bla:asiaec:v:31:y:2017:i:1:p:3-16 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Yan Zhang, 2017. "Impact of Latin-American and Caribbean Antidumping Measures on Chinese Exports," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 97857, Inter-American Development Bank.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Antidumping Investigations; Difference-In-Differences Estimation; Extensive and Intensive Margins; Trade Intermediaries; Single- Versus Multi-Product Exporters;

    JEL classification:

    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • D22 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Firm Behavior: Empirical Analysis
    • F14 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Empirical Studies of Trade
    • L25 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Firm Performance

    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:hkm:wpaper:192013. 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: (HKIMR). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/hkimrhk.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.