Are Antidumping Duties an Antidote for Predation?
Since price discrimination and selling below cost arise in the normal course of business and are usually legal for home firms, countering these practices by foreign firms provides a very weak rationale for antidumping duties. If antidumping duties were to provide a systematic defense against predation by foreign firms, however, a strong ''fair-trade'' justification would remain. This paper adapts the classic entry-deterrence analysis of Dixit (1979) and Brander and Spencer (1981) to provide a simple treatment of predation, which is applicable with price leadership as well as quantity leadership. Although situations of cross-border predation appear to be quite rare, foreign firms may sometimes find themselves in leadership positions if they have to make shipments and/or set prices before their home rivals. This paper shows that, in the context of such an international leadership game, predation ma y occur without dumping and vice versa. Further, when dumping and predation do coexist, a sophisticated form of antidumping duty would prevent predation, but the simple antidumping duties that are generally observed in practice will often be insufficient. Consequently, the paper challenges the ''fair-trade'' view of antidumping policy as an antidote for predation and strengthens the foundation of the counter-argument that antidumping constitutes a new insidious form of protectionism and trade harassment, which is of particularly serious concerns for small countries.
|Date of creation:||Jul 2009|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: +39 011 6706060
Fax: +39 011 6706062
Web page: http://www.esomas.unito.it/
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.:
- Avinash Dixit, 1979.
"A Model of Duopoly Suggesting a Theory of Entry Barriers,"
Bell Journal of Economics,
The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(1), pages 20-32, Spring.
- Dixit, Avinash K., 1978. "A Model of Duopoly Suggesting a Theory of Entry Barriers," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 125, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
- Thomas J. Prusa, 1999.
"On the spread and impact of antidumping,"
Departmental Working Papers
199916, Rutgers University, Department of Economics.
- James A. Brander & Barbara J. Spencer, 1980.
"Tariffs and the Extraction of Foreign Monopoly Rents under Potential Entry,"
414, Queen's University, Department of Economics.
- James A. Brander & Barbara J. Spencer, 1981. "Tariffs and the Extraction of Foreign Monopoly Rents under Potential Entry," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 14(3), pages 371-89, August.
- Hartigan, James C., 1994. "Dumping and signaling," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 69-81, January.
- Bruce A. Blonigen & Stephen E. Haynes, 2002. "Antidumping Investigations and the Pass-Through of Antidumping Duties and Exchange Rates," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(4), pages 1044-1061, September.
- Bruce A. Blonigen & Thomas J. Prusa, 2001. "Antidumping," NBER Working Papers 8398, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Baldwin, Richard E., 1994. "The impact of the 1986 US--Japan semiconductor agreement," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 129-152, June.
- James C. Hartigan, 1996. "Predatory Dumping," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 29(1), pages 228-39, February.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:icr:wpicer:17-2009. 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: (Simone Pellegrino)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.