Next Move in Steel: Revocation or Retaliation?
In May 2003, the World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute panel ruled that US steel safeguards imposed in March 2002 are illegal. The WTO Appellate Body is all but certain to confirm the panel's judgment, probably by December 2003. Then the Bush administration will face an important choice. It can keep the safeguards in place, pleasing steel producers and important constituencies in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. However, doing so would further anger steel users, who have probably lost more business and jobs as a direct consequence of the safeguards than steel producers have gained. Maintaining the safeguards would also send a signal to the world's trading nations that the United States is not prepared to endure the political cost of eliminating steel protection. Furthermore, the administration would run the risk that, in the middle of a presidential election season, foreign countries will exercise their rights under the WTO to retaliate.
|Date of creation:||Oct 2003|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 1750 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036-1903|
Web page: http://www.piie.com
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Gary Clyde Hufbauer & Ben Goodrich, 2003. "Steel Policy: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly," Policy Briefs PB03-01, Peterson Institute for International Economics.
- Lori G. Kletzer & Robert E. Litan, 2001. "A Prescription to Relieve Worker Anxiety," Policy Briefs PB01-02, Peterson Institute for International Economics.
- Gary Clyde Hufbauer & Ben Goodrich, 2002. "Time for a Grand Bargain in Steel?," Policy Briefs PB02-01, Peterson Institute for International Economics.
- Gary Clyde Hufbauer & Ben Goodrich, 2001. "Steel: Big Problems, Better Solutions," Policy Briefs PB01-09, Peterson Institute for International Economics.