Are Unfair Import Laws Unfair to Developing Countries: Evidence from U.S. Antidumping Actions 1990-2004
This paper investigates the effects of U.S. AD actions on DCs. It first considers administrative actions by the U.S. Department of Commerce, which decides AD margins for countries. It then considers decision making by the U.S. International Trade Commission, which determines injury to domestic industry. The econometric results show that USDOC actions lead to significantly higher AD margins for NMEs (all DCs) than for MOEs. Among countries that suffer from U.S. AD actions DCs have a significantly higher ratio of dumped imports to total imports (relative dumped imports) compared with middle income countries. However, the results also show that relative dumped imports of high income countries are also greater than middle income countries
|Date of creation:||Aug 2008|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Kiellinie 66, D-24105 Kiel|
Phone: +49 431 8814-1
Fax: +49 431 85853
Web page: http://www.ifw-kiel.de
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.:
- Robert W. Staiger & Frank A. Wolak, 1994.
"Measuring Industry Specific Protection: Antidumping in the United States,"
NBER Working Papers
4696, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Staiger, R.W. & Wolak, F.A., 1994. "Measuring Industry Specific Protection: Antidumpting in the United States," Working papers 9413, Wisconsin Madison - Social Systems.
- Robert Staiger & Frank Wolak, 1994. "Measuring Industry Specific Protection: Antidumping in the United States," International Trade 9410004, EconWPA.
- J. M. Finger, 1981. "The Industry-Country Incidence of "Less than Fair Value" Cases in US Import Trade," NBER Chapters, in: Export Diversification and the New Protectionism: The Experience of Latin America, pages 260-279 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Bruce A. Blonigen & Thomas J. Prusa, 2001. "Antidumping," NBER Working Papers 8398, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Douglas A. Irwin, 2005.
"The Rise of U.S. Antidumping Activity in Historical Perspective,"
IMF Working Papers
05/31, International Monetary Fund.
- Douglas A. Irwin, 2005. "The Rise of US Anti-dumping Activity in Historical Perspective," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 651-668, 05.
- Bown, Chad P. & Hoekman, Bernard & Ozden, Caglar, 2003. "The pattern of US antidumping: the path from initial filing to WTO dispute settlement," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(03), pages 349-371, November.
- Kenneth H. Kelly & Morris E. Morkre, 2006. "One Lump or Two: Unitary versus Bifurcated Measures of Injury at the USITC," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 44(4), pages 740-752, October.
- Murphy, Kevin M & Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W, 1993. "Why Is Rent-Seeking So Costly to Growth?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(2), pages 409-14, May.
- Dennis W. Carlton & Randal C. Picker, 2014.
"Antitrust and Regulation,"
in: Economic Regulation and Its Reform: What Have We Learned?, pages 25-61
National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Moore, Michael O., 2006. "U.S. facts-available antidumping decisions: An empirical analysis," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 639-652, September.
- Bown, Chad P., 2005. "Global antidumping database version 1.0," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3737, The World Bank.
- Michael M. Knetter & Thomas J. Prusa, 2000.
"Macroeconomic Factors and Antidumping Filings: Evidence from Four Countries,"
NBER Working Papers
8010, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Knetter, Michael M. & Prusa, Thomas J., 2003. "Macroeconomic factors and antidumping filings: evidence from four countries," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 1-17, October.
- Thomas Prusa & Michael Knetter, 2000. "Macroeconomic Factors and Antidumping Filings: Evidence from Four Countries," Departmental Working Papers 200023, Rutgers University, Department of Economics.
- Bruce A. Blonigen, 2003.
"Evolving Discretionary Practices of U.S Antidumping Activity,"
NBER Working Papers
9625, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Bruce A. Blonigen, 2006. "Evolving discretionary practices of U.S. antidumping activity," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 39(3), pages 874-900, August.
- Bruce A. Blonigen, 2002. "Evolving Discretionary Practices of U.S. Antidumping Activity," University of Oregon Economics Department Working Papers 2003-20, University of Oregon Economics Department, revised 01 Aug 2003.
- Michael O. Moore, 2005. "VERs and Price Undertakings under the WTO," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(2), pages 298-310, 05.
- Don P. Clark & Donald Bruce, 2006. "Who Bears The Burden Of U.S. Nontariff Measures?," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 24(2), pages 274-286, 04.
- Feinberg, Robert M, 1989. "Exchange Rates and "Unfair Trade."," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 71(4), pages 704-07, November.
- Feinberg, Robert M. & Hirsch, Barry T., 1989. "Industry rent seeking and the filing of unfair trade complaints," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 325-340.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kie:kieliw:1438. 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: (Dieter Stribny)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.