IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/lic/licosd/17606.html

Did US Safeguard Protection on Steel Affect Market Power of European Steel Producers?

Author

Listed:
  • Hylke Vandenbussche
  • Ziga Zarnic

Abstract

This paper empirically investigates the effects of US safeguard protection on steel imports in 2002 on the mark-ups of EU steel producers. We identify a large panel of European steel producers between 1995 and 2004 affected by the safeguards. Using the Roeger method, our results show that US safeguards significantly reduced EU firms?mark-ups. Single-product EU steel firms suffered relatively more from the protection than multi-product firms. Controlling for firm heterogeneity, these results are robust to alternative specifications. Our evidence further suggests that US protection resulted in some rerouting of European steel especially towards China, aggravating the situation on the Chinese steel market and ultimately resulting in Chinese trade protection of steel imports.

Suggested Citation

  • Hylke Vandenbussche & Ziga Zarnic, 2006. "Did US Safeguard Protection on Steel Affect Market Power of European Steel Producers?," LICOS Discussion Papers 17606, LICOS - Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance, KU Leuven.
    • Handle: RePEc:lic:licosd:17606
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.econ.kuleuven.be/licos/publications/dp/dp176.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brander, James & Krugman, Paul, 1983. "A 'reciprocal dumping' model of international trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3-4), pages 313-321, November.
    2. Nina Pavcnik, 2002. "Trade Liberalization, Exit, and Productivity Improvements: Evidence from Chilean Plants," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 69(1), pages 245-276.
    3. Veugelers, Reinhilde & Vandenbussche, Hylke, 1999. "European anti-dumping policy and the profitability of national and international collusion," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 1-28, January.
    4. Joaquim Oliveira Martins & Stefano Scarpetta & Dirk Pilat, 1996. "Mark-Up Ratios in Manufacturing Industries: Estimates for 14 OECD Countries," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 162, OECD Publishing.
    5. repec:bla:econom:v:69:y:2002:i:275:p:505-23 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Levinsohn, James, 1993. "Testing the imports-as-market-discipline hypothesis," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1-2), pages 1-22, August.
    7. Pinelopi Koujianou Goldberg & Frank Verboven, 2001. "The Evolution of Price Dispersion in the European Car Market," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 68(4), pages 811-848.
    8. Krugman, Paul, 1979. "A Model of Innovation, Technology Transfer, and the World Distribution of Income," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 87(2), pages 253-266, April.
    9. Harrison, Ann E., 1994. "Productivity, imperfect competition and trade reform : Theory and evidence," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1-2), pages 53-73, February.
    10. Bown, Chad P. & Crowley, Meredith A., 2007. "Trade deflection and trade depression," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 176-201, May.
    11. Konings, Jozef & Vandenbussche, Hylke, 2005. "Antidumping protection and markups of domestic firms," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 151-165, January.
    12. Robert W. Staiger & Frank A. Wolak, 1989. "Strategic Use of Antidumping Law to Enforce Tacit International Collusion," NBER Working Papers 3016, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Wendy L. Hansen & Thomas J. Prusa, 1995. "The Road Most Taken: the Rise of Title VII Protection," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(2), pages 295-313, March.
    14. Krishna, Pravin & Mitra, Devashish, 1998. "Trade liberalization, market discipline and productivity growth: new evidence from India," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 447-462, August.
    15. Bresnahan, Timothy F., 1989. "Empirical studies of industries with market power," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 17, pages 1011-1057, Elsevier.
    16. Crowley, Meredith A., 2006. "Do safeguard tariffs and antidumping duties open or close technology gaps?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 469-484, March.
    17. Olley, G Steven & Pakes, Ariel, 1996. "The Dynamics of Productivity in the Telecommunications Equipment Industry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 64(6), pages 1263-1297, November.
    18. R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), 1989. "Handbook of Industrial Organization," Handbook of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 2, number 2.
    19. Hartigan, James C & Kamma, Sreenivas & Perry, Philip R, 1989. "The Injury Determination Category and the Value of Relief from Dumping," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 71(1), pages 183-186, February.
    20. Hulten, Charles R., 1986. "Productivity change, capacity utilization, and the sources of efficiency growth," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1-2), pages 31-50.
    21. Blonigen, Bruce A. & Bown, Chad P., 2003. "Antidumping and retaliation threats," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 249-273, August.
    22. Hall, Robert E, 1988. "The Relation between Price and Marginal Cost in U.S. Industry," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 96(5), pages 921-947, October.
    23. Goldberg, Pinelopi Koujianou & Knetter, Michael M., 1999. "Measuring the intensity of competition in export markets," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 27-60, February.
    24. Jagdish N. Bhagwati, 1978. "Anatomy of Exchange Control Regimes," NBER Chapters, in: Foreign Trade Regimes and Economic Development: Anatomy and Consequences of Exchange Control Regimes, pages 7-52, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    25. Richard Baldwin, 1993. "A Domino Theory of Regionalism," NBER Working Papers 4465, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    26. Brander, James A., 1981. "Intra-industry trade in identical commodities," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 1-14, February.
    27. Miyagiwa, Kaz & Ohno, Yuka, 1995. "Closing the Technology Gap under Protection," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(4), pages 755-770, September.
    28. Choi, E. Kwan & Harrigan, James, 2003. "Handbook of International Trade," Staff General Research Papers Archive 11375, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    29. Roeger, Werner, 1995. "Can Imperfect Competition Explain the Difference between Primal and Dual Productivity Measures? Estimates for U.S. Manufacturing," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(2), pages 316-330, April.
    30. Berry, Steven & Levinsohn, James & Pakes, Ariel, 1995. "Automobile Prices in Market Equilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(4), pages 841-890, July.
    31. Jagdish N. Bhagwati, 1978. "Foreign Trade Regimes and Economic Development: Anatomy and Consequences of Exchange Control Regimes," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number bhag78-1, January.
    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. Victoria Purice, 2011. "Exports and Firm Productivity. The effect of US steel safeguards," Bruges European Economic Research Papers 19, European Economic Studies Department, College of Europe.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vandenbussche, Hylke & Zarnic, Ziga, 2007. "Did US Safeguards Affect Mark-ups of EU Steel Producers?," CEPR Discussion Papers 6486, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    2. Hylke Vandenbussche & Ziga Zarnic, 2008. "US Safeguards on Steel and the Markups of European Producers," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 144(3), pages 458-490, October.
    3. Konings, Jozef & Vandenbussche, Hylke, 2005. "Antidumping protection and markups of domestic firms," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 151-165, January.
    4. Paolo Epifani, 2003. "Trade liberalization, Firm Performances and Labor Market Outcomes in the Developing World, what Can We Learn From Micro-Level Data?," Rivista italiana degli economisti, Società editrice il Mulino, issue 3, pages 455-486.
    5. Peltonen, Tuomas A. & Skala, Martin & Santos Rivera, Alvaro & Pula, Gabor, 2008. "Imports and profitability in the euro area manufacturing sector: the role of emerging market economies," Working Paper Series 918, European Central Bank.
    6. Rosen Marinov, 2010. "Competitive Pressure in Transition: A Role for Trade and Competition Policies?," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 1-31, March.
    7. Jozef Konings & Patrick Van Cayseele & Frederic Warzynski, 2003. "The Effects Of Privatization And International Competitive Pressure On Firms??? Price-Cost Margins: Micro Evidence From Emerging Economies1," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 2003-603, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    8. Vandenbussche, Hylke & Konings, Jozef, 2002. "Does Antidumping Protection Raise Market Power? Evidence from Firm Level Data," CEPR Discussion Papers 3571, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    9. Aileen J. Thompson, 1999. "Import Competition and Market Power: Canadian Evidence," Carleton Economic Papers 99-14, Carleton University, Department of Economics, revised Mar 2000.
    10. Jan De Loecker & Pinelopi K. Goldberg & Amit K. Khandelwal & Nina Pavcnik, 2016. "Prices, Markups, and Trade Reform," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 84, pages 445-510, March.
    11. Ziga Zarnic, 2010. "From Liberalization Towards Integration: Have Markups of EU Electricity Firms Changed?," LICOS Discussion Papers 26110, LICOS - Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance, KU Leuven.
    12. Daniele Curzi & Maria Garrone & Alessandro Olper, 2021. "Import Competition and Firm Markups in the Food Industry," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(4), pages 1433-1453, August.
    13. Jozef Konings & Patrick Van Cayseele & Frederic Warzynski, 2005. "The Effects of Privatization and Competitive Pressure on Firms' Price-Cost Margins: Micro Evidence from Emerging Economies," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 87(1), pages 124-134, February.
    14. Thompson, Aileen J., 2002. "Import competition and market power: Canadian evidence," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 40-55, May.
    15. Blonigen, Bruce A. & Liebman, Benjamin H. & Pierce, Justin R. & Wilson, Wesley W., 2013. "Are all trade protection policies created equal? Empirical evidence for nonequivalent market power effects of tariffs and quotas," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 369-378.
    16. 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.
    17. Frederic Warzynski & Jan De Loecker, 2010. "Markups and Firm-level Exports," 2010 Meeting Papers 438, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    18. Jan De Loecker & Frederic Warzynski, 2012. "Markups and Firm-Level Export Status," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(6), pages 2437-2471, October.
    19. Ana Cristina Soares, 2020. "Price-cost margin and bargaining power in the European Union," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 59(5), pages 2093-2123, November.
    20. Kim, Euysung, 2000. "Trade liberalization and productivity growth in Korean manufacturing industries: price protection, market power, and scale efficiency," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 55-83, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • L61 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing - - - Metals and Metal Products; Cement; Glass; Ceramics

    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:lic:licosd:17606. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/licosbe.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.