IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/man/sespap/1013.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Are antidumping duties an antidote for predation?

Author

Listed:
  • James Gaisford
  • Shan (Victor) Jiang
  • Stefan Lutz

Abstract

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.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • James Gaisford & Shan (Victor) Jiang & Stefan Lutz, 2010. "Are antidumping duties an antidote for predation?," The School of Economics Discussion Paper Series 1013, Economics, The University of Manchester.
  • Handle: RePEc:man:sespap:1013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hummedia.manchester.ac.uk/schools/soss/economics/discussionpapers/EDP-1013.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James C. Hartigan, 1996. "Predatory Dumping," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 29(1), pages 228-239, February.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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 371-389, August.
    5. Bruce A. Blonigen & Thomas J. Prusa, 2001. "Antidumping," NBER Working Papers 8398, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Hartigan, James C., 1994. "Dumping and signaling," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 69-81, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • F12 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Models of Trade with Imperfect Competition and Scale Economies; Fragmentation
    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets

    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:man:sespap:1013. 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: (Marianne Sensier). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/semanuk.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.