Antidumping and the Death of Trade
We investigate the extent to which antidumping actions eliminate trade altogether. Using quarterly export data for products involved in U.S. antidumping cases we find that antidumping actions increase the hazard rate by more than fifty percent. We find strong evidence of investigation effects with the impact during the initiation and preliminary duty phases considerably larger than during the final duty phase. There are also important differences with respect to the size of duties. Cases with higher duties face a much higher hazard in the preliminary phase but there is little additional effect when the final duty is actually levied. By contrast, cases with lower duties have a smaller but more persistent effect on the hazard, which proves to be highly detrimental in the long run as many trade relationship cease during the duration of the order. Given the literature on heterogeneous firms and trade, our results imply antidumping protection imposes greater costs than previously recognized.
|Date of creation:||Oct 2013|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://www.nber.org
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.:
- Justin Pierce, 2009.
"Plant-Level Responses to Antidumping Duties: Evidence from U.S. Manufacturers,"
09-38r, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau, revised Jul 2011.
- 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.
- Justin R. Pierce, 2011. "Plant-level responses to antidumping duties: evidence from U.S. manufacturers," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2011-40, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
- 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.
- Chad Bown & Meredith Crowley, 2003.
"Trade deflection and trade depression,"
Working Paper Series
WP-03-26, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
- Nitsch, Volker, 2008.
"Die another day: duration in German import trade,"
2008/17, Free University Berlin, School of Business & Economics.
- Volker Nitsch, 2009. "Die another day: duration in German import trade," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer, vol. 145(1), pages 133-154, April.
- Peter K. Schott, 2004. "Across-product Versus Within-product Specialization in International Trade," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 119(2), pages 646-677, May.
- Thomas J. Prusa, 1999.
"On the spread and impact of antidumping,"
Departmental Working Papers
199916, Rutgers University, Department of Economics.
- Bruce A. Blonigen & Thomas J. Prusa, 2001. "Antidumping," NBER Working Papers 8398, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Hess, Wolfgang & Persson, Maria, 2010.
"Exploring the Duration of EU Imports,"
Working Paper Series
849, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
- Wolfgang Hess & Maria Persson, 2011. "Exploring the duration of EU imports," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer, vol. 147(4), pages 665-692, November.
- Besedes, Tibor & Prusa, Thomas J., 2006. "Product differentiation and duration of US import trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 339-358, December.
- Michael O. Moore, 2006. "An Econometric Analysis of U.S. Antidumping Sunset Review Decisions," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer, vol. 142(1), pages 122-150, April.
- Peter Egger & Douglas Nelson, .
"How Bad is Antidumping?: Evidence from Panel Data,"
07/17, University of Nottingham, GEP.
- Colin A. Carter & Caroline Gunning-Trant, 2010. "U.S. trade remedy law and agriculture: trade diversion and investigation effects," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 43(1), pages 97-126, February.
- Prusa, Thomas J., 1992. "Why are so many antidumping petitions withdrawn?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1-2), pages 1-20, August.
- Sueyoshi, Glenn T, 1995. "A Class of Binary Response Models for Grouped Duration Data," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(4), pages 411-31, Oct.-Dec..
- Mélise Jaud & Madina Kukenova & Martin Strieborny, 2009. "Financial dependence and intensive margin of trade," PSE Working Papers halshs-00575005, HAL.
- Tibor Besedes & Thomas Prusa, 2006. "Ins, outs, and the duration of trade," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 39(1), pages 266-295, February.
- Vandenbussche, Hylke & Zanardi, Maurizio, 2010.
"The chilling trade effects of antidumping proliferation,"
European Economic Review,
Elsevier, vol. 54(6), pages 760-777, August.
- Hylke Vandenbussche & Maurizio Zanardi, 2010. "The chilling trade effects of antidumping proliferation," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/136355, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
- Kathy Baylis & Jeffrey M. Perloff, 2010. "Trade diversion from tomato suspension agreements," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 43(1), pages 127-151, February.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:19555. 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: ()
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.