IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/4282.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An Analysis of Factors Influencing ITC Decisions in Antidumoing, Countervailing Duty and Safeguard Cases

Author

Listed:
  • Robert E. Baldwin
  • Jeffrey W. Steagall

Abstract

This paper attempts to determine the economic factors that best explain the decisions of the International Trade Commission in antidumping, countervailing duty and safeguard cases, utilizing the economic data collected by the Commission for each investigation. We also consider the extent to which these factors measure the injury conditions and causation relationships specified in U.S. trade laws. Our analyses yield mixed results. For example, while the Commission tends to require declining profits and employment in an industry before recommending import protection in safeguard cases -- as specified in the law, it is not clear that it delineates between serious injury caused by increased imports and serious injury due to other factors. Similarly, in countervailing duty and antidumping cases, economic conditions, such as changes in industry shipments and the degree of capacity utilization, are taken into consideration in material injury decisions, but other factors one would expect to be associated with affirmative decisions, e.g., the ratio of unfair imports to consumption, do not seem to playa significant role. Some variables also enter significantly in the regressions that do not seem to be indicators of material injury.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert E. Baldwin & Jeffrey W. Steagall, 1993. "An Analysis of Factors Influencing ITC Decisions in Antidumoing, Countervailing Duty and Safeguard Cases," NBER Working Papers 4282, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:4282
    Note: ITI
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w4282.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Moore, Michael O, 1992. "Rules or Politics? An Empirical Analysis of ITC Anti-dumping Decisions," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 30(3), pages 449-466, July.
    2. Finger, J M & Hall, H Keith & Nelson, Douglas R, 1982. "The Political Economy of Administered Protection," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(3), pages 452-466, June.
    3. repec:cup:apsrev:v:84:y:1990:i:01:p:21-46_19 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Richard E. Baldwin & Frédéric Robert-Nicoud, 2007. "Entry and Asymmetric Lobbying: Why Governments Pick Losers," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 5(5), pages 1064-1093, September.
    2. Ralf Boscheck, 2000. "Trade, competition and antidumping—Breaking the impasse!?," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer;German National Library of Economics;Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), vol. 35(6), pages 282-287, November.
    3. Joseph F. Francois & Gunnar Niels, 2004. "Political Influence in a New Antidumping Regime: Evidence from Mexico," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 04-011/2, Tinbergen Institute.
    4. Meredith A. Crowley, 2004. "Antidumping Policy Under Imperfect Competition: Theory and Evidence," Econometric Society 2004 North American Summer Meetings 443, Econometric Society.
    5. Donald Feaver & Kenneth Wilson, 1999. "Unravelling causation: An empirical analysis of contingent protection in Australia," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 135(4), pages 692-708, December.
    6. Meredith A. Crowley, 2001. "Antidumping policy under imperfect competition," Working Paper Series WP-01-21, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
    7. Benjamin Liebman, 2004. "ITC voting behavior on sunset reviews," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 140(3), pages 446-475, September.
    8. P. Tharakan & David Greenaway & Joe Tharakan, 1998. "Cumulation and injury determination of the European community in antidumping cases," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 134(2), pages 320-339, June.
    9. Nandana Baruah, 2007. "An Analysis of Factors Influencing the Anti-dumping Behaviour in India," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(7), pages 1170-1191, July.
    10. 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.
    11. Yi Liu & Ning Zhang, 2015. "Sustainability of Trade Liberalization and Antidumping: Evidence from Mexico’s Trade Liberalization toward China," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 7(9), pages 1-20, August.
    12. Barrell, Ray & Pain, Nigel, 1999. "Trade restraints and Japanese direct investment flows," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 29-45, January.
    13. Donald Feaver & Kenneth Wilson, 2004. "The 'Market' for contingent protection," International Review of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(4), pages 497-509.
    14. René Belderbos, 1997. "Antidumping and tariff Jumping: Japanese firms’ DFI in the European union and the United States," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 133(3), pages 419-457, September.

    More about this item

    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:nbr:nberwo:4282. 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: (). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.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.