IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/not/notgep/15-11.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Antidumping Use and Its Effect on Trade Liberalization. Evidence for the European Union

Author

Listed:
  • Tobias D. Ketterer

Abstract

In this paper we examine the hypothesis that antidumping actions may contribute to trade liberalization by serving as a ‘safety valve’ for protection-seeking pressures. Using microlevel trade and tariff data at the HS 8-digit level for the European Union, we investigate whether the use of antidumping measures has acted as a catalyst in subsequent multilateral tariff negotiations. Our findings tend to suggest that the use of antidumping policies may have reduced the resistance of domestic protectionist forces towards major tariff reforms, as they show significantly larger tariff cuts for products previously involved in an antidumping investigation.

Suggested Citation

  • Tobias D. Ketterer, 2015. "Antidumping Use and Its Effect on Trade Liberalization. Evidence for the European Union," Discussion Papers 2015-11, University of Nottingham, GEP.
    • Handle: RePEc:not:notgep:15/11
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/gep/documents/papers/2015/2015-11.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hiau LooiKee & Alessandro Nicita & Marcelo Olarreaga, 2009. "Estimating Trade Restrictiveness Indices," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(534), pages 172-199, January.
    2. Thomas J. Prusa, 2005. "Anti‐dumping: A Growing Problem in International Trade," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 683-700, May.
    3. Michael O. Moore & Maurizio Zanardi, 2011. "Trade Liberalization and Antidumping: Is There a Substitution Effect?," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(4), pages 601-619, November.
    4. Giovanni Maggi & Andres Rodriguez-Clare, 1998. "The Value of Trade Agreements in the Presence of Political Pressures," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 106(3), pages 574-601, June.
    5. Ketterer, Tobias D. & Bernhofen, Daniel & Milner, Chris, 2014. "Preferences, rent destruction and multilateral liberalization: The building block effect of CUSFTA," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(1), pages 63-77.
    6. Vandenbussche, Hylke & Zanardi, Maurizio, 2010. "The chilling trade effects of antidumping proliferation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(6), pages 760-777, August.
    7. Baybars Karacaovali & Nuno Limão, 2018. "The clash of liberalizations: Preferential vs. multilateral trade liberalization in the European Union," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Policy Externalities and International Trade Agreements, chapter 14, pages 373-401, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Nelson, Douglas, 2006. "The political economy of antidumping: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 554-590, September.
    9. Peter Egger & Douglas Nelson, 2011. "How Bad Is Antidumping? Evidence from Panel Data," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 93(4), pages 1374-1390, November.
    10. Finger, J. Michael & Nogues, Julio J., 2008. "Safeguards and antidumping in Latin American trade liberalization," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4680, The World Bank.
    11. Bown, Chad P. & Tovar, Patricia, 2011. "Trade liberalization, antidumping, and safeguards: Evidence from India's tariff reform," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 115-125, September.
    12. Choi, E. Kwan & Harrigan, James, 2003. "Handbook of International Trade," Staff General Research Papers Archive 11375, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    13. Tobias D. Ketterer, 2016. "EU Anti-dumping and Tariff Cuts: Trade Policy Substitution?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(5), pages 576-596, May.
    14. Adrian R Pagan & Anthony D Hall, 1983. "Diagnostic tests as residual analysis," Published Paper Series 1983-1, Finance Discipline Group, UTS Business School, University of Technology, Sydney.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Magdalene Silberberger & Anja Slany & Christian Soegaard & Frederik Stender, 2022. "The Aftermath of Anti-Dumping: Are Temporary Trade Barriers Really Temporary?," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 677-704, September.
    2. Tobias D. Ketterer, 2016. "EU Anti-dumping and Tariff Cuts: Trade Policy Substitution?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(5), pages 576-596, May.
    3. Chad P. Bown, 2011. "Taking Stock of Antidumping, Safeguards and Countervailing Duties, 1990–2009," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(12), pages 1955-1998, December.
    4. Zhaohui Niu & Chris Milner & Saileshsingh Gunessee & Chang Liu, 2020. "Are nontariff measures and tariffs substitutes? Some panel data evidence," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(2), pages 408-428, May.
    5. Sandkamp, Alexander, 2020. "The trade effects of antidumping duties: Evidence from the 2004 EU enlargement," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    6. Felbermayr, Gabriel & Sandkamp, Alexander, 2020. "The trade effects of anti-dumping duties: Firm-level evidence from China," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    7. Bown, Chad & Crowley, Meredith A., 2016. "The Empirical Landscape of Trade Policy," CEPR Discussion Papers 11216, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    8. Kokko, Ari & Gustavsson Tingvall, Patrik & Videnord, Josefin, 2017. "Which Antidumping Cases Reach the WTO?," Ratio Working Papers 286, The Ratio Institute.
    9. Chad P. Bown & Patricia Tovar, 2016. "Preferential Liberalization, Antidumping, and Safeguards: Stumbling Block Evidence from MERCOSUR," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(3), pages 262-294, November.
    10. Joseph Mai & Andrey Stoyanov, 2015. "The effect of the Canada‐US Free Trade Agreement on Canadian multilateral trade liberalization," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(3), pages 1067-1098, August.
    11. Alexander Sandkamp & Erdal Yalcin, 2021. "Different antidumping legislations within the WTO: What can we learn from China's varying market economy status?," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(5), pages 1121-1147, November.
    12. Chad P. Bown & Rachel McCulloch, 2012. "Antidumping and Market Competition: Implications for Emerging Economies," Working Papers 50, Brandeis University, Department of Economics and International Business School.
    13. David J. Kuenzel, 2023. "Non‐tariff measures: What's tariffs got to do with it?," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 56(1), pages 133-163, February.
    14. Feinberg Robert M., 2011. "Antidumping as a Development Issue," Global Economy Journal, De Gruyter, vol. 11(3), pages 1-17, September.
    15. Nuno Limão, 2016. "Preferential Trade Agreements," NBER Working Papers 22138, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Michael O. Moore & Maurizio Zanardi, 2011. "Trade Liberalization and Antidumping: Is There a Substitution Effect?," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(4), pages 601-619, November.
    17. Emanuel Ornelas, 2016. "Special and Differential Treatment for Developing Countries," CESifo Working Paper Series 5823, CESifo.
    18. Bown, Chad P. & Crowley, Meredith A., 2014. "Emerging economies, trade policy, and macroeconomic shocks," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 261-273.
    19. Tovar, Patricia, 2019. "Preferential and multilateral liberalization: Evidence from Latin America’s use of tariffs, antidumping and safeguards," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    20. Eyal Ronen, 2017. "Tariffs and non-tariff measures: substitutes or complements. A cross-country analysis," Bank i Kredyt, Narodowy Bank Polski, vol. 48(1), pages 45-72.

    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:not:notgep:15/11. 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: Hilary Hughes (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cgnotuk.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.