IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

How exporters respond to antidumping investigations?

  • Lu, Yi
  • Tao, Zhigang
  • Zhang, Yan

Using China Customs data that cover monthly transactions of all Chinese exporters, we investigate how Chinese exporters respond to U.S. antidumping investigations during the 2000-2006 period. Our difference-in-differences analysis uncovers a number of findings: (1) the substantial trade-dampening effect at the product level operates mostly at the extensive margin (i.e., a decrease in the number of exporters) rather than the intensive margin (i.e., a decrease in the export volume per exporter); (2) direct exporters are more likely to exit the U.S. market than trade intermediaries upon both the affirmative preliminary and final ITC determinations; (3) multi-product direct exporters are more likely to exit the U.S. market than single-product direct exporters upon the affirmative preliminary ITC determination, but the opposite holds upon the affirmative final ITC determination; and (4) little price adjustment to antidumping investigations are found at either the product level or firm-product level. We then provide a coherent explanation to the aforementioned findings based on recent developments in trade theories.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/38790/1/MPRA_paper_38790.pdf
File Function: original version
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 38790.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: May 2012
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:38790
Contact details of provider: Postal: Schackstr. 4, D-80539 Munich, Germany
Phone: +49-(0)89-2180-2219
Fax: +49-(0)89-2180-3900
Web page: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
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.:

as in new window
  1. Guido M. Imbens & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2008. "Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation," NBER Working Papers 14251, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  2. Thierry Mayer & Marc J. Melitz & Gianmarco I. P. Ottaviano, 2014. "Market Size, Competition, and the Product Mix of Exporters," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(2), pages 495-536, February.
  3. Chad Bown & Meredith Crowley, 2003. "Trade deflection and trade depression," Working Paper Series WP-03-26, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
  4. Bruce A. Blonigen & Jee-Hyeong Park, 2000. "Dynamic Pricing in the Presence of Antidumping Policy: Theory and Evidence," University of Oregon Economics Department Working Papers 2003-22, University of Oregon Economics Department, revised 01 Jun 2003.
  5. Bown, Chad P. & Crowley, Meredith A., 2006. "Policy externalities: How US antidumping affects Japanese exports to the EU," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 696-714, September.
  6. Corinne M. Krupp & Patricia S. Pollard, 1996. "Market Responses to Antidumping Laws: Some Evidence from the U.S. Chemical Industry," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 29(1), pages 199-227, February.
  7. Marc J. Melitz & Gianmarco I. P. Ottaviano, 2008. "Market Size, Trade, and Productivity," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 75(1), pages 295-316.
  8. Bown, Chad P., 2010. "Taking stock of antidumping, safeguards, and countervailingduties, 1990-2009," Policy Research Working Paper Series 5436, The World Bank.
  9. Konings, Jozef & Vandenbussche, Hylke, 2008. "Heterogeneous Responses of Firms to Trade Protection," CEPR Discussion Papers 6724, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  10. Justin Pierce, 2009. "Plant-Level Responses to Antidumping Duties: Evidence from U.S. Manufacturers," Working Papers 09-38r, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau, revised Jul 2011.
  11. 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.
  12. Blonigen, Bruce A., 2002. "Tariff-jumping antidumping duties," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 31-49, June.
  13. JaeBin Ahn & Amit K. Khandelwal & Shang-Jin Wei, 2010. "The Role of Intermediaries in Facilitating Trade," NBER Working Papers 15706, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  14. Gallaway, Michael P. & Blonigen, Bruce A. & Flynn, Joseph E., 1999. "Welfare costs of the U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty laws," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 211-244, December.
  15. Zanardi, M., 2005. "Antidumping : A Problem in International Trade," Discussion Paper 2005-85, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
  16. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/c8dmi8nm4pdjkuc9g8m210prh is not listed on IDEAS
  17. Marianne Bertrand & Esther Duflo & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2004. "How Much Should We Trust Differences-in-Differences Estimates?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 119(1), pages 249-275, February.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:38790. 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: (Ekkehart Schlicht)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.