(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)"> (This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)">
[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/nbr/nberch/8710.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Differences in the Uses and Effects of Antidumping Law across Import Sources

In: The Political Economy of American Trade Policy

Author

Listed:
  • Robert W. Staiger
  • Frank A. Wolak
Abstract
This paper studies the differences in the uses and effects of U.S. antidumping law on imports and domestic output across the major regions exporting to the United States. Building on previous work (Staiger and Wolak, 1994), we extend our attempt to characterize the implications of the use of antidumping law for the behavior of U.S. imports and domestic output, and to distinguish between "outcome filers" (firms for which the prospect of an antidumping duty is an important ingredient in the decision to file) and "process filers" (firms for which filing is driven largely by a desire to secure the trade-restricting effects of the investigation process itself). In this paper we abstract from cross-industry heterogeneity in antidumping filing strategies and explore instead the heterogeneity of filing strategies against different import-source countries, allowing for the possibility that domestic firms may pursue independent filing strategies with respect to imports from different countries. We argue that the most likely target countries for process filers are those whose export production is primarily destined for the U.S. market and accounts for a relatively large and stable U.S. market share. These characteristics point to Canada and Mexico as countries against which process filing by U.S. firms is likely to occur. Analyzing the filing behavior against Canada and Mexico as well as four other regions, we find evidence in the filing behavior and in the nature of the trade impacts which accompany filing to suggest that Mexico and Canada are indeed the most likely targets of antidumping petitions filed by process filers in the United States.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Robert W. Staiger & Frank A. Wolak, 1996. "Differences in the Uses and Effects of Antidumping Law across Import Sources," NBER Chapters, in: The Political Economy of American Trade Policy, pages 385-422, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberch:8710
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c8710.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert W. Staiger & Frank A. Wolak, 1994. "Measuring Industry-Specific Protection: Antidumping in the United States," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 25(1994 Micr), pages 51-118.
    2. Anderson, Keith B, 1993. "Agency Discretion or Statutory Direction: Decision Making at the U.S. International Trade Commission," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 36(2), pages 915-935, October.
    3. Hartigan, James C & Kamma, Sreenivas & Perry, Philip R, 1989. "The Injury Determination Category and the Value of Relief from Dumping," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 71(1), pages 183-186, February.
    4. Patrick A. Messerlin, 1990. "Anti-Dumping Regulations or Pro-Cartel Law? The EC Chemical Cases," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(4), pages 465-492, December.
    5. John M. Abowd, 1990. "The NBER Immigration, Trade, and Labor Markets Data Files," NBER Working Papers 3351, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. David Godsell & Michael Welker & Ning Zhang, 2017. "Earnings Management During Antidumping Investigations in Europe: Sample‐Wide and Cross‐Sectional Evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(2), pages 407-457, May.
    2. Mustapha Sadni Jallab & Monnet Benoît Patrick Gbakou & René Sandretto, 2008. "L'influence des facteurs macroéconomiques sur les ouvertures d'enquêtes antidumping : le cas de l'Union Européenne et des États-Unis," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 118(4), pages 573-600.
    3. Basyah, Mohammad & Hartigan, James C., 2007. "Analyst earnings forecast revisions and the persistence of antidumping relief," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 383-399.
    4. Nelson, Douglas, 2006. "The political economy of antidumping: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 554-590, September.
    5. Thomas Klitgaard & Karen Schiele, 1998. "Free versus fair trade: the dumping issue," Current Issues in Economics and Finance, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, vol. 4(Aug).
    6. Robin, Donald P. & Charles Sawyer, W., 1998. "The ethics of antidumping petitions," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 315-328, October.

    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. Staiger, Robert W. & Wolak, Frank K., 1995. "ITC Injury Determination and the Abuse of Antidumping Law: Evidence from the United States Manufacturing Industries," 1995: Understanding Technical Barriers to Agricultural Trade Conference, December 1995, Tucson, Arizona 50715, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    2. Robert W. Staiger & Frank A. Wolak, 1994. "Measuring Industry-Specific Protection: Antidumping in the United States," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 25(1994 Micr), pages 51-118.
    3. Bruce A. Blonigen & Thomas J. Prusa, 2001. "Antidumping," NBER Working Papers 8398, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Metiu, Norbert, 2021. "Anticipation effects of protectionist U.S. trade policies," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    5. Hylke Vandenbussche & Maurizio Zanardi, 2008. "What explains the proliferation of antidumping laws? [‘Antidumping Laws in the US; Use and Welfare Consequences’]," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 23(53), pages 94-138.
    6. Kara Reynolds, 2013. "Under the Cover of Antidumping: Does Administered Protection Facilitate Domestic Collusion?," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 42(4), pages 415-434, June.
    7. Basyah, Mohammad & Hartigan, James C., 2007. "Analyst earnings forecast revisions and the persistence of antidumping relief," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 383-399.
    8. Robin, Donald P. & Charles Sawyer, W., 1998. "The ethics of antidumping petitions," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 315-328, October.
    9. CHEN Kun-Ming & CHEN Tsai-Chia, 2010. "Firms’ Strategies and the Effects of Antidumping Policy," EcoMod2003 330700035, EcoMod.
    10. Thomas J. Prusa, 2021. "The Trade Effects of U.S. Antidumping Actions," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Thomas J Prusa (ed.), Economic Effects of Antidumping, chapter 3, pages 21-43, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    11. Kokko, Ari & Gustavsson Tingvall, Patrik & Videnord, Josefin, 2017. "Which Antidumping Cases Reach the WTO?," Ratio Working Papers 286, The Ratio Institute.
    12. Bruce Blonigen & Thomas Prusa, 2003. "The Cost of Antidumping: the Devil is in the Details," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(4), pages 233-245.
    13. Niels, Gunnar & ten Kate, Adriaan, 2006. "Antidumping policy in developing countries: Safety valve or obstacle to free trade?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 618-638, September.
    14. Vandenbussche, Hylke & Zanardi, Maurizio, 2010. "The chilling trade effects of antidumping proliferation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(6), pages 760-777, August.
    15. 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.
    16. Gnutzmann-Mkrtchyan, Arevik & Hoffstadt, Martin, 2020. "Use and Abuse of Antidumping by Global Cartels," Hannover Economic Papers (HEP) dp-677, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät.
    17. Maurizio Zanardi, 2004. "Antidumping law as a collusive device," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 37(1), pages 95-122, February.
    18. Bettina Becker & Martin Theuringer, 2000. "Macroeconomic Determinants of Contingent Protection: The Case of the European Union," IWP Discussion Paper Series 02/2000, Institute for Economic Policy, Cologne, Germany.
    19. 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.
    20. Jae W. Chung, 1998. "Effects of U.S. Trade Remedy Law Enforcement under Uncertainty: The Case of Steel," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 151-159, July.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • F33 - International Economics - - International Finance - - - International Monetary Arrangements and Institutions

    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:nberch:8710. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.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.