[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/4680.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Safeguards and antidumping in Latin American trade liberalization

Author

Listed:
  • Finger, J. Michael
  • Nogues, Julio J.
Abstract
The binding of tariff rates and adoption of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade/World Trade Organization-sanctioned safeguards and antidumping mechanisms provided the basis to remove a multitude of instruments of protection in the Latin American countries discussed in this paper. At the same time, they helped in maintaining centralized control over the management of pressures for protection in agencies with economy-wide accountabilities. The World Trade Organization's procedural requirements (for example, to follow published criteria, or participation by interested parties) helped leaders to change the culture of decision-making from one based on relationships to one based on objective criteria. However, when Latin American governments attempted to introduce economic sense - such as base price comparisons on an economically sensible measure of long-run international price rather than the more generous constructed cost concept that is the core of WTO rules - protection-seekers used the rules against them. They pointed out that World Trade Organization rules do not require the use of such criteria, nor do procedures in leading users (industrial countries) include such criteria. In sum, the administrative content of the rules supported liberalization; the economic content did not.

Suggested Citation

  • Finger, J. Michael & Nogues, Julio J., 2008. "Safeguards and antidumping in Latin American trade liberalization," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4680, The World Bank.
    • Handle: RePEc:wbk:wbrwps:4680
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2008/07/23/000158349_20080723153228/Rendered/PDF/WPS4680.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. Feinberg Robert M., 2011. "Antidumping as a Development Issue," Global Economy Journal, De Gruyter, vol. 11(3), pages 1-17, September.
    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. Henry Gao, 2011. "Trans-Pacific strategic economic partnership agreement: High standard or missed opportunity?," STUDIES IN TRADE AND INVESTMENT, in: Trade-led growth: A sound strategy for Asia, chapter 5, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP).
    5. 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.
    6. Michael O. Moore & Maurizio Zanardi, 2009. "Does antidumping use contribute to trade liberalization in developing countries?," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 42(2), pages 469-495, May.
    7. Bown, Chad P., 2005. "Global antidumping database version 1.0," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3737, The World Bank.
    8. Jørgen Hansen & Philipp Meinen & Jørgen Nielsen, 2014. "Elasticity of substitution and anti-dumping decisions," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 150(4), pages 787-816, November.
    9. Bown, Chad P., 2006. "The World Trade Organization and antidumping in developing countries," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4014, The World Bank.
    10. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Economic Theory&Research; Free Trade; Trade Law; Emerging Markets; Trade Policy;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:wbk:wbrwps:4680. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Roula I. Yazigi (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dvewbus.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.