IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ecorec/v74y1998i224p62-73.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Unlocking Australia's Contingent Protection Black Box

Author

Listed:
  • DONALD FEAVER
  • KENNETH WILSON

Abstract

In this paper, the material injury outcome decisions of the Australian regulatory authority (the Anti‐Dumping Authority) are analyzed in order to determine which factors are influential in determining outcome decisions. The paper tests hypotheses concerning how the Australian authorities decide whether an Australian industry has suffered material injury as required under the relevant Australian legislation and the GATT/WTO obligations. The paper concludes that even though the Australian authorities follow a procedurally correct and GATT‐consistent approach, there is nevertheless some evidence of protectionist bias in favour of domestic industries.

Suggested Citation

  • Donald Feaver & Kenneth Wilson, 1998. "Unlocking Australia's Contingent Protection Black Box," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 74(224), pages 62-73, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ecorec:v:74:y:1998:i:224:p:62-73
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-4932.1998.tb01904.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4932.1998.tb01904.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1475-4932.1998.tb01904.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard E. Caves, 1976. "Economic Models of Political Choice: Canada's Tariff Structure," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 9(2), pages 278-300, May.
    2. Pincus, J J, 1975. "Pressure Groups and the Pattern of Tariffs," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 83(4), pages 757-778, August.
    3. J.M. Finger & H. Keith Hall & Douglas R. Nelson, 2002. "The Political Economy of Administered Protection," Chapters, in: Institutions and Trade Policy, chapter 8, pages 81-95, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Iltae Son & Kenneth Wilson, 1995. "Australia-Korea Trade: Recent Structure And Future Prospects," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 14(2), pages 83-96, June.
    5. Messerlin, Patrick A & Reed, Geoffrey, 1995. "Antidumping Policies in the United States and the European Community," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 105(433), pages 1565-1575, November.
    6. 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.
    7. Robert Baldwin & Jeffrey Steagall, 1994. "An analysis of ITC decisions in antidumping, countervailing duty and safeguard cases," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 130(2), pages 290-308, June.
    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. Donald Feaver & Kenneth Wilson, 2004. "The 'Market' for contingent protection," International Review of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(4), pages 497-509.
    2. Kara M. Reynolds, 2009. "From Agreement to Application: An Analysis of Determinations under the WTO Antidumping Agreement," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(5), pages 969-985, November.
    3. Nelson, Douglas, 2006. "The political economy of antidumping: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 554-590, September.
    4. Christis G. Tombazos, 2003. "Unprotective Tariffs, Ineffective Liberalization, and Other Mysteries: An Investigation of the Endogenous Dimensions of Trade Policy Formation in Australia," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 70(1), pages 49-74, July.

    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. 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.
    2. Hansen, Wendy L & Prusa, Thomas J, 1997. "The Economics and Politics of Trade Policy: An Empirical Analysis of ITC Decision Making," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(2), pages 230-245, May.
    3. Jozef Konings & Hylke Vandenbussche & Linda Springael, 2001. "Import Diversion under European Antidumping Policy," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 1(3), pages 283-299, September.
    4. Don P. Clark & Donald Bruce, 2006. "Who Bears The Burden Of U.S. Nontariff Measures?," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 24(2), pages 274-286, April.
    5. Xiaosong Wang & Jack Hou & Faqin Lin, 2022. "ITC antidumping toward China rulings: Is political factor overwhelming?," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(1), pages 106-122, January.
    6. Afontsev Serguey, 2000. "Political Economy of Tariff Protection in Russia: an Empirical Study," EERC Working Paper Series 99-16e, EERC Research Network, Russia and CIS.
    7. 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.
    8. Oscar Bajo & Angel Torres, 1991. "Los determinantes de la protección en la industria manufacturera española," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 15(2), pages 457-480, May.
    9. Tharakan, P.K.M. & Greenaway, David & Kerstens, Birgit, 2006. "Anti-dumping and excess injury margins in the European Union: A counterfactual analysis," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 653-674, September.
    10. Chung, Jae W., 1999. "Insights Into Trade Protection under U.S. Trade Remedy Laws," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 375-387, May.
    11. Wen Mao & Peter Zaleski, 2001. "The Effect of Industry Concentration on Free Riding," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 19(3), pages 295-303, November.
    12. Donald Feaver & Kenneth Wilson, 2004. "The 'Market' for contingent protection," International Review of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(4), pages 497-509.
    13. John Quiggin, 1987. "Egoistic Rationality and Public Choice: A Critical Review of Theory and Evidence," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 63(1), pages 10-21, March.
    14. kishore gawande & pravin krishna, 2005. "The Political Economy of Trade Policy: Empirical Approaches," International Trade 0503003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Aquilante, Tommaso, 2018. "Undeflected pressure? The protectionist effect of political partisanship on US antidumping policy," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 455-470.
    16. Magee, Stephen & Lee, Hak Loh & Lee, Hongshik, 2017. "Simple measures of endogenous free-riding in protectionist lobbies," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 324-333.
    17. Aquilante, Tommaso, 2015. "Bureaucrats or Politicians? Political Parties and Antidumping in the US," MPRA Paper 70359, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Maurizio Zanardi, 2004. "Antidumping law as a collusive device," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 37(1), pages 95-122, February.
    19. Bin, Sheng, 2000. "The Political Economy of Trade Policy in China," Working Papers 10/2000, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Management, Politics & Philosophy.
    20. 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.

    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:bla:ecorec:v:74:y:1998:i:224:p:62-73. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/esausea.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.