IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cai/repdal/redp_184_0573.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

L'influence des facteurs macroéconomiques sur les ouvertures d'enquêtes antidumping : le cas de l'Union Européenne et des États-Unis

Author

Listed:
  • Mustapha Sadni Jallab
  • Monnet Benoît Patrick Gbakou
  • René Sandretto

Abstract

This paper aims at extending some recent publications about the relationship between antidumping filings and macroeconomic factors by comparing the US and the EU (Knetter et Prusa, 2003; Feinberg, 2005). Results of our estimations confirm that the real exchange rate exerts a similar influence in the two regions. Fluctuations in the real GDP influence antidumping filings only in the US. On the contrary, the evolution of industrial production does not play an important role in the US, while its impact is important in the EU. The reinforcement of international competition appears to significantly increase antidumping filings in the US while this relationship turns out not to be significant in the EU. Finally, some of the most important differences between the US and the EU seem to be explainable by the differences of rules and practices implemented by the regulatory authorities.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:cai:repdal:redp_184_0573
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.cairn.info/load_pdf.php?ID_ARTICLE=REDP_184_0573
    Download Restriction: free
    File URL: http://www.cairn.info/revue-d-economie-politique-2008-4-page-573.htm
    Download Restriction: free
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert M. Feinberg & Kara M. Reynolds, 2008. "Friendly Fire? The Impact of US Antidumping Enforcement on US Exporters," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 144(2), pages 366-378, July.
    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. Thomas J. Prusa, 2021. "Why are so many antidumping petitions withdrawn?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Thomas J Prusa (ed.), Economic Effects of Antidumping, chapter 2, pages 1-20, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Feinberg, Robert M. & Hirsch, Barry T., 1989. "Industry rent seeking and the filing of unfair trade complaints," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 325-340.
    5. 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.
    6. Michael M. Knetter & Thomas J. Prusa, 2021. "Macroeconomic factors and antidumping filings: evidence from four countries," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Thomas J Prusa (ed.), Economic Effects of Antidumping, chapter 8, pages 153-169, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Anne O. Krueger, 1996. "The Political Economy of American Trade Policy," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number krue96-1, June.
    8. J. M. Finger, 1981. "The Industry-Country Incidence of "Less than Fair Value" Cases in US Import Trade," NBER Chapters, in: Export Diversification and the New Protectionism: The Experiences of Latin America, pages 260-279, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Sylvie Javelot & Jean-Marc Siröen, 1994. "Les nouveaux instruments de politique commerciale," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 45(3), pages 487-500.
    10. Bruce A. Blonigen & Thomas J. Prusa, 2001. "Antidumping," NBER Working Papers 8398, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. A. Colin Cameron & Pravin K. Trivedi, 1986. "Econometric models based on count data. Comparisons and applications of some estimators and tests," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 1(1), pages 29-53, January.
    12. Cameron, A. Colin & Trivedi, Pravin K., 1990. "Regression-based tests for overdispersion in the Poisson model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 347-364, December.
    13. Finger,J. Michael & Francis Ng & Wangchuk, Sonam, 2001. "Antidumping as safeguard policy," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2730, The World Bank.
    14. Thomas J. Prusa, 2021. "On the spread and impact of anti-dumping," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Thomas J Prusa (ed.), Economic Effects of Antidumping, chapter 4, pages 45-65, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    15. Danny Leipziger & Hyun Shin, 1991. "The demand for protection: A look at antidumping cases," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 27-38, February.
    16. Krupp, Corinne, 1994. "Antidumping Cases in the U.S. Chemical Industry: A Panel Data Approach," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(3), pages 299-311, September.
    17. Hausman, Jerry & Hall, Bronwyn H & Griliches, Zvi, 1984. "Econometric Models for Count Data with an Application to the Patents-R&D Relationship," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 909-938, July.
    18. Michael P. Leidy, 1997. "Macroeconomic Conditions and Pressures for Protection under Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws: Empirical Evidence from the United States," IMF Staff Papers, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 44(1), pages 132-144, March.
    19. Aggarwal, Aradhna, 2004. "Macro Economic Determinants of Antidumping: A Comparative Analysis of Developed and Developing Countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1043-1057, June.
    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. Kokko, Ari & Gustavsson Tingvall, Patrik & Videnord, Josefin, 2017. "Which Antidumping Cases Reach the WTO?," Ratio Working Papers 286, The Ratio Institute.
    2. Robert M. Feinberg & Kara M. Reynolds, 2006. "The Spread of Antidumping Regimes and the Role of Retaliation in Filings," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 72(4), pages 877-890, April.
    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. Bruce A. Blonigen & Jee-Hyeong Park, 2004. "Dynamic Pricing in the Presence of Antidumping Policy: Theory and Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(1), pages 134-154, March.
    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. Aggarwal, Aradhna, 2004. "Macro Economic Determinants of Antidumping: A Comparative Analysis of Developed and Developing Countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1043-1057, June.
    7. Ning Meng & Chris Milner & Huasheng Song, 2016. "Differences in the determinants and targeting of antidumping: China and India compared," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(43), pages 4083-4097, September.
    8. Laura Rovegno, 2013. "Trade protection and market power: evidence from US antidumping and countervailing duties," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 149(3), pages 443-476, September.
    9. Michael Moore, 2015. "Sanctuary markets and antidumping: an empirical analysis of U.S. exporters," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 151(2), pages 309-328, May.
    10. Bown, Chad P., 2009. "The global resort to antidumping, safeguards, and other trade remedies amidst the economic crisis," Policy Research Working Paper Series 5051, The World Bank.
    11. Bruce A. Blonigen & Thomas J. Prusa, 2001. "Antidumping," NBER Working Papers 8398, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Bown, Chad P., 2006. "The World Trade Organization and antidumping in developing countries," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4014, The World Bank.
    13. 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.
    14. Metiu, Norbert, 2021. "Anticipation effects of protectionist U.S. trade policies," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    15. 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.
    16. Chad P. Bown, 2010. "China's WTO Entry: Antidumping, Safeguards, and Dispute Settlement," NBER Chapters, in: China's Growing Role in World Trade, pages 281-337, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Meredith A. Crowley, 2004. "Antidumping Policy Under Imperfect Competition: Theory and Evidence," Econometric Society 2004 North American Summer Meetings 443, Econometric Society.
    18. Aradhna Aggarwal, 2003. "Patterns and determinants of anti-dumping: A worldwide perspective," Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, New Delhi Working Papers 113, Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, New Delhi, India.
    19. 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.
    20. Yi Liu & Ning Zhang, 2015. "Sustainability of Trade Liberalization and Antidumping: Evidence from Mexico’s Trade Liberalization toward China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(9), pages 1-20, August.

    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:cai:repdal:redp_184_0573. 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: Jean-Baptiste de Vathaire (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cairn.info/revue-d-economie-politique.htm .

    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.