IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/revind/v42y2013i4p415-434.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Under the Cover of Antidumping: Does Administered Protection Facilitate Domestic Collusion?

Author

Listed:
  • Kara Reynolds

Abstract

Anecdotal evidence suggests that domestic firms can use the antidumping petition process to engage in collusion and increase domestic prices. In this paper, I test whether the antidumping petition process itself can help domestic firms raise prices. I propose a method to identify whether firms in the industry experience a structural break in the level of market power possessed by the firms at the time that they file their antidumping petition. I use this methodology to analyze the impact of antidumping petitions on competition levels in two industries. I find little evidence that either of these industries increased their market power following the filing of petitions for trade relief, nor even from the protection that resulted from these petitions. These findings suggest that the widespread belief that antidumping leads to more market power may not always hold. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:revind:v:42:y:2013:i:4:p:415-434
    DOI: 10.1007/s11151-013-9385-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11151-013-9385-9
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11151-013-9385-9?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Maurizio Zanardi, 2004. "Antidumping law as a collusive device," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 37(1), pages 95-122, February.
    2. Jushan Bai & Pierre Perron, 1998. "Estimating and Testing Linear Models with Multiple Structural Changes," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(1), pages 47-78, January.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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..
    6. Taylor, Christopher T., 2004. "The economic effects of withdrawn antidumping investigations: is there evidence of collusive settlements?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 295-312, March.
    7. Bruce E. Hansen, 2001. "The New Econometrics of Structural Change: Dating Breaks in U.S. Labour Productivity," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(4), pages 117-128, Fall.
    8. Veugelers, Reinhilde & Vandenbussche, Hylke, 1999. "European anti-dumping policy and the profitability of national and international collusion," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 1-28, January.
    9. James Nieberding, 1999. "The Effect of U.S. Antidumping Law on Firms' Market Power: An Empirical Test," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 14(1), pages 65-84, February.
    10. Martin, Stephen, 1988. "The measurement of profitability and the diagnosis of market power," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 301-321.
    11. Laura D'Andrea Tyson, 1992. "Who's Bashing Whom? Trade Conflict in High-Technology Industries," Peterson Institute Press: All Books, Peterson Institute for International Economics, number 86, April.
    12. Konings, Jozef & Vandenbussche, Hylke, 2005. "Antidumping protection and markups of domestic firms," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 151-165, January.
    13. Aleksander Rutkowski, 2007. "Withdrawals of Anti‐dumping Complaints in the EU: A Sign of Collusion," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(3), pages 470-503, March.
    14. Corts, Kenneth S., 1998. "Conduct parameters and the measurement of market power," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 227-250, November.
    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. Rou Li, 2018. "The Research on Anti-dumping, Cost and Chinese Export: Based on Multilateral Resistance Term of Gravity Model," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 13(4), pages 210-210, March.
    2. Arevik Gnutzmann-Mkrtchyan & Hoffstadt, 2020. "Use and Abuse of Antidumping by Global Cartels," CESifo Working Paper Series 8729, CESifo.
    3. Brander, James A. & Spencer, Barbara J., 2023. "Intellectual property infringement by foreign firms: Import protection through the ITC or court," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Michel DE VROEY, 2013. "What can civil society expect from academic macroeconomics?," LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 2013022, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    4. Cláudio Roberto Fóffano Vasconcelos & Silvinha Pinto Vasconcelos, 2005. "Medidas Antidumping E Resultados Colusivos: O Caso Do Pebdl Na Economia Brasileira," Anais do XXXIII Encontro Nacional de Economia [Proceedings of the 33rd Brazilian Economics Meeting] 071, ANPEC - Associação Nacional dos Centros de Pós-Graduação em Economia [Brazilian Association of Graduate Programs in Economics].
    5. Laura ROVEGNO, 2013. "Endogenous trade restrictions and exporters’ pricing," LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 2013023, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    6. Bruce A. Blonigen & Thomas J. Prusa, 2001. "Antidumping," NBER Working Papers 8398, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Nelson, Douglas, 2006. "The political economy of antidumping: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 554-590, September.
    8. Vandenbussche, Hylke & Zanardi, Maurizio, 2010. "The chilling trade effects of antidumping proliferation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(6), pages 760-777, August.
    9. Laura ROVEGNO & Hylke VANDENBUSSCHE, 2011. "A comparative analysis of EU Antidumping rules and application," LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 2011023, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    10. Alfonso Mendieta, 2005. "Alternative Effects of Antidumping Policy: Should Mexican Authorities be Worried?," Economía Mexicana NUEVA ÉPOCA, CIDE, División de Economía, vol. 0(1), pages 41-69, January-J.
    11. repec:lic:licosd:34213 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Blonigen, Bruce A. & Liebman, Benjamin H. & Pierce, Justin R. & Wilson, Wesley W., 2013. "Are all trade protection policies created equal? Empirical evidence for nonequivalent market power effects of tariffs and quotas," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 369-378.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Robin, Donald P. & Charles Sawyer, W., 1998. "The ethics of antidumping petitions," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 315-328, October.
    18. 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.
    19. CHEN Kun-Ming & CHEN Tsai-Chia, 2010. "Firms’ Strategies and the Effects of Antidumping Policy," EcoMod2003 330700035, EcoMod.
    20. 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..
    21. Bruce A. Blonigen & Benjamin H. Liebman & Wesley W. Wilson, 2007. "Trade Policy and Market Power: The Case of the US Steel Industry," NBER Working Papers 13671, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Antidumping; Collusion;

    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:kap:revind:v:42:y:2013:i:4:p:415-434. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.