IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/lje/journl/v12y2007i1p79-98.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic Rationale, Trade Impact and Extent of Antidumping – A Case Study of Pakistan

Author

Listed:
  • Ahmed Nawaz Hakro

    (Department of Economics, Glasgow University, Glasgow, UK.)

  • Syed Hasanat Shah

    (Department of Economics, QAU Islamabad, Pakistan.)

Abstract

This paper has analyzed the economic and political justification, trade impact and extent of antidumping measures initiated by Pakistan. Screening models for anti-predatory behaviour, Herfindahl-Hireshmann Index (HHI) for concentration and descriptive statistical measures are used to test the antidumping (AD) behaviour. The results are consistent with the earlier literature that AD duties have both a trade reduction and diversion effect. It is evident from the results in half of the cases studied that an economic rationale has been followed in the application of AD duties in Pakistan. Although the number of AD cases is limited, Pakistan has emerged as one of the intensive users of AD, relative to its total import share. It is also evident from the fact that intensive use of AD reduces trade and increases trade barriers, similarly, trade diversion reduces the chances of trade reduction. The key message emerging from this research is that trade diversion persists and in some cases trade diversion is substantial and it offsets the effect of AD measures on named countries to the benefit of non-named countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Ahmed Nawaz Hakro & Syed Hasanat Shah, 2007. "Economic Rationale, Trade Impact and Extent of Antidumping – A Case Study of Pakistan," Lahore Journal of Economics, Department of Economics, The Lahore School of Economics, vol. 12(1), pages 79-98, Jan-Jun.
    • Handle: RePEc:lje:journl:v:12:y:2007:i:1:p:79-98
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://121.52.153.179/JOURNAL/V-12No1/04%20Ahmed%20Nawaz%20and%20Hasnat%20Shah.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter Svedberg, 1979. "Optimal Tariff Policy on Imports from Multinationals," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 55(1), pages 64-67, March.
    2. Patrick A. Messerlin & P. K. M. Tharakan, 1999. "The Question of Contingent Protection," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(9), pages 1251-1270, December.
    3. 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..
    4. P. Tharakan & David Greenaway & Joe Tharakan, 1998. "Cumulation and injury determination of the European community in antidumping cases," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 134(2), pages 320-339, June.
    5. 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.
    6. Thomas J. Prusa & Susan Skeath, 2021. "The Economic and Strategic Motives for Antidumping Filings," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Thomas J Prusa (ed.), Economic Effects of Antidumping, chapter 11, pages 233-257, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Wendy L Hansen & Thomas J Prusa, 2021. "Cumulation and ITC decision-making: The sum of the parts is greater than the whole," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Thomas J Prusa (ed.), Economic Effects of Antidumping, chapter 9, pages 171-194, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Wendy L. Hansen & Thomas J. Prusa, 1995. "The Road Most Taken: the Rise of Title VII Protection," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(2), pages 295-313, March.
    9. Tharakan, P K M, 1995. "Political Economy and Contingent Protection," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 105(433), pages 1550-1564, November.
    10. 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.
    11. Robert C. Feenstra, 1997. "The Effects of US Trade Protection and Promotion Policies," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number feen97-1.
    12. Blonigen, Bruce A. & Bown, Chad P., 2003. "Antidumping and retaliation threats," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 249-273, August.
    13. Finger,J. Michael & Francis Ng & Wangchuk, Sonam, 2001. "Antidumping as safeguard policy," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2730, The World Bank.
    14. Robert C. Feenstra, 1997. "Introduction to "The Effects of U.S. Trade Protection and Promotion Policies"," NBER Chapters, in: The Effects of US Trade Protection and Promotion Policies, pages 1-7, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Paul Brenton, 2014. "Anti-dumping policies in the EU and trade diversion," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: INTERNATIONAL TRADE, DISTRIBUTION AND DEVELOPMENT Empirical Studies of Trade Policies, chapter 4, pages 67-81, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    16. Feenstra, Robert C. (ed.), 1997. "The Effects of U.S. Trade Protection and Promotion Policies," National Bureau of Economic Research Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226239514, July.
    17. Lee, Kyung-Ho & Mah, Jai S., 2003. "Institutional changes and antidumping decisions in the United States," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 25(6-7), pages 555-565, September.
    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. Hasanat Shah, Syed & Ahmad Nawaz, Hakro, 2006. "Economic rationale, trade impact and extent of antidumping – case study of Pakistan," MPRA Paper 35817, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2007.
    2. 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.
    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. 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.
    5. Kokko, Ari & Gustavsson Tingvall, Patrik & Videnord, Josefin, 2017. "Which Antidumping Cases Reach the WTO?," Ratio Working Papers 286, The Ratio Institute.
    6. 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.
    7. Vandenbussche, Hylke & Zanardi, Maurizio, 2010. "The chilling trade effects of antidumping proliferation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(6), pages 760-777, August.
    8. Bown, Chad P. & Crowley, Meredith A., 2007. "Trade deflection and trade depression," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 176-201, May.
    9. Joseph, Siny & Lavoie, Nathalie, 2008. "Effectiveness of COOL in the U.S. Seafood Industry," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6260, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    10. Nelson, Douglas, 2006. "The political economy of antidumping: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 554-590, September.
    11. Meredith A. Crowley, 2007. "Cyclical dumping and U.S. antidumping protection: 1980-2001," Working Paper Series WP-07-21, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
    12. Chandra, Piyush, 2016. "Impact of temporary trade barriers: Evidence from China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 24-48.
    13. Bown, Chad P. & Crowley, Meredith A., 2006. "Policy externalities: How US antidumping affects Japanese exports to the EU," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 696-714, September.
    14. Kagitani, Koichi & Harimaya, Kozo, 2015. "Safeguards and voluntary export restraints under the World Trade Organization," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 29-41.
    15. Bown, Chad P., 2004. "Trade disputes and the implementation of protection under the GATT: an empirical assessment," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 263-294, March.
    16. Lorenzo Trimarchi, 2020. "Trade Policy and the China Syndrome," Working Papers ECARES 2020-15, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    17. Malhotra Nisha & Rus Horatiu & Kassam Shinan, 2008. "Antidumping Duties in the Agriculture Sector: Trade Restricting or Trade Deflecting?," Global Economy Journal, De Gruyter, vol. 8(2), pages 1-19, June.
    18. Ludo Cuyvers & Michel Dumont, 2005. "EU Anti‐dumping Measures against ASEAN Countries: Impact on Trade Flows," Asian Economic Journal, East Asian Economic Association, vol. 19(3), pages 249-271, September.
    19. Jozef KONINGS & Hylke VANDENBUSSCHE, 2009. "Antidumping Protection hurts Exporters: Firm-level evidence from France," LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 2009017, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    20. Jozef Konings & Hylke Vandenbussche, 2013. "Antidumping protection hurts exporters: firm-level evidence," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 149(2), pages 295-320, June.

    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:lje:journl:v:12:y:2007:i:1:p:79-98. 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: Shahid Salahuddin (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsecopk.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.