IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ecinqu/v44y2006i4p740-752.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

One Lump or Two: Unitary versus Bifurcated Measures of Injury at the USITC

Author

Listed:
  • Kenneth H. Kelly
  • Morris E. Morkre

Abstract

The most popular methodology used by the US International Trade Commission (USITC) commissioners to determine whether dumped and/or subsidized imports injure competing domestic industries has been rejected by reviewing bodies because it does not distinguish injury caused by unfairly traded imports from other demand or supply changes. We estimate injury to the domestic industry due to changes in unfairly traded import price and to other causes for 44 USITC dumping and/or subsidy investigations. Change in unfairly traded import price was typically not the most important cause of injury to the domestic industry. (JEL F13) Copyright 2006, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Kenneth H. Kelly & Morris E. Morkre, 2006. "One Lump or Two: Unitary versus Bifurcated Measures of Injury at the USITC," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 44(4), pages 740-752, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ecinqu:v:44:y:2006:i:4:p:740-752
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ei/cbj037
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Morkre, Morris & Spinanger, Dean & Tran, Lien, 2008. "Are unfair import laws unfair to developing countries: evidence from US antidumping actions 1990 - 2004," Kiel Working Papers 1438, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations

    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:oup:ecinqu:v:44:y:2006:i:4:p:740-752. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/weaaaea.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.