Anti‐dumping: What are the Numbers to Discuss at Doha?

Abstract

While tariff barriers have decreased worldwide through various GATT rounds, anti‐dumping has surged to play a crucial role as the most important non‐tariff barrier. After much debate and opposition, anti‐dumping is on the agenda of the Doha round of multilateral trade negotiations and it is one of the most important issues, especially for developing countries as they are the main targets of this policy instrument. With this prospect, it is important to assess the relevance of anti‐dumping not only by focusing on traditional users but by analysing the experience of new users, which are now major players in the field. This paper improves upon existing studies by providing a comprehensive assessment on the use of anti‐dumping. First, data on the time pattern of worldwide implementations of anti‐dumping laws are presented. This time profile shows interesting relationships with legal developments in GATT and WTO dispositions. Second, usual sources of data are complemented with various other sources. This allows the inclusion of recent heavy users like China, Russia, Taiwan and Ukraine, which are ignored in similar studies but important for their trade volumes. This enlarged and updated dataset shows that new users are even more important than previously thought, with implications for the Doha negotiations.

East Asia's Anti‐dumping Problem

“…This adjustment results in about 300 fewer cases. As a result, the numbers I report in this paper will differ from statistics reported elsewhere (Miranda et al, 1998;Prusa, 2001;and Zanardi, 2004). Nevertheless, I feel that combining cases against EU countries allows one a more consistent 'balance sheet' of worldwide AD activity.…”

Political pressure deflection

“…This seems another interesting application of the logic of political pressure deflection which we leave for future work. 22 This venue is the more interesting given the large number of developing countries that recently adopted and started using AD (see Zanardi 2004). The considerable heterogeneity of this set of countries suggests that pressure deflection cannot be the only (or main) explanation of AD law adoption, which would make an in-depth analysis of various country cases all the more relevant.…”

“…Despite pressure from trade liberalizers, AD survived reform efforts during the Uruguay Round and as legitimated by the WTO it is now a standard mechanism around the world. In fact, Zanardi (2004) documents that the number of countries with an AD law almost doubled between 1990 and 2001 and nowadays the use of AD is not confined only to the traditional users (i.e., Australia, Canada, Europe, United States) and is especially concentrated among developing countries like India, Mexico, and South Africa. Although AD protection is now also targeting producers from the developed world, the United States is firmly against any substantial reform of the AD system.…”

Price Undertakings in EU Anti-dumping Proceedings – an Instrument of the Past?

“…The most comprehensive evaluation of the use of price undertakings was presented by Zanardi (2004). 8 He shows that between 1981 and 2001 around 40 per cent of EU anti-dumping proceedings were settled by implementing price undertakings.…”