Does antidumping use contribute to trade liberalization in developing countries?

Abstract

Some supporters of antidumping have argued that this procedure serves as a kind of "safety valve" for protectionist pressure. This paper examines whether there is any empirical evidence that the use of antidumping actions has contributed to tariff reductions in a sample of 35 developing and developed countries. There is very little evidence that such a relationship might exist among the 27 developing countries in the sample. We do find some weak but inconsistent evidence for antidumping helping liberalization efforts in the experience of developed countries, which have been the traditional users of antidumping.

Sustainability of Trade Liberalization and Antidumping: Evidence from Mexico’s Trade Liberalization toward China

“…That is to say, restrictions on consumer goods are found to be the bait used to balance the relationships between trade liberalization and the private sector. We also find the empirical evidence for the original true hypothesis from Morre and Zanardi [11]; that is, antidumping sustains trade liberalization.…”

“…Bown and Tovar [10] confirm this by asserting there is an increase of AD in India as it opens its domestic market. Contrarily, Moore and Zanardi [11] tried to confirm that AD helps to sustain trade liberalization from 23 developing countries, however, they were not successful. Instead, they find AD hinders trade liberalization.…”

Differences in the determinants and targeting of antidumping: China and India compared

“…The influence of the importing country's macroeconomic conditions on AD use has been identified by several studies (Knetter and Prusa, 2003;Feinberg, 2005;Blonigen, 2006;Francois and Niels, 2006;Moore and Zanardi, 2009;Bao and Qiu, 2011). One major finding is that more AD filings are to be expected with slower domestic economic growth.…”

“…Although the literature has focused traditionally on the AD use of developed countries like the US and the EU, there are a few studies on global antidumping patterns (Prusa, 2001;Feinberg and Reynolds, 2006) and increasingly studies are also considering developing countries (Moore and Zanardi, 2009;Bown and Tovar, 2011;Zeng, 2011 As for studies focusing on China, the majority focuses on why China is targeted (see Wang and Xie, 2009;Bao, 2011;Zhang and Xie, 2011) rather than why it targets others. Although there are some articles on India, for example Bown and Tovar (2011) on the effect of trade liberalization on AD, the coverage of the existing literature is limited.…”

Preferential Trade Agreements and Antidumping Protection

“…26 For example, EU trade with Poland is included in the total trade of the EU during the enlargement to ignore the endogeneity problem and drop the EU from the sample of importing countries, the results would be qualitatively in line with what we have presented so far: the higher the shares of trade affected by the negotiation and the implementation of PTAs, the fewer extra-PTA AD measures an importing country introduces. 27 In another methodological check, we re-estimate our results without excluding the country pairs that are partners to a PTA in force or are negotiating one. At the end of Section 3,…”