Advertisement

Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade

, Volume 6, Issue 3–4, pp 253–275 | Cite as

Antidumping as Anticompetitive Practice Evidence from the United States and the European Union

  • Mustapha Sadni JallabEmail author
  • James B. KobakJr
Article

Abstract

This paper discusses and develops certain observable indices of the nature and effects of dumping and antidumping policy. The object is to analyze each antidumping procedure introduced by the United States (US) and the European Union (EU) for the 1998–2001 period. Using conservative criteria, we find that 68.2% of the antidumping procedures introduced by the EU appear to have a questionable economic foundation, meaning that the identified factors suggest that the conduct challenged is unlikely to have any significantly anticompetitive effect. We similarly find a questionable economic foundation in 76% of the analyzed cases in the US. The recommendation that we propose is that it may be appropriate to modify the antidumping law to take into account at a preliminary stage the factors that may indicate the presence or absence of potential anticompetitive effects.

Keywords

antidumping law monopolizing dumping non-monopolizing dumping case study 

JEL Classifications

F13 L12 L41 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aussilloux, V., “Une révision souhaitable de la procédure antidumping à l’OMC,” Revue française d’économie, vol. 15, pp. 14–28, 2001.Google Scholar
  2. Congressional Budget Office, “Antidumping action in the United States and around the world: an analysis of international data” http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=439&sequence=0&from=0#anchor, 1998.
  3. Fox, E.M., Sullivan, L.A. and Peritz, R.J.R., “Cases and materials on U. S. Antitrust in a global context 306,” (2d Ed. 2004).Google Scholar
  4. Messerlin, P.A., “Agreement on public procurement,” in OECD, The new world trading system: Reading, OECD, OECD Documents, Paris, pp. 65–71, 1994.Google Scholar
  5. Messerlin, P.A., “Reforming the rules of antidumping policies,” paper presented at the conference “Towards a new global framework for high technology competition,” Kiel, Germany, 1995.Google Scholar
  6. Prusa, T.J., “Why are so many antidumping petitions withdrawn?” Journal of International Economics, vol. 33, pp. 1–20, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Shin, H.J., “Caractéristiques des actions antidumping aux Etats-Unis Durant la décennie 1980,” in OCDE : Politique de la concurrence dans les pays de l’OCDE, p. 638, 1995.Google Scholar
  8. Shin, H.J., “Possible instances of predatory pricing in recent U.S. antidumping cases” in antidumping: What does the evidence show? Brookings Trade Forum, Brookings Institution Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  9. Viner, J., “Dumping: A problem in international trade” Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1923.Google Scholar
  10. Viner, J., “A memorandum on dumping.” Geneva: League of Nations, 1926.Google Scholar
  11. Willig, R., “The economic effects of antidumping policy,” in antidumping competition policy, mimeo, O.C.D.E, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. Willig, R.D., “Economic Effects of Antidumping Policy,” in Antidumping: What does the evidence show? in Robert Lawrence (ed.), Brookings trade forum, Brookings Institution Press, (1998), pp. 57–79, 1998.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Trade, Finance and Economic Development DivisionUnited Nations Economic Commission for AfricaAddis AbabaEthiopia
  2. 2.African Trade Policy CenterAddis AbabaEthiopia
  3. 3.Fordham Law SchoolNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations