Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A new look at the impact of U.S. import barriers on corporate profit expectations

  • Articles
  • Published:
Review of World Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A New Look at the Impact of U.S. Import Barriers on Corporate Profit Expectations. — The notion that industries benefit from protection is firmly grounded in trade theory. However, previous “event studies” measuring the impact of trade restrictions on stock prices reveal that shareholders expect no improvement in industry profits from protection. The implication is that barriers designed to promote industry adjustment are considered ineffective by equity holders. This investigation of U.S. “Escape Clause” cases shows that shareholders do expect protection to enhance profits, but not universally. Outcomes are linked to the type of trade measure selected, with industries protected by tariffs or global quotas faring better than those shielded by nonglobal “Orderly Marketing Agreements.”

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aw, B. Y., and M. J. Roberts (1986). Measuring Quality Change in Quota-Constrained Import Markets: The Case of U.S. Footwear.Journal of International Economics 21 (1/2): 45–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binder, J. (1985). Measuring the Effects of Regulation with Stock Price Data.Rand Journal of Economics 16(2): 167–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binder, J. (1998). The Event Study Methodology Since 1969.Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 11(2): 111–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, R. (1983). Understanding and Conducting Event Studies.Journal of Business Finance and Accounting 10 (4): 561–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, M. (1979). The Sensitivity of the Efficient Market Hypothesis to Alternative Specifications of the Market Model.Journal of Finance 34 (4): 915–929.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S., and J. Warner (1980). Measuring Security Price Performance.Journal of Financial Economics 8 (3): 205–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S., and J. Warner (1985). Using Daily Stock Returns: The Case of Event Studies.Journal of Financial Economics 14 (1): 3–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canto, V., K. Dietrich, A. Jain, and V. Mudaliar (1986). Protectionism and the Stock Market: The Determinants and Consequences of Trade Restrictions.Financial Analysts Journal (September–October): 32–42.

  • Chu, C.-S. J., Operational Manual for HAC. University of Southern California. Undated. Destler, I. M. (1992).American Trade Politics. Washington: Institute for International Economics.

  • Derrick, C. (1988). The Evolution of the Escape Clause: The United States’ Quest for Effective Relief from Fairly Traded Imports.North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation 13 (2): 347–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feenstra, R. (1984). Voluntary Export Restraint in U.S. Autos, 1980–81: Quality, Employment, and Welfare Effects. In R. Baldwin and A. Krueger (eds.),The Structure and Evolution of Recent U.S. Trade Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • GAO (U.S. General Accounting Office) (1981).Changes Needed in Administering Relief to Industries Hurt by Overseas Competition. Washington: Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, G., and J. Levinsohn (1989). Import Competition and the Stock Market Return to Capital.American Economic Review 79 (5): 1065–1087.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, W., and T. Prusa (1993). Does Administrative Protection Protect? A Reexamination of the U.S. Title VII and Escape Clause Statutes.Regulation: The Cato Review of Business & Government 16(1). Access via: http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg16n1c.html

  • Hartigan, J., P. Perry, and S. Kamma (1986). The Value of Administered Protection: A Capital Market Approach.The Review of Economics and Statistics 58 (4): 610–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartigan, J., S. Kamma, and P. Perry (1989). The Injury Determination Category and the Value of Relief from Dumping.The Review of Economics and Statistics 71 (1): 183–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, G. (1990). Problems and Solutions in Conducting Event Studies.Journal of Risk and Insurance 57 (June): 283–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillmer, S. C., and P. L. Yu (1979). The Market Speed of Adjustment to New Information.Journal of Financial Economics 7 (4): 321–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hufbauer, G. C., and K. A. Elliott (1994).Measuring the Costs of Protection in the United States. Washington: Institute for International Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hufbauer, G. C., and H. F. Rosen (1986).Trade Policy for Troubled Industries. Policy Analyses in International Economics 15. Washington: Institute for International Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hufbauer, G. C., D. Berliner, and K. Elliott (1986).Trade Protection in the United States: 31 Case Studies. Washington: Institute for International Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magee, S., and L. Young (1987). Endogenous Protection in the United States 1900–1984. In R. Stern (ed.),U.S. Trade Policies in a Changing World Economy. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moody’s Complete Corporate Index (various years). New York: Moody’s Investors Service.

  • Neary, J. P. (1978). Short-Run Capital Specificity and the Pure Theory of International Trade.Economic Journal 88 (351): 488–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newey, W., and K. D. West (1987). A Simple, Positive Semi-Definite, Heteroskedasticity and Autocorrelation Consistent Covariance Matrix.Econometrica 55 (3): 703–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • New York Times Index (various years). New York: New York Times Co.

  • Rosenthal, P., and R. Gilbert (1989). The 1988 Amendments to Section 201: It Isn’t Just for Import Relief Anymore.The International Law Journal of Georgetown University Law Center 20 (3): 403–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruback, R. (1983). The Cities Service Takeover: A Case Study.Journal of Finance 38 (2): 319–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sykes, A. O. (1991). Protectionism as a “Safeguard”: A Positive Analysis of the GATT “Escape Clause” with Normative Speculations.The University of Chicago Law Review 58 (1): 255–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, R. (2001). Some Things Exporters Should Know about U.S. Antidumping Law and Practice. Association of Food Industries, Inc. http://www.afius.org/public/content/antidumping law.htm

  • Thompson, A. (1994). Trade Liberalization, Comparative Advantage, and Scale Economies: Stock Market Evidence from Canada.Journal of International Economics 37 (1/2): 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J. (1988). More Methods That Make Little Difference in Event Studies.Journal of Business Finance and Accounting 15 (1): 77–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USITC (U.S. International Trade Commission) (1976).Stainless and Alloy Tool Steel: Report to the President on Investigation TA-201-5. USITC Publication 0756. Washington: USITC.

    Google Scholar 

  • USITC (U.S. International Trade Commission) (1977a).Television Receivers, Color and Monochrome, Assembled or Not Assembled, Finished or Not Finished, and Subassemblies Thereof. USITC Publication 0808. Washington: USITC. (Investigation TA-201-19).

    Google Scholar 

  • USITC (U.S. International Trade Commission) (1977b).Footwear: Report to the President on Investigation No. TA-201-18. USITC Publication 0799. Washington: USITC.

    Google Scholar 

  • USITC (U.S. International Trade Commission) (1978a).Bolts, Nuts & Large Screws of Iron or Steel. USITC Publication 0924. Washington: USITC. (Investigation TA-201-37).

    Google Scholar 

  • USITC (U.S. International Trade Commission) (1978b).High-Carbon Ferrochromium. USITC Publication 0911. Washington: USITC. (Investigation TA-201-35).

    Google Scholar 

  • USITC (U.S. International Trade Commission) (1978c).Citizens Band Radio Transceivers. USITC Publication 0852. Washington: USITC. (Investigation TA-201-29).

    Google Scholar 

  • USITC (U.S. International Trade Commission) (1979a).Non-Electric Cookware. USITC Publication 1087. Washington: USITC. (Investigation TA-201-39).

    Google Scholar 

  • USITC (U.S. International Trade Commission) (1979b).Clothespins. USITC Publication 0933. Washington: USITC. (Investigation TA-201-36).

    Google Scholar 

  • USITC (U.S. International Trade Commission) (1980).Certain Motor Vehicles and Certain Chassis and Bodies Thereof. USITC Publication 1110. Washington: USITC. (Investigation TA-201-44).

    Google Scholar 

  • USITC (International Trade Commission) (1983).Stainless and Alloy Tool Steel. USITC Publication 1377. Washington: USITC. (Investigation TA-201-48).

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Tariff Commission (1973).Antifriction Balls and Ball Bearings, Including Ball Bearings with Integral Shafts, and Parts Thereof USTC Publication 597. Washington: USTC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wall Street Journal Index (various years). New York: Dow Jones & Co.

Download references

Authors
  1. Erik N. Dohlman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

About this article

Cite this article

Dohlman, E.N. A new look at the impact of U.S. import barriers on corporate profit expectations. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv 137, 666–689 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02707428

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02707428

Search

Navigation