Advertisement

Review of Industrial Organization

, Volume 42, Issue 4, pp 369–394 | Cite as

The Heterogeneous Effects of Trade Protection: A Study of US Antidumping Duties on Portland Cement

  • Maya Cohen-Meidan
Article

Abstract

For many traded products, high transportation and trade costs can lead to regionally segmented markets, which affect both the pattern of trade and the impact of trade policy. This paper studies the imposition of antidumping duties in the cement industry and finds striking regional variation in their impact on domestic prices, sales and imports. Duties that were imposed on Japanese producers that were shipping cement to the US West-Coast coastal markets led to imperfect substitution to other imports, which allowed domestic prices and production to increase. Imperfect substitution also occurred following duties that were imposed on Mexican producers that were shipping cement to the US Gulf of Mexico coastal markets. But in the US Southwest border markets, the same duties had no impact on the domestic prices of cement. I link the variation in responses across regions to hysteresis that was due to high exit costs.

Keywords

International trade Trade policy Andtidumping duties 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Robert Staiger, Jon Levin, and Frank Wolak for their continuous guidance, invaluable advice, and encouragement. I am also indebted to Roger Noll for his feedback and assistance with obtaining essential data and to Susan Athey for her encouragement, advice and support. I am grateful to John Sweetland, George Barney, Luis Garcia, Benoit Pleska, and Hendrick G. Van Oss for sharing their extensive knowledge of the Portland cement industry.

References

  1. Baldwin, R., & Krugman, P. (1989). Persistent trade effect of large exhcange rate shocks. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 104, 635–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baron, D. P., & Adams, J. (1994). Cemex and Antidumping. Technical report: Stanford University Graudate School of Business.Google Scholar
  3. Blonigen, B. A., & Haynes, S. E. (2002). Antidumping investigations and the pass-through of antidumping duties and exchange rates. The American Economic Review, 92, 1044–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blonigen, B. A., & Park, J. (2004). Dynamic pricing in the presence of antidumping policy: Theory and evidence. American Economic Review, 94, 134–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campa, J. M. (1993). Entry by foreign firms in the united states under exchange rate uncertainty. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 75, 761–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campa, J. M. (2004). Exchange rates and trade: How important is hysteresis in trade. European Economic Review, 48, 527–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Courant, P. N., & Deardorff, A. V. (1992). International trade with lumpy countries. The Journal of Political Economy, 100, 198–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dixit, A. (1989). Hysteresis, import penetration, and exchange rate pass-through. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 104, 205–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Feinberg, R. M. (1992). Hysteresis and export targeting. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 10, 679–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Finger, J. M. (1981). The industry-country incidence of ’less than fair value’ cases in us import trade. Quarterly Review of Economics and Business, 21, 260–279.Google Scholar
  11. Harrison, A. (1991). The new trade protection: Price effects of antidumping and countervailing measures in the united states. World Bank Working Paper.Google Scholar
  12. Herander, M. G., & Schwartz, J. B. (1984). An empirical test of the impact of the threat of US trade policy: The case of antidumping duties. Southern Economic Journal, 51(1), 59–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hillberry, R., & Hummels, D. (2008). Trade responses to geographic frictions: A decomposition using micro-data. European Economic Review, 52(3), 527–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Krugman, P. (1991). Increasing returns and economic geography. Journal of Political Economy, 99, 483–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Krugman, P., & Elizondo, R. L. (1996). Trade policy and the third world metropolis. Journal of Development Economics, 49, 137–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lesley, R. W. (1924). History of the Portland cement industry in the United States, with appendices covering progress of the industry by years and an outline of the organization and activities of the Portland Cement Association. Chicago, New York: International Trade Press, Inc.Google Scholar
  17. Melvin, J. R. (1985). The regional economic consequences of tariffs and domestic transportation costs. Canadian Journal of Economics, 2, 237–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Prusa, T. J. (1997). The trade effects of US antidumping actions. In R. C. Feenstra (Ed.), The effects of US trade protection and promotion policies (pp. 191–213). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Rauch, J. E. (1993). Comparative advantage, geographic advantage, and the volume of trade. Economic Journal, 101, 1230–1244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Roberts, M. J., Sullivan, T. A., & Tybout, J. R. (2001). Micro foundations of export booms. : World Bank Manuscript.Google Scholar
  21. Roberts, M. J., & Tybout, J. R. (1997). An empirical model of sunk costs and the decision to export. American Economic Review, 87, 545–564.Google Scholar
  22. Salvatore, D. (1987). Import penetration, exchange rates and protection in the US. Journal of Policy Modeling, 9, 125–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Staiger, R. W., & Wolak, F. A. (1994). Measuring industry-specific protection: Antidumping in the united states (pp. 51–118). Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics.Google Scholar
  24. Zanardi, M. (2004). Anti-dumping: What are the numbers to discuss at Doha? The World Economy, 27, 403–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Compass LexeconOaklandUSA

Personalised recommendations