Review of Industrial Organization

, Volume 42, Issue 4, pp 435–447 | Cite as

Antidumping Duties and Plant-Level Restructuring

Article

Abstract

This paper examines the effect of antidumping duties on the restructuring activities of protected plants. Using a dataset that contains the full population of U.S. manufacturers, I find that protected plants increase their capital intensities modestly relative to unprotected plants, but only when antidumping duties have been in place for a sufficient duration. I find little effect of antidumping duties on a proxy for the skilled labor intensity of protected plants.

Keywords

Antidumping Temporary protection Restructuring 

JEL Classifications

F10 F13 L20 L25 

References

  1. Becker, R., & Gray, W. (2009). NBER-CES manufacturing industry database. Available online at http://www.nber.org/data/nbprod2005.html.
  2. Berman, E., Bound, J., & Griliches, Z. (1994). Changes in the demand for skilled labor within U.S. manufacturing: Evidence from the annual survey of manufactures. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109(2), 367–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernard, A., & Jensen, J. B. (1997). Exporters, skill upgrading and the wage gap. Journal of International Economics, 42(1–2), 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernard, A., Jensen, J. B., & Schott, P. (2006). Survival of the best fit: Exposure to low-wage countries and the (uneven) growth of U.S. manufacturing. Journal of International Economics, 68(1), 219–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blonigen, B., & Park, J. (2004). Dynamic pricing in the presence of antidumping policy: Theory and evidence. American Economic Review, 94(1), 134–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bown, C. (2012). Global antidumping database. The World Bank. Available online at http://econ.worldbank.org/ttbd/gad/.
  7. Crowley, M. (2006). Do antidumping duties and safeguard tariffs open or close technology gaps? Journal of International Economics, 68(2), 469–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dixit, A., & Pindyck, R. (1994). Investment under uncertainty. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Konings, J., & Vandenbussche, H. (2008). Heterogeneous responses to trade protection. Journal of International Economics, 76(2), 371–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Matsuyama, K. (1990). Perfect equilibria in a trade liberalization game. American Economic Review, 80(3), 480–492.Google Scholar
  11. Miyagiwa, K., & Ohno, Y. (1995). Closing the technology gap under protection. American Economic Review, 85(4), 755–770.Google Scholar
  12. Pierce, J. (2011). Plant-level responses to antidumping duties: Evidence from U.S. manufacturers. Journal of International Economics, 85(2), 222–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pierce, J., & Schott, P. (2012). A concordance between U.S. Harmonized system codes and SIC/NAICS product classes and industries. Journal of Economic and Social Measurement, 37(1–2), 53–68.Google Scholar
  14. U.S. International Trade Commission. (2006). Import injury investigations: Case statistics: FY 1980–2005.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York (outside the USA)  2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve SystemWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations