Abstract
This paper examines the impact of the antidumping measures initiated by the Government of Egypt on imports during the period 2001–2015. Our contribution is twofold. First, the paper distinguishes between the effect of antidumping measures on the value, the volume and the price of imports. Second, it differentiates between the investigation, destruction and diversion effects of antidumping measures. Our main findings show that, once the investigation is approved, while prices increase and quantities decrease, the latter effect is stronger than the former. Moreover, when the investigation is initiated, there is an investigation effect since imports are likely to decrease during the investigation review period and before the final decision of the World Trade Organization is announced. As per the destruction effect, we find that imports coming from countries included in the investigation decrease once the complaint is approved. Consequently, imports will shift from countries targeted by the measure to those non-targeted.
Article PDF
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Aggarwal A., 2010. Trade effects of anti-dumping in India: who benefits? Int. Trade J. 25, 112–158.
Anderson J.E., 1992. Domino dumping: I. Competitive exporters, Am. Econ. Rev. 82, 65–83. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2117603.
Arellano M., Bond S., 1991. Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations, Rev. Econ. Studies 58, 277–297.
Blonigen B.A., Ohno Y., 1998. Chapter 6: Endogenous protection, foreign direct investment and protection-building trade, J. Int. Econ. 46, 205–227.
Bown C.P., Tovar P., 2011. Trade liberalization, antidumping, and safeguards: evidence from India’s tariff reform, J. Dev. Econ. 96, 115–125.
Brenton P., 2001. Anti-dumping policies in the EU and trade diversion, Eur. J. Political Econ. 17, 593–607.
Cuyvers L., Dumont M., 2005. EU anti-dumping measures against ASEAN countries: impact on trade flows, Asian Econ. J. 19, 249–271.
Cuyvers L., Zhou W., 2009. The impact of EU anti-dumping measures on third country, in: Sardana G., Thatchenkery T. (Eds.), Enhancing Organisational Performance through Strategic Initiatives – Handbook of Management Cases, Macmillan Publishers, India.
Falvey R., Greenaway D., Wittayarungruangsri S., 2006. Trade effects of EU anti-dumping measures, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Fischer R., 1992. Endogenous probability of protection and firm behaviour, J. Int. Econ. 32, 149–163.
Ganguli B., 2008. The trade effects of Indian anti-dumping actions, Rev. Int. Econ. 16, 930–941.
Heckman J.J., 1976. The common structure of statistical models of truncation, sample selection and limited dependent variables and a simple estimator for such models, in: Berg S.V. (Ed.), Annals of economic and social measurement, NBER, 5, pp. 475–492.
Konings J., Vandenbussche H., Springael L., 2001. Import diversion under European anti-dumping policy, J. Ind. Compet. Trade 1, 283–299.
Krupp C.M., Pollard P.S., 1996. Market responses anti-dumping laws: some evidence from the US chemical industry, Can. J. Econ. 29, 199–227.
Lee M., Park D., Cui A., 2013. Invisible trade barriers: trade effects of US anti-dumping actions against the People’s Republic of China, ADB Economics Working Paper No. 378.
Lee M., Park D., Saravia A., 2017. Trade effects of US anti-dumping actions against China, Asian Econ. J. 31, 3–16.
Niels G., 2003. Trade diversion and destruction effects of anti-dumping policy: empirical evidence from Mexico, OXERA and Erasmus University, Rotterdam.
Park S., 2009. The trade depressing and trade diversion effects of antidumping actions: The case of China, China Econ. Rev. 20, 542–548.
Pauwels W., Vandenbussche H., Weverbergh M., 2001. Strategic behaviour under European anti-dumping duties, Int. J. Econ. Bus. 8, 75–99.
Prusa T.J., 1997. The trade effects of U.S. anti-dumping actions, in: Feenstra R. (Ed.), Trade Protection and Promotion Policies, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 191–214.
Prusa T.J., 2001. On the spread and impact of anti-dumping, Can. J. Econ. 34, 591–611. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3131886.
Reitzes J.D., 1993. Anti-dumping policy, Int. Econ. Rev. 34, 745–763.
Staiger R.W., Wolak F.A., Litan R.E., Katz M.L., Waverman L., 1994. Measuring industry-specific protection: anti-dumping in the United States, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Microeconomics, pp. 51–118.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Peer review under responsibility of the African Export-Import Bank
Data availability statement: The data that support the findings of this study are openly available at https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/dataset/temporary-trade-barriers-database-including-global-antidumping-database/resource/dc7b361e
Rights and permissions
This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).
About this article
Cite this article
Hazem, N., Zaki, C. Mind the Measure: On the Effects of Antidumping Investigations in Egypt. J Afr Trade 7, 1–14 (2020). https://doi.org/10.2991/jat.k.201217.001
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2991/jat.k.201217.001