Cassing, James H. and To, Theodore (1999) When and why do domestic respondents oppose AD petitions? Working Paper. Coventry: University of Warwick. Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation. (Working papers (University of Warwick. Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation)).

Preview

PDF WRAP_Cassing_wp3799.pdf - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader Download (270Kb)

Abstract

In the evolving global trade environment where traditional forms of protection have been falling as a result of multilateral trade agreements such as the Uruguay Round and NAFTA, antidumping policy has quickly become the protective policy instrument of choice. In the United States, there is evidence that domestic non-filing firms do not always support dumping investigations. In the absence of information asymmetries, domestic fims have an unambiguous incentive to support petitions filed by other domestic producers. We argue that in cases where the respondent is not a significant importer or exporter, the most plausible explanation is that non-support acts as a costly signal of private information.

Item Type:	Working or Discussion Paper (Working Paper)
Alternative Title:	When and why do domestic respondents oppose antidumping petitions?
Subjects:	H Social Sciences > HF Commerce J Political Science > JZ International relations
Divisions:	Faculty of Social Sciences > Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):	International trade, Dumping (International trade), Information asymmetry, Information measurement
Series Name:	Working papers (University of Warwick. Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation)
Publisher:	University of Warwick. Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation
Place of Publication:	Coventry
Date:	July 1999
Number:	No.37/
Number of Pages:	23
Status:	Not Peer Reviewed
Access rights to Published version:	Open Access
References:	Je�rey S. Banks and Joel Sobel, \Equilibrium Selection in Signaling Games," Econometrica, 1987, 55, 647{662. Bruce Blonigen, \Foreign Direct Investment Responses of Firms Involved in Antidumping Investigations," 1999, working paper. James Brander and Barbara Spencer, \Export Subsidies and International Market Share Competition," Journal of International Economics, 1985, 18, 83{100. In-Koo Cho and David M. Kreps, \Signaling games and stable equilibria," Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1987, 102, 179{221. Jonathan Eaton and Gene Grossman, \Optimal Trade and Industrial Policy Under Oligopoly," Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1986, 101, 383{ 406. Joseph Farrell, \Meaning and Credibility in Cheap Talk Games," Games and Economic Behavior, 1993, 5(4), 514{531. Joseph Farrell and Matthew Rabin, \Cheap Talk," Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1996, 10 (3), 103{118. Howard Gruenspecht, \Dumping and Dynamic Competition," Journal of International Economics, 1988, 25 (3/4), 225{248. Steven A. Matthews; Masahiro Okuno-Fujiwara and Andrew Postlewaite, \Re�ning Cheap-Talk Equilibria," Journal of Economic Theory, 1991, 55, 247{273. Thomas J. Prusa, \Why Are So Many Antidumping Petitions Withdrawn?" Journal of International Economics, 1992, 33, 1{20. Matthew Rabin, \Communication Between Rational Agents," Journal of Economic Theory, 1990, 51, 144{170. Robert W. Staiger and Frank A. Wolak, \The E�ect of Domestic Antidumping Law in the Presence of Foreign Monopoly," Journal of In- ternational Economics, 1992, 32, 265{287. U.S. I.T.C., \Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from France, India, Israel, Malaysia, The Republic of Korea, Thailand, The United Kingdom, and Venezuela," U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington DC, 1995. U.S. I.T.C., \The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure," U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington D.C., 1998. U.S. I.T.C., \Generic `Producers' Questionaire'," U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington DC, 1999.
URI:	http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/2088

Request changes to a record

Actions (login required)

View Item