Advertisement

Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting

, Volume 52, Issue 3, pp 871–900 | Cite as

Do antidumping measures affect Chinese export-related firms?

  • Xiuping Hua
  • Ying Jiang
  • Qian SunEmail author
  • Xinyi Xing
Original Research
  • 215 Downloads

Abstract

We examine how the US and EU antidumping (AD) cases against Chinese firms affected their stock prices and long-term financial performance during 1995–2012, and whether the affected Chinese firms received more or less government subsidies in the subsequent years. Our findings indicate that AD news, especially the final decision on imposing antidumping measures, has significantly negative effects on the stock price of relevant Chinese export-related firms. There is also some limited evidence that the AD affected firms perform worse than their matched peers in terms of profitability. However, little empirical evidence reveals an increase in government subsidies given to AD affected firms after the imposition of AD duties, but we find a decrease in subsidies for non-SOEs.

Keywords

Antidumping Financial performance Government subsidies Stock returns SOEs 

JEL Classification

F130 G30 G380 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71572046), and Humanity and Social Science Foundation, Ministry of Education of China (Grant No. 17YJA790037).

References

  1. Afonso O, Silva A (2012) Non-scale endogenous growth effects of subsidies for exporters. Econ Model 29:1248–1257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bown CP, Crowley MA (2010) China’s export growth and the China safeguard: threats to the world trading system? Can J Econ 43:1353–1388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brander JA (1991) Election polls, free trade, and the stock market: evidence from the 1988 Canadian general election. Can J Econ 24:827–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Branstetter L, Sakakibara M (1998) Japanese research consortia: a microeconometric analysis of industrial policy. J Ind Econ 46:207–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown SJ, Warner JB (1985) Using daily stock returns. The case of event studies. J Financ Econ 14:3–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cai X, Liu GS, Mase B (2008) The long-run performance of initial public offerings and its determinants: the case of China. Rev Quant Financ Acc 30:419–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Capital Trade Incorporated (2008) An assessment of China’s subsidies to strategic and heavyweight industries. Report submitted to US-China Economic and Security Review CommitteeGoogle Scholar
  8. Chandra P (2016) Impact of temporary trade barriers: evidence from China. China Econ Rev 38:24–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Melo J, Tarr D (1992) A general equilibrium analysis of U.S. foreign trade policy. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Desai MA, Hines JR (2008) Market reactions to export subsidies. J Int Econ 74:459–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eckaus RS (2006) China’s exports, subsidies to state owned enterprises and the WTO. China Econ Rev 17:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Girma S, Gong YD, Görg H, Yu Z (2009) Can production subsidies explain China’s export performance? Evidence from firm-level data. Scand J Econ 111:863–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Griliches Z, Regev H (1998) An econometric evaluation of high-tech policy in Israel. In: ATP-conference in Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  14. Gurun A (2013) Business strategy and financial consequences: the case of antidumping filings. J Int Financ Mark Inst Money 24:127–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hartigan JC, Perry PR, Kamma S (1986) The value of administered protection: a capital market approach. Rev Econ Stat 68:610–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hartigan JC, Kamma S, Perry PR (1989) The injury determination category and the value of relief from dumping. Rev Econ Stat 71:183–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hughes JS, Lenway S, Rayburn J (1997) Stock price effects of U.S. trade policy responses to Japanese trading practices in semi-conductors. Can J Econ 30:922–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hung SW, Yang C, Lee CF (2004) The vertical disintegration of Taiwan’s semiconductor industries: price and non-price factors. Rev Pac Basin Financ Mark Policies 7:547–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ishikawa J, Spencer BJ (1999) Rent-shifting export subsidies with an imported intermediate product. J Int Econ 48:199–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Konings J, Vandenbussche H (2008) Heterogeneous responses of firms to trade protection. J Int Econ 76:371–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lee E, Walker M, Zeng C (2014) Do Chinese government subsidies affect firm value? Account Organ Soc 39:149–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Li C, Whalley J (2015) Chinese firm and industry reactions to antidumping initiations and measures. Appl Econ 47:2683–2698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Li W, Yan Z, Sun W (2014) The effect of antidumping and countervailing investigations on the market value of firms. Int Rev Financ Anal 36:97–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lu Y, Tao Z, Zhang Y (2013) How do exporters respond to antidumping investigations? J Int Econ 91:290–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mahdavi M, Bhagwati A (1994) Stock market data and trade policy: dumping and the semiconductor industry. Int Trade J 8:207–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marsh SJ (1998) Creating barriers for foreign competitors: a study of the impact of anti-dumping actions on the performance of U.S. firms. Strateg Manag J 19:25–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Melvin M, Sun Q (1997) U.S. protectionist policy and stock prices of U.S. import-competing and Korean and Taiwanese export-oriented firms. Pac Basin Financ J 5:25–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moeller SB, Schlingemann FP, Stulz RM (2004) Firm size and the gains from acquisitions. J Financ Econ 73:201–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Parsons C (2005) The effect of the semiconductor trade agreement on Japanese firms. Singap Econ Rev 50:117–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pierce JR (2011) Plant-level responses to antidumping duties: evidence from U.S. manufacturers. J Int Econ 85:222–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rehbein K, Starks LT (1995) Changes in U.S. trade policies: the wealth effects on Japanese steel firms. Jpn World Econ 7:309–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Scholes M, Williams J (1977) Estimating betas from nonsynchronous data. J Financ Econ 5:309–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schwartz G, Clements B (1999) Government subsidies. J Econ Surv 13:119–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Spencer BJ, Brander JA (1983) International R&D rivalry and industrial strategy. Rev Econ Stud 50:707–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Spencer BJ, Brander JA (1985) Export subsidies and international market share rivalry. J Int Econ 18(1–2):83–100Google Scholar
  36. Vandenbussche H, Viegelahn C (2011) No protectionist surprises: EU antidumping policy before and during the great recession, University Catholique of Louvain, Institute for Economic and Social Research Discussion Paper 2011021Google Scholar
  37. Wang L (2015) Protection or expropriation: politically connected independent directors in China. J Bank Finance 55:92–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nottingham University Business School ChinaUniversity of Nottingham Ningbo ChinaNingboChina
  2. 2.School of ManagementFudan UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations