Abstract
An Analysis of ITC Decisions in Antidumping, Countervailing Duty and Safeguard Cases. — This paper investigates the economic factors that best explain the decisions of the International Trade Commission in administering the injury provisions of U.S. antidumping, countervailing duty, and safeguard laws during the 1980s. Utilizing the economic data collected by the Commission for each investigation, it attempts to ascertain through regression analysis how strictly the commissioners have been interpreting these laws in recent years in terms of the economic conditions required for finding that an industry has been injured and for establishing a casual relationship between imports and this injury.
Zusammenfassung
Eine Analyse von Entscheidungen der Internationalen Trade Commission (ITC) in Fällen von Antidumping, Ausgleichszöllen und Schutzklausein. — In dem Aufsatz werden die wirtschaftlichen Faktoren untersucht, die die Entscheidungen der International Trade Commission bei der Anwendung der Schadensregeln in den US-Gesetzen über Antidumping, Ausgleichszölle und Schutzklauseln in den 80er Jahren am besten erklären. Die Autoren verwenden die ökonomischen Daten, die die Kommission für jede Untersuchung zusammengestellt hat, und versuchen mit Hilfe von Regressionsanalysen zu ermitteln, wie streng die Kommissionsmitglieder in den letzten Jahren diese Gesetze interpretiert haben, im Hinblick auf die ökonomischen Bedingungen, die Voraussetzung für die Feststellung sind, daß eine Industrie einen Schaden erlitten hat und daß ein Kausalzusammenhang zwischen Einfuhren und diesem Schaden besteht.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, Keith B.,Politics or Statutory Direction: Decision Making at the U.S. International Trade Commission. Office of Acting Chairman Anne E. Brunsdale, International Trade Commission. Washington, D.C., 1992, draft.
Baldwin, Robert E.,The Political Economy of U.S. Import Policy. Cambridge, Mass., 1985.
-,Jeffrey Steagall,An Analysis of Factors Influencing ITC Decisions in Antidumping,Countervailing Duty and Safeguard Cases. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series, No. 4282. Cambridge, Mass., 1993.
Boltuck, Richard, Robert E. Litan (Eds.),Down in the Dumps: Administration of the Unfair Trade Laws. The Brookings Institution. Washington, D.C., 1991.
Cass, Ronald A.,Economics in the Administration of U.S. International Trade Law. Ontario Centre for International Business, Working Paper No. 16. Toronto 1989.
Coughlin, Cletus C., Joseph V. Terza, Noor Aini Khalifah, “The Determinants of Escape Clause Petitions.”The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 71, 1989, pp. 341–347.
Destler, I.M.,American Trade Politics: System Under Stress. Institute for International Economics. Washington, D.C., 1986.
Finger, J. Michael, H.K. Hall, D.R. Nelson, “The Political Economy of Adminstered Protection,”The American Economic Review, Vol. 72, 1982, pp. 452–466.
Hansen, Wendy L., “International Trade Commission and the Politics of Protectionism.”The American Political Science Review, Vol. 84, 1990, pp. 21–46.
Herander, Mark G., J. Brad Schwartz, “An Empirical Test of the Impact of the Threat US Trade Policy: The Case of Antidumping Duties.”Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 51, 1984, pp. 59–79.
Hsiao, Cheng,Analysis of Panel Data. Cambridge, Mass., 1986.
International Trade Commission (ITC),Annual Report. Washington, D.C., various years.
-,Antidumping Duty Determinations. Washington, D.C., various years.
-,Countervailing Duty Determinations. Washington, D.C., various years.
-,Escape Clause Determinations. Washington, D.C., various years.
Kaplan, Seth, “Injury and Causation in USITC Antidumping Determinations: Five Recent Approaches.” In: P.K. Matthew Tharakan (Ed.),Policy Implications of Antidumping Measures. Amsterdam 1991, pp. 143–173.
Maddala, G.S.,Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge, Mass., 1986.
Moore, Michael, “Rules or Politics?: An Empirical Analysis of ITC Antidumping Decisions.”Economic Inquiry, Vol. 30, No. 3, 1992, pp. 449–466.
Prusa, Thomas, J., “The Selection of Antidumping Cases for ITC Determination.” In: Robert E. Baldwin (Ed.),Empirical Studies of Commercial Policy. Chicago 1991, pp. 47–71.
Salvatore, Dominick, “Import Penetration, Exchange Rates, and Protectionism in the United States.”Journal of Policy Modeling, Vol. 9, 1987, pp. 125–141.
Steagall, Jeffrey W.,Strategic Behavior and the U.S. Countervailing Duty Statute. University of North Florida working paper. Jacksonville, FL, 1993.
Takacs, Wendy E., “Pressures for Protectionism: An Empirical Analysis.”Economic Inquiry, Vol. 29, 1981, pp. 687–693.
U.S. Congress,Trade Agreements Act of 1979, Public Law 96-39. Washington, D.C., July 26, 1979.
-,Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1979, 100th Congress, 2nd Session. Washington, D.C., 1979.
About this article
Cite this article
Baldwin, R.E., Steagall, J.W. An analysis of ITC decisions in antidumping, countervailing duty and safeguard cases. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv 130, 290–308 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02707711
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02707711