Advertisement

Intereconomics

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 150–156 | Cite as

Steel: A new round of protectionism in American trade

  • Christian A. Conrad
Report

Abstract

Traditionally the American steel industry is the most protected industrial sector in the USA and internationally it is the largest user of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings. At the end of 1994 a ruling from the GATT Panel settled the most recent trade dispute in the steel market. A number of the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings applied for by US integrated steel producers in 1992 remain in effect. The following paper outlines the latest trade dispute in the steel trade, beginning with an overview of the various rounds of protectionism to date, and seeks to analyse the background to and causes of the dispute.

Keywords

Steel Producer Uruguay Round International Trade Commission Steel Import British Steel Corporation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Cf. Richard Boltuck and Robert E. Litan: Down in the Dumps, Washington 1991; pp. 2.Google Scholar
  2. 4.
    Integrated steelworks are production units in which pig-iron production, subsequent steel production and steel processing are all combined. Cf. Peter Oberender and Georg Rüter: Stahlindustrie, in: Marktökonomie, Munich 1989, p. 39.Google Scholar
  3. 6.
    Cf. Rainer Kulms: Das Antidumpingrecht im amerikanischen and europäischen Recht, Baden-Baden 1988, pp. 92 ff.; Frank Benyon and Jacques Bourgeois: The European Community—United States Steel Agreement, in: Common Market Law Review 21, 1984, pp. 305–354, here pp. 319 ff.; A. Austmann: Basispreise und Trigger-Preise im Antidumpingrecht, Heidelberg 1989, pp. 158 ff.; Hans Mueller and Hans van der Ven: Perils in the Brussels-Washington Steel Pact of 1982, in: The World Economy, Vol. 5, No. 3, 1982, pp. 259–278; Thomas Grunert: Der transatlantische Stahlstreit in den achtziger Jahren: Integrationsfortschritt über Aussenhandelskonflikte?, in: Integration, Vol. 8, 1/85, pp. 318 ff.; Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 2nd December 1992, No. 280, p. 38; Stahlmarkt, 5/92, p. 15; and Metal Bulletin Monthly, May 1994, p. 14.Google Scholar
  4. 7.
    Cf. Stahlmarkt 7/1991, p. 13.Google Scholar
  5. 8.
    Cf. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 12th December 1992, No. 289, p. 14.Google Scholar
  6. 9.
    Cf. Stahlmarkt, 11/91, p. 15.Google Scholar
  7. 10.
    Cf. Stahlmarkt, 11/91, pp. 19.Google Scholar
  8. 11.
    Cf. Stahlmarkt, 5/92, p. 15.Google Scholar
  9. 12.
    Cf. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 18th April 1992.Google Scholar
  10. 13.
  11. 14.
    Germany, Italy, France, UK, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Spain; cf. Stahl und Eisen, 14th September 1992.Google Scholar
  12. 15.
    Cf. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 2nd July 1992.Google Scholar
  13. 16.
    Cf. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 24th June 1993, No. 143, p. 15.Google Scholar
  14. 17.
    In November 1992 France demanded that the EC Commission take retaliatory measures, but it declined to do so because of the “small scale of the dispute”. Cf. Süddeutsche Zeitung, 30th September 1992; Ruhrnachrichten, 7th October 1992.Google Scholar
  15. 18.
    Cf. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 2nd July 1992.Google Scholar
  16. 19.
    Cf. Stahlmarkt 9/92, p. 19.Google Scholar
  17. 20.
    For example, provisional duties on imports of French steel were 11–23% and the final duties 44–79%.Google Scholar
  18. 21.
    The duty on steel imports from Italy was increased from 59% to 73%. Cf. Metal Bulletin, 24th June 1993, p. 19.Google Scholar
  19. 22.
    Cf. US International Trade Commission: Steel Semiannual Monitoring Report, September 1994, Publication 2807, Annex E 2.Google Scholar
  20. 23.
    Cf. Stahlmarkt, 8/92, p. 19.Google Scholar
  21. 24.
    Cf. Stahlmarkt, 12/92, p. 21.Google Scholar
  22. 25.
    Cf. Metal Bulletin, 22nd April 1993, p. 22.Google Scholar
  23. 26.
    Cf. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 18th February 1993, No. 41, p. 11.Google Scholar
  24. 27.
    Cf. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 7th June 1993, No. 129, p. 13.Google Scholar
  25. 28.
    Cf. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 24th June 1993, No. 143, p. 15.Google Scholar
  26. 29.
    “Electrosteel producer” and “minimills” refer to the same class of firms.Google Scholar
  27. 30.
    Cf. Metal Bulletin, 19th July 1993, p. 19.Google Scholar
  28. 31.
    Cf. footnote 10. Ct. Stahlmarkt, 11/91, pp. 19.Google Scholar
  29. 33.
    Cf. Metal Bulletin, 28th March 1994, p. 19.Google Scholar
  30. 34.
    Cf. Stahlmarkt, 6/92, p. 10.Google Scholar
  31. 35.
    Cf. United States—General Accounting Office: The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade—Uruguay Round Final Act Should Produce Overall US Economic Gains, Vol. 2, Washington D.C. 1994, p. 173.Google Scholar
  32. 36.
    Cf. Metal Bulletin, 4th October 1993, p. 19.Google Scholar
  33. 37.
    Cf. Metal Bulletin, 30th June 1994, p. 17.Google Scholar
  34. 38.
    Cf. Metal Bulletin Monthly, May 1994, pp. 13–14; Metal Bulletin, 30th June 1994, p. 17.Google Scholar
  35. 39.
    Cf. EUROPE, 21st September 1992, and 28th May 1993, No. 5989, p. 9.Google Scholar
  36. 40.
    Prior to amendment by the Uruguay Round.Google Scholar
  37. 41.
    Agreement on Interpretation and Application of Articles VI, XVI and XXIII of the GATT; and Art. 12, Para. 2; Frank Benyon and Jacques Bourgeois, op. cit., pp. 319 ff.Google Scholar
  38. 42.
    Cf. Inside U.S. Trade, 21st October 1994, pp. 8–9.Google Scholar
  39. 43.
    Cf. Metal Bulletin, 28th March 1994, p. 19.Google Scholar
  40. 46.
    Cf. Stahlmarkt, 11/91, p. 16.Google Scholar
  41. 47.
    Cf. Stahlmarkt, 6/92, p. 12.Google Scholar
  42. 48.
    Cf. Stahlmark, 7/92, p. 15.Google Scholar
  43. 49.
    Cf. Stahlmarkt, 6/92, p. 12.Google Scholar
  44. 50.
    Cf. Metal Bulletin, 1st February 1993, p. 3.Google Scholar
  45. 51.
    Cf. Rainer Kulms, op. cit., pas Antidumpingrecht im amerikanischen and europäischen Recht, Baden-Baden 1988, p. 135.Google Scholar
  46. 52.
    Group representing the interests of European integrated steel producers.Google Scholar
  47. 53.
    Cf. Metal Bulletin, 1st February 1993, p. 13.Google Scholar
  48. 55.
    Cf. Metal Bulletin, 1st February 1993, p. 13.Google Scholar
  49. 56.
    Cf. The Economist, 16th May 1992; and Metal Bulletin, 1st February 1993, p. 3.Google Scholar
  50. 58.
    Cf. Rainer Kulms, op. cit., Das Antidumpingrecht im amerikanischen and europäischen Recht, Baden-Baden 1988, pp. 78 and 204–205.Google Scholar
  51. 59.
    Ibid., Das Antidumpingrecht im amerikanischen and europäischen Recht, Baden-Baden 1988, p. 207.Google Scholar
  52. 60.
    Cf. Michael K. Levine: Inside International Trade Policy Formulation, New York 1985, pp. 13 ff.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© HWWA and Springer-Verlag 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian A. Conrad
    • 1
  1. 1.University of TübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations