1、 2126 单词 中文 3573 字 外文翻译 East Asia s Anti-dumping Problem Material Source: Wiley Online Library Author:Thomas J.Prusa 1. INTRODUCTION The more things change, the more they stay the same. In the 1970s anti-dumping (AD) was the most common type of trade dispute, and East Asian countries were the leadin
2、g targets of these investigations. The same was true in the 1980s. The same was also true in the 1990s. The same is still true today. For all the hue and cry about safeguards, Super 301, government-subsidized exports, etc., AD was, is, and for the indefinite future will continue to be, the undispute
3、d king of protection. Several authors have documented the worlds growing AD problem (Miranda et al., 1998； Prusa, 2001； and Zanardi, 2004). Each study provides evidence of the growing use and proliferation of AD protection. Prusa (2005) perhaps offers the best evidence, pointing out that in terms of
4、 the quantity of trade litigation, AD has lapped the field several times over. Between 1995 and 2000, WTO members reported 61 safeguard investigations, 115 countervailing duty investigations, and 1,441 AD investigations! Said somewhat differently, over the past 25 years there have been more disputes
5、 under the AD agreement than under all the other GATT/WTO trade statutes put together. While there is considerable disagreement whether AD levels or tilts the playing field, there can be little doubt that East Asian countries have been, and will likely continue to be, the leading targets of AD actio
6、ns. Simply put, AD is a serious problem for East Asia； by almost any measure East Asian countries are subject to a disproportionate share of AD actions. The extent of the disparity has not been recognized in any previous studies. The goal of this paper is to eliminate this gap in the literature. For
7、 this paper, I review AD disputes over the past 25 years and find that East Asian economies Japan, Indonesia, South Korea, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, China-Taiwan and China-PRC are not only subject to an extraordinarily large number of AD actions but also account for most of the wor
8、ldwide growth in AD actions. I will show that the growth of AD has largely come at the expense of East Asian countries. Another detail that this paper uncovers is that East Asian countries have largely shunned the use of AD. This is also depicted in Figure 1 where I calculate the fraction of AD case
9、s filed by East Asian countries. As seen, East Asian countries generally account for less than five per cent of AD filings worldwide. As I will discuss, such restraint is highly unusual. It appears that East Asian countries are outliers on both perspectives they are subject to a remarkably large num
10、ber of AD actions but file remarkably few AD actions. My hope is that this paper will give readers a better understanding of the patterns of AD by and against East Asian countries over the past 25 years. Whether measured by number of cases or by cases per dollar of trade, East Asian countries look s
11、ignificantly different from other large economies. To a large extent, the trends and patterns are so sharp that simple tables do a good job delivering the message. But, to confirm that other factors are not behind the patterns I also use more formal statistical methods to confirm the findings. For i
12、nstance, after controlling for factors that might influence filings such as the exchange rate and trade volume, I find that East Asian countries are subject to about twice as many cases as either North American or Western European countries. Moreover, I find the trend in filings against East Asian c
13、ountries is increasing, by which I mean that in recent years the propensity for countries to direct their AD filings against East Asian countries is growing. One concern is that the growing intensity of AD use against East Asia is driven by China-PRC. Importantly, I find a rising propensity even if
14、I exclude China-PRC. Looking from the other side of the dispute, I also find that North American countries file more than six times as many cases as do East Asian countries, holding other factors constant. On either side of the AD process, East Asian countries are outliers. 2. A LOOK AT THE DATA a.
15、Background In order to get a handle on the worldwide use of AD, I reviewed reports submitted to the WTO by member countries. By agreement, since 1980 all WTO members have been required to make semi-annual reports on their use of trade remedies, including AD activity. Using these reports a database o
16、f all AD actions filed by WTO members between 1980 and June 2002 was compiled； overall about 4,600 AD actions have been reported to the WTO. AD actions initiated by non-WTO members are not in my database.1 The WTO reports include only basic case information, such as the filing (reporting) country, t
17、he affected country, the name of the product being investigated and the date the case was filed. For some cases I also know whether a duty was imposed, but the size of duty is almost never reported. Also, one cannot use the WTO AD reports to track the trade impact because product (tariff) codes are
18、not reported. Before looking at the patterns in AD use, a couple of comments on the database are in order. To begin with, the country- and product-specificity of AD investigations affects the accounting. AD cases are reported by product against a particular named country. For instance, occasionally
19、an investigation involving a single product will be broken into multiple products and consequently reported as multiple cases. More common, an investigation will name multiple foreign countries, and hence be recorded as multiple cases. Both characteristics increase the number of AD filings as domest
20、ic industries seek to widen the scope of protection. More complicated accounting issues involve EU countries and former USSR republics. First, under EU rules AD cases are not filed by individual countries but on behalf of the entire EU. By contrast, AD cases filed against EU countries name individua
21、l countries.3 For instance, a US AD action against steel beams from France and Germany would be reported as two separate cases. In order to keep the accounting consistent, I have merged cases involving the same product filed at the same time against individual EU countries into a single EU case and
22、have classified the affected country as the EU. This adjustment results in about 300 fewer cases. As a result, the numbers I report in this paper will differ from statistics reported elsewhere (Miranda et al., 1998； Prusa, 2001； and Zanardi, 2004). Nevertheless, I feel that combining cases against E
23、U countries allows one a more consistent balance sheet of worldwide AD activity. b. AD Filing Patterns In Table 1, I report the number of AD cases filed since 1980, including subtotals for five-year intervals. As mentioned above, I aggregate the individual country filings to a regional basis in these summary tables. TABLE 1 Number of AD Cases Filed by Each Region Reporting 19806.2 19808 19858 199094 199599 20006.
