(), Patrik Gustavsson Tingvall
() and Josefin Videnord
Ari Kokko: Copenhagen Business School, Postal: Copenhagen Business School, Porcelænshaven 24B, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark
Patrik Gustavsson Tingvall: The Ratio Institute, Postal: The Ratio Institute, P.O. Box 5095, SE-102 42 Stockholm, Sweden
Josefin Videnord: The Ratio Institute, Postal: The Ratio Institute, P.O. Box 5095, SE-102 42 Stockholm, Sweden
Abstract: This article examines the distribution of antidumping (AD) disputes across countries and industries, and examines which AD cases reach the dispute settlement system of the WTO. Our general finding is that neither the country nor the industry distribution of AD cases remains constant across the different levels of disputes, as cases proceed from notifications to requests for consultations and third party adjudication at the WTO. The US is the main user of AD measures, as well as the main target for complaints at the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body. However, emerging markets have increasingly started using AD law to protect their domestic firms. We find that the typical AD notification is submitted by an upper middle-income country, and it focuses on a medium low-technology industry with differentiated products, but low relationship-specificity. The most typical complainant at the WTO is also an upper middle-income country, challenging a high-income country (most likely the US) that is allegedly giving unfair protection to an industry producing differentiated goods that are not very relationship-specific, using medium-low technologies. The analysis also reveals that when lower middle-income countries are challenged at the WTO, disputes are often resolved before third party adjudication is needed.
52 pages, March 1, 2017
Full text files
Questions (including download problems) about the papers in this series should be directed to Martin Korpi ()
Report other problems with accessing this service to Sune Karlsson ().
This page generated on 2018-01-23 23:37:23.