全球反倾销缘何增长:对反倾销动因及其“南北”差异的研究

Why Antidumping is Proliferating:the Motivation of Global Antidumping and the"South-North"Difference

本文整合并构造了1981～2009年间全球反倾销案件数据库,对全球反倾销诉讼在宏观经济因素、策略性因素和传染性因素方面的动因进行了检验,通过对反倾销动因及其"南北"差异的研究,解释了全球反倾销缘何增长的现实问题。结果发现,宏观经济因素、策略性因素和传染性因素均较好地解释了全球反倾销诉讼增长。发达进口国和发展中进口国在宏观经济因素和传染性因素方面的动因相似,在策略性动因方面的差异较大。此外,针对发展中出口国的反倾销诉讼相比针对发达国家的反倾销诉讼仍在增长,并且存在一定的任意性和歧视性,凸显了"南南"摩擦问题。在上述实证结论的基础上,本文提出了相关政策建议。

Anti-dumping （AD） investigations are widespread. According to the WTO Report, from 1995 to2008, there were 43 countries that launched a total number of 3427 antidumping investigations against 100 coun- tries. The pattern of AD filings has changed significantly. On the one hand, developing countries become heavy AD users. Developing countries accounted for only about 20 percent of the total AD filing cases in early 1990s, but in 2008, they have initiated nearly 80 per cent of the total number of AD investigations. On the other hand, developing countries remain the main target of the global AD filings. AD filings against developing exporters accounted for 54per cent of the total AD filings during 1981 - 1994. However,the ratio increased to 73 per cent on average during 1995 -2008. Therefore, AD is not only a major trade issue between the North and the South, but also a serious prob- lem within the South. Given the above observations, some interesting questions arise： Why antidumping is prolifera- ting recently？ Do developed countries and developing countries have different AD motivations and therefore produce the observed dynamics and asymmetries？ Based on the current literature, we develop a theoretical framework to explain the motivation of antidump- ing. We expect that economic versus strategic incentives as well as contagion effect influence the behavior of coun- tries employing AD actions. Accordingly, we classified our main hypothesis into three categories. First, slower GDP growth,the currency appreciation and higher import penetration ratio in the importing countries result in more ADfilings from those countries, Second,importing countries tend to initiate more AD filings when they themselves en- countered more AD filings due to either the tit-for-tat or general retaliation incentives, and they tend to initiate more AD against those who are heavy AD users in the AD club. However, importing countries are less likely to initiate AD filings against other countries with a higher potential retaliation capability, e. g. the latter＇s market is an important export market for the former. Third, we expect that AD spreads through different types of contagions, such as trade deflection effect,echoing effect and trade diversion effect.maximum likelihood techniques to analyze AD filings. We have classified the key explanatory variables into three groups,macroeconomic variables.retaliatory variables and contagion variables. We also use time fixed effect and ira-porting country fixed effect to control for the time variant factors and time invariant importing country specific char- acteristics respectively. We first perform the basic regression using the whole sample to determine the motivation ofAD filings at the global level. We then divide the importing countries and exporting countries into developing and developed groups and run sub-sample regressions to compare AD incentives filed by and against developed and de- veloping countries. We find that basically global AD filings are motivated by macroeconomic factors, strategic consid-erations and contagion effects as expected. We also find evidence that developing and developed countries are quite similar in their economic and contagion incentives but differ in their strategic incentives. Furthermore, AD filings against developing countries are increasing and more discriminative than those against developed countries. It ira-countries. Further studies on this area, especially AD motives important and necessary for policy designs. in China and against China are encouraged, which are