Why don’t foreign firms cooperate in US antidumping investigations?: An empirical analysis created by Michael O. Moore and Alan K. Fox
Material type: TextSeries: Review of World Economics ; Volume 145, number 1London: Sage, 2010Content type:- text
- unmediated
- volume
- 16102878
- HF1351 REV
Item type | Current library | Call number | Vol info | Copy number | Status | Notes | Date due | Barcode | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Journal Article | Main Library Journal Article | HF1351 REV (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | Vol. 145, no. 2 (pages 597-614) | SP3242 | Not for loan | For in house use |
Foreign firms face punitive duties if they do not cooperate with the US Department of Commerce (DOC) in antidumping procedures. For example, 37% of all foreign firms involved in antidumping investigations in the US faced “facts available” margins for the 1995–2002 period, with average antidumping duties of 31% for cooperating foreign firms, compared to 87% for those who did not cooperate. The existing literature has focused on how DOC discretion has led to foreign firm non-cooperation. This paper instead examines individual foreign firm’s decisions about whether to cooperate during this same period. We find evidence that non-cooperation is consistent with a model of foreign firms rationally choosing not to cooperate, rather than solely as a result of investigating authority bias against imports.
There are no comments on this title.