Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T14:24:51.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Anti-Dumping Policy after the Uruguay Round—an Appraisal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2020

Nigel Grimwade
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In December, 1993, the round of multilateral trade negotiations known as the Uruguay Round was at last successfully concluded, seven years after it was launched at Punta del Este in Uruguay and three years later than it was scheduled to finish. This was the eighth and, almost certainly, the last round of GATT which is likely to take place on a similar basis. Up until the last minutes, it was uncertain whether any agreement would emerge. The final agreement was formally signed by the contracting parties at a gathering of Heads of State at Marrakech, Morocco and amidst great fanfare in April 1994. On January lst, 1995, the provisions of the Agreement took effect, including the establishment of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) as the successor to the GATT.

Type
Articles
Information
National Institute Economic Review , Volume 155 , February 1996 , pp. 98 - 105
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 National Institute of Economic and Social Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

∗

The author is a Principal Lecturer in Economics at South Bank University.

References

Baldwin, R.E. and Steagall, J.W. (1994), ‘An analysis of US international trade commission decisions in antidumping, countervailing duty and safeguard cases’, Centre for Economic Policy Research, Discussion Paper no. 990.Google Scholar
Barrell, R. and Pain, N. (1996), ‘Trade restraints and Japanese direct investment flows’, European Economic Review, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Bhagwati, J. (1988), Protectionism, Cambridge, Massachussettes and London, England: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bourgeois, J. and Messerlin, P. (1993), ‘Competition and antidumping regulations’, mimeo, Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris. Davenport, M. (1989), ‘The charybdis of anti-dumping: a new form of EC industrial policy?’, Royal Institute of International Affairs Discussion Paper 22, Chatham House, London.Google Scholar
Devault, J. (1990), ‘The administration of US anti-dumping duties: some empirical observations’, The World Economy, vol. 13, no. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finger, J. and Olechowski, A. (eds) (1987), The Uruguay Round, A Handbook for the Multilateral Trade Negotiations, World Bank, Washington DC.Google Scholar
General Agreement On Tariffs And Trade (GATT) (1979), Agreement on the Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (The Anti-Dumping Code).Google Scholar
General Agreement On Tariffs And Trade (GATT) (1994), Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round Multilateral Trade Negotiations.Google Scholar
Heitger, B. and Stehn, J. (1990), ‘Japanese direct investments in the EC—response to the internal market 1993?’, Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. XXIX, no. 1.Google Scholar
Hindley, B. (1988), ‘Dumping and the Far East trade of the EC’, The World Economy, vol. 11, no. 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hindley, B. (1994), ‘Two cheers for the Uruguay Round’, Trade Policy Review 1994, Centre for Policy Studies.Google Scholar
Hoekamn, B. and Mavroidis, P. (1994), ‘Antitrust-based remedies and dumping in international trade’, Centre For Economic Policy Research, Discussion Paper no. 1010.Google Scholar
Messerlin, P. (1989), ‘The EC antidumping regulations: a first economic appraisal, 1980-5’, Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, vol. 125.Google Scholar
Messerlin, P. (1990), ‘Anti-dumping regulations or pro-cartel law? The EC chemical cases’, The World Economy, vol. 13.Google Scholar
Messerlin, P. and Reed, G. (1995), ‘Antidumping policies in the United States and the European Community’, The Economic Journal, vol. 105, no. 433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morkre, M.E. and Kelly, K.H. (1994), Effects Of Unfair Imports On Domestic Industries: US Antidumping And Countervailing Duty Cases, 1980 To 1988, Washington DC: Bureau Of Economics, Federal Commission.Google Scholar
National Consumer Council (NCC)/Grimwade (1990), ‘Consumer electronics and the EC's anti-dumping policy’, Working Paper 1, International Trade And The Consumer, NCC, London.Google Scholar
Schott, J. (1994), The Uruguay Round: An Assessment, Institute For International Economics, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Stegemann, K. (1989), ‘EC anti-dumping policy; are price undertakings a legal substitute for illegal price-fixing?’, paper presented to the International Workshop On Policy Implications Of Anti-Dumping Measures, European Institute For Advanced Studies In Management, Brussels, 19-20 October, 1989.Google Scholar
Tharakan, P.K.M. (1995), ‘Political economy and contingent protection’, The Economic Journal, vol. 105, no. 433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Usitc (1995), The Economic Effects Of Antidumping And Countervailing Duty Orders And Suspension Agreements, Washington DC: United States International Trade Commission.Google Scholar