Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T09:12:50.568Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inference for econometric modeling in antidumping, countervailing duty and safeguard investigations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 September 2009

JAMES J. FETZER
JAMES J. FETZER*
Affiliation:
US International Trade Commission, Applied Economics Division, Washington, DC
*
*Email: james.fetzer@usitc.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines how to make inferences from econometric models prepared for antidumping, countervailing duty, and safeguard investigations. Analysis of these models has typically entailed drawing inferences from point estimates that are significantly different from zero at a fixed level of confidence. This paper suggests a more flexible approach of drawing inferences using confidence intervals at various significance levels and reporting p-values for the relevant test of injury. Use of confidence intervals and p-values to identify insights and data patterns would have more impact on USITC trade remedy determinations than definitive conclusions about injury based on whether estimates are statistically significant.

Type
Review Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , October 2009 , pp. 545 - 557
Copyright
Copyright © James J. Fetzer 2009

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.)

References

ABA Section of Antitrust Law (2005), Econometrics: Legal, Practical, and Technical Issues, ABA Publishing.Google Scholar
Carter, Colin (2005), ‘Economic Impact of FCOJ Prices of Imports of Certain Orange Juice from Brazil’, exhibit 2 to ‘Prehearing Brief of Sucocitrico Cutrale Ltda. and Louis Dreyfus Citrus Inc. – Certain Orange Juice from Brazil’, Investigation No. 731-TA-1089 (Final), non-confidential version, 30 December 2005 (note: exhibit 2 is dated 28 December 2005).Google Scholar
Charles River Associates (2000), ‘Econometric Analysis of the Effect of the Price of Subject Imports on the Price of Domestically Produced EPS’, exhibit 11 to ‘Certain Expandable Polystyrene Resins from Indonesia and South Korea/Pre-Hearing Brief on Behalf of BASF Corporation, Huntsman Expandable Polymers Company LC, Nova Chemicals Inc., and Styrochem US Ltd.’, public version, 1 November 2000.Google Scholar
Grossman, Gene M. (1986), ‘Imports as a Cause of Injury: The Case of the US Steel Industry’, Journal of International Economics, 20: 201–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausman, Jerry A. (2001), ‘Statement of Jerry Hausman’, exhibit 4 of ‘Pre-hearing brief on behalf of Bethlehem Steel, LTV Steel Company, Inc., National Steel Company, and US Steel LLC’, public version’, 12 September 2001.Google Scholar
Hausman, Jerry A. (2002), ‘Technical Report: Cold-rolled Steel Products’, an attachment to ‘Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, New Zealand, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, and Venezuela: Joint Prehearing Brief of Nucor Corp., Steel Dynamics, Inc. WCI Steel, Inc. and Weirton Steel Corp.’, public version, 12 July 2002.Google Scholar
Irwin, Douglas A. (2003), ‘Causing problems? The WTO review of causation and injury attribution in US Section 201 cases’, World Trade Review, 2(3): 297–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelejian, Harry H. and Oates, Wallace E., (1981), Introduction to Econometrics: Principles and Applications, 2nd edn, Harper & Row.Google Scholar
McCloskey, Deidre N. and Ziliak, Stephen T. (1996), ‘The Standard Error of Regressions’, Journal of Economic Literature, 34 (March): 97–114.Google Scholar
Pindyck, Robert S. and Rotemberg, Julio (1987), ‘Are Imports to Blame? Attribution of Injury under the 1974 Trade Act’, Journal of Law and Economics, 30 (April): 101–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prusa, Thomas J. (2001a), ‘Quantifying the Factors Determining the Price of US Corrosion-Resistant Steel’, ‘Pre-hearing Brief on Behalf of Joint Respondent Producers in Argentina, Brazil, European Union, India, Japan, Korea, Russia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Venezuela: Carbon and Alloy Flat Products, Product 6 – Corrosion-Resistant and Other Coated Sheet and Strip in the matter of Steel’, USITC Inv. No. TA-201-703, public version, 12 September 2001.Google Scholar
Prusa, Thomas J. (2001b), ‘Quantifying the Factors Determining the Price of US Hot-rolled Steel Sheet’, in ‘Pre-hearing Brief on Behalf of Joint Respondents: Hot-Rolled Steel (Product Category A.3.), in the matter of Steel’, USITC Inv. No. TA-201-703, public version, 12 September 2001.Google Scholar
Prusa, Thomas J. (2001c), ‘Quantifying the Factors Determining the Price of US Cold-rolled Steel Sheet’, Exhibit 4 in ‘Pre-hearing Brief on Behalf of Joint Respondents: Product Group 4, Cold-Rolled Steel in the matter of Steel’, USITC Inv. No. TA-201-703, public version, 12 September 2001.Google Scholar
Prusa, Thomas J. (2002), ‘An Econometric Analysis of the Factors Determining US Producers’ Price of Cold-Rolled Steel’, an attachment to ‘Joint Prehearing Brief of Respondents: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, New Zealand, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, and Venezuela’, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-422-425 and 731-TA-964-983 (Final), public version, 12 July 2002.Google Scholar
Prusa, Thomas J. and Sharp, David C. (2001), ‘Simultaneous Equations in Antidumping Investigations’, Journal of Forensic Economics, 14(1): 63–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rousslang, Donald J. (1988), ‘Import Injury in US Trade Law: An Economic View’, International Review of Law and Economics, 8: 117–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharp, David and Kenneth, Zantow (2005), ‘Attribution of Injury in the Shrimp Antidumping Case: A Simultaneous Equations Approach,’ Economics Bulletin, 6(5): 1–10.Google Scholar
Tilley, Daniel S. (2005), ‘Factors Influencing FCOJ Futures Prices,’ exhibit 2 to ‘Submission of Post-Conference Brief and Answers to Commission Staffs Questions: Certain Orange Juice from Brazil, Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1089 (Preliminary), (on behalf of Louis Dreyfus Citrus SA, Louis Dreyfus Citrus, Inc., and Sucocitrico Cutrale Ltda.)’, non-confidential version, 28 January 2005 (note: exhibit 2 is dated 17 January 2005).Google Scholar
US International Trade Commission (2005), Circular Welded Non-alloy Steel Pipe From China, USITC Publication 3807 (October).Google Scholar
US International Trade Commission (2007), Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Handbook, USITC Publication 3916 (April).Google Scholar
Ziliak, Stephen T. and McCloskey, Deidre N. (2004), ‘Size Matters: The Standard Error of Regressions in the American Economic Review’, Journal of Socio-Economics, 33(5): 527–546.Google Scholar