Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Browse subjects
  3. Economics
  4. Macroeconomics
  5. Content listing

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

11577 results in Macroeconomics

Page 389 of 579

  • Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples (WT/DS245): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2003
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    03 November 2005, pp 4481-4810

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    In a communication dated 1 March 2002, the United States requested consultations with Japan pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”), Article XXIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT 1994”), Article 11 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (“SPS Agreement”) and Article 19 of the Agreement on Agriculture, with respect to restrictions imposed by Japan on imports of apples from the United States.

    The United States stated that since 1994, Japan had applied quarantine restrictions on US apples imported into Japan to protect against the introduction of fire blight (Erwinia amylovora). These restrictions included, inter alia, the prohibition of imported apples from orchards in which any fire blight is detected, the requirement that export orchards be inspected three times yearly for the presence of fire blight, the disqualification of any orchard from exporting to Japan should fire blight be detected within a 500-metre buffer zone surrounding such orchard, and a post-harvest treatment of exported apples with chlorine. The United States alleged that Japan's measures were inconsistent with Article XI of GATT 1994; Articles 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.6, 6.1, 6.2 and 7 and Annex B of the SPS Agreement; and Article 14 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Consultations were held on 18 April 2002, but failed to settle the dispute.

    In a communication dated 7 May 2002, the United States requested the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) to establish a panel pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU, with standard terms of reference as set out in Article 7.1 of the DSU. The US claims of inconsistency in their Request for the Establishment of a Panel were identical to those set out in their request for consultations, except for additional claims of inconsistency under Article 5.5 of the SPS Agreement and Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, and omission of the previous claim under Article 14 of the Agreement on Agriculture.

  • European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Malleable Cast Iron Tube or Pipe Fittings from Brazil (WT/DS219): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2003
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    03 November 2005, pp 2701-3116

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 21 December 2000, Brazil requested consultations with the European Communities pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”), Article XXIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”) and Article 17 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “Anti-Dumping Agreement”) concerning the EC anti-dumping measures imposed in respect of imports of malleable cast iron tube or pipe fittings from Brazil. The European Communities and Brazil held consultations on 7 February 2001, but failed to settle the dispute.

    On 7 June 2001, Brazil requested the establishment of a panel pursuant to Article XXIII of the GATT 1994, Article 17 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 6 of the DSU.

    At its meeting on 24 July 2001, the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) established a Panel in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU to examine the matter referred to the DSB by Brazil in document WT/DS219/2. At that meeting, the parties to the dispute also agreed that the Panel should have standard terms of reference. The terms of reference are, therefore, the following:

    “To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by Brazil in document WT/DS219/2, the matter referred to the DSB by Brazil in that document and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements”.

    On 5 September 2001, the parties agreed to the following composition of the Panel:

    Chairman: Mr. Maamoun Abdel-Fattah

    Members: Ms. Deborah Milstein

    Mr. G. Bruce Cullen

    Chile, Japan, Mexico and the United States reserved their rights to participate in the Panel proceedings as third parties.

    The Panel met with the parties on 4-5 December 2001 and 11-12 June 2002. It met with the third parties on 5 December 2001.

  • United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products (WT/DS248, WT/DS249, WT/DS251, WT/DS252, WT/DS253, WT/DS254, WT/DS258 WT/DS259): Report of the Appellate Body

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2003
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    03 November 2005, pp 3117-3260

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    The United States appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Reports, United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products (the “Panel Reports”).

    The Panel was established by the DSB on 3 June 2002, pursuant to a request by the European Communities, to examine the consistency of ten safeguard measures applied by the United States on 20 March 2002 on imports of certain steel products. On 14 June 2002, pursuant to Article 9.1 of the DSU, the DSB referred to the Panel complaints on the same matter brought by Japan and Korea. On 24 June 2002, the DSB, pursuant to Article 9.1 of the DSU, also referred to this single Panel complaints on the same matter submitted by China, Norway, and Switzerland. On 8 July 2002, the DSB, pursuant to Article 9.1 of the DSU, also referred to this single Panel a complaint on the same matter submitted by New Zealand. On 29 July 2002, the DSB, pursuant to Article 9.1 of the DSU, also referred to this single Panel a complaint on the same matter submitted by Brazil.

    In their requests for the establishment of a panel, the Complaining Parties claimed that the ten safeguard measures applied by the United States on imports of certain steel products were inconsistent with the obligations of the United States contained in Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards, Articles I, II, X, XIII, and XIX of the GATT 1994, as well as Article XVI of the WTO Agreement.

    The Panel issued eight Panel Reports—in the form of one document—that were circulated to the Members of the WTO on 11 July 2003. The Panel concluded, in all of the Panel Reports, that all ten safeguard measures imposed by the United States were inconsistent with the Agreement on Safeguards and the GATT 1994.

    In particular, the Panel found that:

    (a) the application of safeguard measures by the United States on imports of CCFRS, hot-rolled bar, and stainless steel rod was inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, because “the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its determination with respect to ‘increased imports'”;

  • United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products (WT/DS248, WT/DS249, WT/DS251, WT/DS252,WT/DS253, WT/DS254, WT/DS258, WT/DS259/R): Reports of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2003
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    03 November 2005, pp 3273-4378

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Factual Background

    Initiation of Safeguards Investigation by the USITC

    On 22 June 2001, the USTR requested the initiation of a safeguard investigation under Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 to determine whether certain steel products were being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industry producing products like or directly competitive with the imported products.

    Four broad groups of products were covered by this request:

  • (a) certain carbon and alloy flat products;

  • (b) certain carbon and alloy long products;

  • (c) certain carbon and alloy pipe and tubes;

  • (d) stainless steel and alloy tool steel products.

    • A number of products were excluded from the request. These included wire rod and line pipe (covered by existing Section 201 relief or specifically excluded in the Section 201 relief), certain OCTGs, certain stainless steel products, certain semifinished steel products, certain carbon and alloy flat-rolled products and certain tin mill flat-rolled products.

    The USITC initiated its investigation on 28 June 2001. Public notice of this investigation was published on 3 July 2001. It provided for hearings on injury commencing on 17 September 2001 and hearings on remedy commencing on 5 November 2001 and allowed for submissions of pre- and post-hearing briefs by interested parties.

    The United States notified the initiation of the safeguard investigation to the Committee on Safeguards on 4 July 2001 and this notification was circulated to WTO Members on 9 July 2001.

    USITC Injury Determination

    Pre-hearing briefs on injury were filed by 10 September 2001 and hearings took place from 17 September 2001 to 5 October 2001. Post-hearing briefs were allowed from 27 September 2001 to 9 October 2001 for the various steel products under investigation.

    To collect data, the USITC split the four broad product categories into 33 product classes:

  • (a) seven carbon and alloy flat products covering: (i) slabs; (ii) plate; (iii) hot-rolled steel; (iv) cold-rolled steel; (v) coated steel; (vi) GOES; (vii) tin- mill products;

  • (b) ten carbon and alloy long products comprising: (i) billets; (ii) hotrolled bar; (iii) cold-finished bar; (iv) rebar; (v) rails; (vi) heavy structural shapes; (vii) fabricated units; (viii) wire; (ix) nails, staples and woven cloth; (x) strand, rope, cable and cordage;

  • European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Malleable Cast Iron Tube or Pipe Fittings from Brazil (WT/DS219): Report of the Appellate Body

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2003
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    03 November 2005, pp 2613-2688

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Brazil appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Malleable Cast Iron Tube or Pipe Fittings from Brazil (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by Brazil concerning the consistency with the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “Anti-Dumping Agreement ”) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”) of the imposition of anti-dumping duties by the European Communities on imports of malleable cast iron tube or pipe fittings from Brazil.

    On 29 May 1999, the European Communities announced the initiation of an anti-dumping investigation on the imports of malleable cast iron tube or pipe fittings originating in Brazil and seven other countries. One Brazilian producer (Indústria de Fundição Tupy Ltda.) was subject to the anti-dumping investigation. The European Communities imposed provisional anti-dumping duties on the imports on 28 February 2000 and definitive anti-dumping duties on 11 August 2000. On 21 December 2000, Brazil requested consultations with the European Communities concerning the imposition of anti-dumping duties on its exports of malleable cast iron tube or pipe fittings to the European Communities. After consultations failed to resolve the dispute, Brazil requested the establishment of a panel on 7 June 2001 to examine the matter. The factual aspects of this dispute are set out in greater detail in the Panel Report.

    Before the Panel, Brazil claimed that the European Communities had acted inconsistently with Article VI of the GATT 1994 and with a number of provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, specifically, Articles 1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 6.2, 6.4, 6.6, 6.9, 9.3, 11.1, 11.2, 12.2, 12.2.2, and 15.

    In the Panel Report, circulated to Members of the World Trade Organization (the “WTO”) on 7 March 2003, the Panel found that the European Communities had acted inconsistently with its obligations under:

  • (a) Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in “zeroing” negative dumping margins in its dumping determination; and

  • United States – Rules of Origin for Textiles and Apparel Products (WT/DS243): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2003
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    03 November 2005, pp 2309-2612

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 11 January 2002, India requested consultations with the United States pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (hereafter the “DSU”), Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (hereafter the “GATT 1994”), Article 7 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin (hereafter the “RO Agreement”) … regarding section 334 of the United States Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994 (hereafter “section 334”) and section 405 of the United States Trade and Development Act of 2000 (hereafter “section 405”) and the customs regulations implementing these provisions.

    Consultations were held in Geneva on 7 and 28 February and 26 March 2002, but did not lead to a mutually satisfactory resolution of the matter.

    On 7 May 2002, India requested the Dispute Settlement Body (hereafter the “DSB”) to establish a panel pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU, Article XXIII of the GATT 1994 and Article 8 of the RO Agreement. India's panel request referenced the rules of origin for textiles and apparel products set out in section 334 and the Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (hereafter the “URAA”), the subsequent modifications made by section 405 of the Trade and Development Act, the customs regulations implementing these Acts as well as the administration of these Acts and regulations, as the measures at issue. India claimed that the United States’ rules of origin for textiles and apparel products were inconsistent with paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Article 2 of the RO Agreement.

    At its meeting on 24 June 2002, the DSB established a Panel pursuant to the request of India, in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU. The Panel was established with standard terms of reference. The terms of reference are the following:

    “To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by India in document WT/DS243/5/Rev.1, the matter referred to the DSB by India in that document and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements.”

Dispute Settlement Reports 2003
  • Volume 7, Pages 2699-3270
  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    03 November 2005
  • The Dispute Settlement Reports of the World Trade Organization (WTO) include Panel and Appellate Body reports, as well as arbitration awards, in disputes concerning the rights and obligations of WTO members under the provisions of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization. These are the WTO authorized and paginated reports in English. An essential addition to the library of all practising and academic trade lawyers, and needed by students worldwide taking courses in international economic or trade law. DSR 2003: VII reports on anti-dumping duties on malleable cast iron tube or pipe fittings from Brazil (EC), definitive safeguard measures on imports of certain steel products (US), and contains a cumulative index of published disputes.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2003
  • Volume 8, 3271-4388
  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    03 November 2005
  • The Dispute Settlement Reports of the World Trade Organization (WTO) include Panel and Appellate Body reports, as well as arbitration awards, in disputes concerning the rights and obligations of WTO members under the provisions of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization. These are the WTO authorized and paginated reports in English. An essential addition to the library of all practising and academic trade lawyers, and needed by students worldwide taking courses in international economic or trade law. DSR 2003: VIII reports on definitive safeguard measures on imports of certain steel products (US), and contains a cumulative index of published disputes.

  • DISINFLATIONARY BOOM REVERSION

  • AARON L. JACKSON
  • Journal:
    Macroeconomic Dynamics / Volume 9 / Issue 4 / September 2005
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    25 October 2005, pp. 489-515

  • Recent emphasis has been placed on exploring behavioral aspects of individual agents in explaining macroeconomic phenomena. Of particular interest is augmenting New Keynesian models to produce costly disinflation, as empirics and consensus suggest. We presume a fraction of agents using rule-of-thumb behavior in price setting in an otherwise standard New Keynesian model. Our findings suggest that relatively small amounts of rule-of-thumb behavior are required to offset the net effects of Ball's disinflationary boom. Moderate levels of rule-of-thumb behavior can produce delayed recessions consistent with some VAR evidence. However, high proportions of rule-of-thumb behavior are needed to produce immediate reductions in output following implementation.

  • TAXING CAPITAL INCOME AS PIGOUVIAN CORRECTION: THE ROLE OF DISCOUNTING THE FUTURE

  • VALERIA DE BONIS, LUCA SPATARO
  • Journal:
    Macroeconomic Dynamics / Volume 9 / Issue 4 / September 2005
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    25 October 2005, pp. 469-477

  • In this work, we find that the zero capital income tax result might not hold, even at the steady state, when the government discount rate differs from the individual one. As intuitive Pigouvian considerations would suggest, capital income should be taxed (subsidized) when the government is less (more) impatient than individuals are. However, a counterintuitive asymmetry emerges as for the steady state since, in the long run, capital income cannot be taxed because of the explosive distortionary effect of positive taxes. The asymmetry is ruled out with a logarithmic utility function because, in this case, the anticipated policy path does not affect current individual choices and thus the cumulative distortionary effect of taxes disappears.

Page 389 of 579