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 405 of 579

  • Report of the Panel

  • from United States - Safeguard Measures on Imports of Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia (WT/DS177, WT/DS178)
  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2001
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 September 2004, pp 4107-4693

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Complaint of New Zealand

    On 16 July 1999, New Zealand requested consultations with the United States pursuant to Article 4 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (“the DSU”), Article XXII:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 14 of the Agreement on Safeguards (“the Safeguards Agreement”, “SG”) with regard to a definitive safeguard measure imposed by the United States on imports of lamb meat.

    On 26 August 1999, New Zealand and the United States held the requested consultations, but failed to resolve the dispute.

    On 14 October 1999, New Zealand requested the establishment of a panel to examine the matter.

    Complaint of Australia

    On 23 July 1999, Australia requested consultations with the United States pursuant to DSU Article 4, GATT Article XXII:1 and SG Article 14 with regard to the definitive safeguard measure imposed by the United States on imports of lamb meat.

    On 26 August 1999, Australia and the United States held the requested consultations, but failed to resolve the dispute.

    On 14 October 1999, Australia requested the establishment of a panel to examine the matter.

    Establishment and Composition of the Panel

    At its meeting of 19 November 1999, in accordance with DSU Article 9 the Dispute Settlement Body (“the DSB”) established a single Panel, pursuant to the requests made by New Zealand and Australia.

    At that meeting, the parties to the dispute also agreed that the Panel should have standard terms of reference, as follows:

    “To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by New Zealand in document WT/DS177/4 and by Australia in document WT/DS178/5 and Corr. 1, the matter referred to the DSB by New Zealand and Australia in those documents, 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 21 March 2000, the parties agreed to the following composition of the Panel:

    Chairman: Professor Tommy Koh

    Members: Professor Meinhard Hilf

    Mr. Shishir Priyadarshi

    Australia (in respect of New Zealand's complaint), Canada, the European Communities, Iceland, Japan and New Zealand (in respect of Australia's complaint), reserved their rights to participate in the panel proceedings as third parties.

  • Thailand - Anti-Dumping Duties on Angles, Shapes and Sections of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel and H-Beams from Poland (WT/DS122/AB/R, WT/DS122/R): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2001
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 September 2004, pp 2739-3238

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 6 April 1998, Poland requested consultations with Thailand pursuant to Article 17.3 of the Agreement on the Implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994 (“the AD Agreement”) and Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“the DSU”) regarding Thailand's imposition of final anti-dumping duties on imports of angles, shapes and sections of iron or nonalloy steel: H-beams (“H-beams”) originating in Poland. Poland and Thailand held consultations on 29 May 1998 but failed to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of the matter.

    On 13 October 1999, pursuant to Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU and Article 17 of the AD Agreement, Poland requested the establishment of a Panel to examine the matter.

    At its meeting on 19 November 1999, the Dispute Settlement Body (“the DSB”) established a Panel in accordance with Poland's request. At that meeting, the parties to the dispute also agreed that the Panel should have standard terms of reference. The terms of reference therefore are the following:

    “To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by Poland in document WT/DS122/2, the matter referred to the DSB by Poland in document WT/DS122/2, 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 20 December 1999, the parties to the dispute agreed on the following composition of the Panel:

    Chairman: Professor John H. Jackson

    Members: Mr. Roberto Azevêdo

    Mr. Gilles Gauthier

    The European Communities, Japan and the United States reserved their rights to participate in the panel proceedings as third parties.

    The Panel met with the parties on 7-8 March 2000 and 12 April 2000. It met with the third parties on 8 March 2000.

    On 31 May 2000, the Panel provided its interim report to the parties. On 9 and 13 June 2000, respectively, Poland and Thailand submitted written requests for review by the Panel of precise aspects of the interim report. On 15 June 2000, the parties submittedwritten comments on one anothers’ requests for interim review. Section VI, infra, describes the interim review requests and comments received, and the changes made to the report in response to those comments.

  • European Communities - Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products (WT/DS135): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2001
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 September 2004, pp 3305-4047

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    In a communication dated 28 May 1998, Canada requested consultations with the European Communities (EC) pursuant to Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), Article 11 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) and Article 14 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement), concerning certain measures taken by France for the prohibition of asbestos and products containing asbestos (WT/DS135/1 - G/SPS/GEN/72 - G/TBT/D/15). Canada's request states that these measures include, but are not limited to, Decree No. 96-1133 of 24 December 1996 (the “Decree”) banning asbestos, issued pursuant to the Labour Code and the Consumer Code, as amended. On 12 June 1998, Brazil asked to take part in the consultations because of its substantial trade interest (WT/DS/135/2).

    In a communication dated 8 October 1998, Canada informed the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) that the consultations held with the EC had failed to resolve the dispute satisfactorily. Consequently, Canada requested the DSB to establish a panel to examine the French measure concerning the prohibition of asbestos and products containing asbestos. In its communication, Canada claimed that the Decree, as well as any other measure which Canada might indicate, were inconsistent with Articles 2 and 5 of the SPS Agreement, Article 2 of the TBT Agreement, Articles III and XI of the GATT 1994, and, under Article XXIII:1(b) of the GATT 1994, nullified or impaired one or several advantages accruing to Canada directly or indirectly under the WTO Agreement or impeded the attainment of an objective of the Agreement owing to the fact that the banning of asbestos by France was applied whether or not it conflicted with the Agreement (WT/DS/135/3).

    At its meeting held on 25 November 1998, the DSB established a panel pursuant to Canada's request. At that meeting, the parties to the dispute agreed that the Panel should have the following terms of reference:

    “To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by Canada in document WT/DS135/3, the matter referred to the DSB by Canada 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”.

  • United States - Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan (WT/DS184): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2001
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 September 2004, pp 4769-5478

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 18 November 1999, Japan requested consultations with the United States under Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the DSU), Article 17.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT 1994”). The United States and Japan consulted on 13 January 2000, but failed to settle the dispute.

    On 11 February 2000, Japan requested the establishment of a panel pursuant to Article XXIII of the GATT 1994, Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU and Article 17 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

    At its meeting on 20 March 2000, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) established a Panel in accordance with the request made by Japan in document WT/DS184/2. 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 Japan in document WT/DS184/2, the matter referred to the DSB by Japan in document WT/DS184/2, 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 9 May 2000, Japan requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel, pursuant to paragraph 7 of Article 8 of the DSU. On 24 May 2000, the Director-General composed the Panel as follows:

    Chairman: Mr. Harsha V. Singh

    Members: Mr. Yanyong Phuangrach

    Ms. Elena Lidia di Vico

    Brazil, Canada, Chile, the European Communities and Korea reserved their rights to participate in the panel proceedings as third parties.

    The Panel met with the parties on 22-23 August 2000 and on 27 September 2000. It met with the third parties on 23 August 2000.

    The Panel submitted its interim report to the parties on 22 January 2001.

    FACTUAL ASPECTS

    This dispute concerns the imposition by the United States of anti-dumping measures on imports of certain hot-rolled flat-rolled-carbon-quality steel products (“hot-rolled steel”) from Japan.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2001
  • Volume 10, Pages 4695-5478
  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 September 2004
  • 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. 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. Volume X reports on anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan (United States).

Dispute Settlement Reports 2001
  • Volume 7, Pages 2699-3301
  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 September 2004
  • 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. 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. Volume VII reports on anti-dumping duties on angles, shapes and sections of iron or non-alloy steel and H-beams from Poland (Thailand), and measures affecting asbestos and asbestos-containing products (European Communities).

  • Report of the Appellate Body

  • from United States - Safeguard Measures on Imports of Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia (WT/DS177, WT/DS178)
  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2001
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 September 2004, pp 4051-4106

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    The United States, Australia and New Zealand appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel Report, United States - Safeguard Measures on Imports of Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider complaints by Australia and New Zealand with respect to a definitive safeguard measure imposed by the United States on imports of fresh, chilled and frozen lamb meat.

    On 7 October 1998, the United States International Trade Commission (the “USITC”) initiated a safeguard investigation into imports of lamb meat. By Proclamation of the President of the United States, dated 7 July 1999, the United States imposed a definitive safeguard measure, in the form of a tariff-rate quota, on imports of fresh, chilled and frozen lamb meat, effective as of 22 July 1999. The factual aspects of this dispute are set out in greater detail in the Panel Report.

    The Panel considered claims by Australia and New Zealand that, in imposing the safeguard measure on imports of lamb meat, the United States acted inconsistently with Articles I, II, and XIX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”), and with Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards.

    In its Report, circulated to Members of the World Trade Organization (the “WTO”) on 21 December 2000, the Panel concluded:

  • a) that the United States has acted inconsistently with Article XIX:1(a) of GATT 1994 by failing to demonstrate as a matter of fact the existence of “unforeseen developments”;

  • (b) that the United States has acted inconsistently with Article 4.1(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards because the USITC, in the lamb meat investigation, defined the domestic industry as including input producers (i.e., growers and feeders of live lamb) as producers of the like product at issue (i.e. lamb meat);

  • (c) that the complainants failed to establish that the USITC's analytical approach to determining the existence of a threat of serious injury, in particular with respect to the prospective analysis and the time-period used, is inconsistent with Article 4.1(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards (assuming arguendo that the USITC's industry definition was consistent with the Agreement on Safeguards);

  • United States - Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan (WT/DS184): Report of the Appellate Body

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2001
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 September 2004, pp 4697-4768

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    The United States and Japan appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel Report, United States - Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot Rolled Steel Products from Japan (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by Japan with respect to anti-dumping measures imposed by the United States on imports of certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel products (“hot-rolled steel”) from Japan.

    On 15 October 1998, the United States Department of Commerce (“USDOC”) initiated an anti-dumping investigation into imports of hot-rolled steel from, among others, Japan. USDOC determined that it was not practicable to examine all known Japanese producers and exporters and, therefore, conducted its investigation on the basis of a sample of Japanese producers. USDOC selected Kawasaki Steel Corporation (“KSC”), Nippon Steel Corporation (“NSC”), and NKK Corporation (“NKK”) for individual investigation. USDOC calculated an individual dumping margin for each of these companies. USDOC also established a single rate of anti-dumping duty applicable to all those Japanese producers and exporters not individually investigated (the “all others” rate). The “all others” rate was calculated as the weighted average of the individual dumping margins calculated for KSC, NSC and NKK. On 6 May 1999, USDOC published its final affirmative dumping determination. On 23 June 1999, the United States International Trade Commission (the “USITC”) published its final affirmative determination of injury to the United States’ hot-rolled steel industry. On 29 June 1999, USDOC published an antidumping duty order imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of hot-rolled steel from Japan. The factual aspects of this dispute are set out in greater detail in paragraphs 2.1 to 2.9 of the Panel Report.

    The Panel considered claims by Japan that, in imposing the specific antidumping measures on hot-rolled steel, the United States acted inconsistently with Articles 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 4.1, 6.1, 6.6, 6.8, 6.13, 9.3, 9.4, 10.1, 10.6, and 10.7 and Annex II of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “Anti-Dumping Agreement ”); and with Article X:3 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”);

  • European Communities - Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products (WT/DS135/AB/R): Report of the Appellate Body

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2001
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 September 2004, pp 3239-3301

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Canada appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report in European Communities - Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos- Containing Products (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider claims made by Canada regarding French Decree No. 96-1133 concerning asbestos and products containing asbestos (décret no. 96-1133 relatif à l'interdiction de l'amiante, pris en application du code de travail et du code de la consommation) (“the Decree”), which entered into force on 1 January 1997.

    Articles 1 and 2 of the Decree set forth prohibitions on asbestos and on products containing asbestos fibres, followed by certain limited and temporary exceptions from those prohibitions:

    Article 1

    For the purpose of protecting workers, and pursuant to Article L. 231-7 of the Labour Code, the manufacture, processing, sale, import, placing on the domestic market and transfer under any title whatsoever of all varieties of asbestos fibres shall be prohibited, regardless of whether these substances have been incorporated into materials, products or devices.

    For the purpose of protecting consumers, and pursuant to Article L. 221.3 of the Consumer Code, the manufacture, import, domestic marketing, exportation, possession for sale, offer, sale andtran sfer under any title whatsoever of all varieties of asbestos fibres or any product containing asbestos fibres shall be prohibited.

    The bans instituted under Articles I and II shall not prevent fulfilment of the obligations arising from legislation on the elimination of wastes.

    Article 2

    On an exceptional and temporary basis, the bans instituted under Article 1 shall not apply to certain existing materials, products or devices containing chrysotile fibre when, to perform an equivalent function, no substitute for that fibre is available which:

  • - On the one hand, in the present state of scientific knowledge, poses a lesser occupational health risk than chrysotile fibre to workers handling those materials, products or devices;

  • - on the other, provides all technical guarantees of safety corresponding to the ultimate purpose of the use thereof.

    • The scope of application of paragraph I of this Article shall cover only the materials, products or devices falling within the categories shown in an exhaustive list decreed by the Ministers for Labour, Consumption, the Environment, Industry, Agriculture and Transport.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2001
  • Volume 9, Pages 4049-4693
  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 September 2004
  • 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. 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. Volume IX reports on safeguard measures on imports of fresh, chilled or frozen lamb meat from New Zealand and Australia (United States).

  • 9 - Deflation and Stagnation in Japan: Collapse of the Monetary Transmission Mechanism and Echo From the 1930s

  • Edited by Richard C. K. Burdekin, Claremont McKenna College, California, Pierre L. Siklos, Wilfrid Laurier University, Ontario
  • Book:
    Deflation
    Published online:
    15 December 2009
    Print publication:
    06 September 2004, pp 241-268

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On February 13, 2002, Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi directed ministries to formulate emergency countermeasures to deflation, stating, in a press release that “while deflation has a varied background, the resolution of the immediate financial problems is indispensable to overcoming deflation” (italics added). Koizumi linked deflation, shown in Figure 9.1, to banking problems and a credit crunch, and called on the Bank of Japan to take action. The same press release goes on to state, “In particular, with regard to the disposal of non-performing loans which presently stands as a top-priority issue, actions shall be taken to achieve concrete progress in line with the ongoing process of special inspections, thereby solidifying the prospects for an early resolution of the so-called ‘non-performing loans problem.’ Meanwhile, the government shall stand ready to take any and all necessary measures to prevent a financial crisis. Overcoming deflation will require the government and the Bank of Japan to act in unison. Therefore, we turn to the Bank of Japan with the request that it act with due audacity in implementing monetary policy” (italics added; Japan Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2002).

    The call by the Prime Minister for the government to take emergency action reflects the concern that the deflation in Japan, if allowed to persist, would gradually erode the foundation of the economy and eventually lead to a much deeper and dramatic decline reminiscent of the Great Depression in the 1930s. Initially viewed by policy makers as a “good deflation,” price declines were now seen as a harbinger of economic collapse.

  • Preface

  • Edited by Richard C. K. Burdekin, Claremont McKenna College, California, Pierre L. Siklos, Wilfrid Laurier University, Ontario
  • Book:
    Deflation
    Published online:
    15 December 2009
    Print publication:
    06 September 2004, pp xxi-xxii

  • Summary

    Both of us, independently and jointly, have devoted many years to studying inflation and hyperinflation and analyzing central banking institutions. Indeed, it was our shared interests in these areas that led us to engage in joint research. In 1998, we began to think seriously about whether the incipient deflations in Asia, most notably in China and Japan, amounted to something other than simply the flip side of inflation. It quickly became apparent to us there was, potentially at least, something substantially different about studying an economy in the throes of a deflation. We also decided, early on, that the best way to proceed would be to call upon several interested academics to engage in research that would parallel our own interests, enabling us to provide a much broader perspective on historical and modern experiences with deflation. The end result is the present edited volume. The contributed papers were presented at two major conferences on the topic. One was held in April 2000 at Claremont McKenna College. We also organized a session at the XIIIth International Economic History Congress in Buenos Aires in 2002 that was devoted to deflation.

    The rather long gestation period for this project partly reflects the fact that the study of deflation is, in many ways, in its infancy, especially regarding the conduct of monetary policy in such an environment. We were also determined to take the time to hone our ideas through seminar and conference participation, and in other ways to seek out respected colleagues' opinions. We trust that the end product will serve as a useful starting point for academics and policy makers wishing to learn more about the economics of deflation.

  • 5 - Boom–Busts in Asset Prices, Economic Instability, and Monetary Policy

  • Edited by Richard C. K. Burdekin, Claremont McKenna College, California, Pierre L. Siklos, Wilfrid Laurier University, Ontario
  • Book:
    Deflation
    Published online:
    15 December 2009
    Print publication:
    06 September 2004, pp 131-165

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    The link between monetary policy and asset price movements has been of perennial interest to policy makers. The 1920s stock market boom and 1929 crash and the 1980s Japanese asset bubble are two salient examples in which asset price reversals were followed by protracted recessions and deflation. The key questions that arise from these episodes is whether the monetary authorities could have been more successful in preventing the consequences of an asset market bust or whether it was appropriate for the authorities only to react to these events ex post.

    In this chapter we consider the potential cases for proactive versus reactive monetary policy based on the situation in which asset price reversals can have serious effects on real output.

    Our analysis is based on a stylized model of the dilemma with which the monetary authorities are faced in asset price booms. On the one hand, letting the boom go unchecked entails the risk that it will be followed by a bust accompanied by a collateral-induced credit crunch. Restricting monetary policy can be thought of as insurance against the risk of a credit crunch. On the other hand, this insurance does not come free: Restricting monetary policy implies immediate costs in terms of lower output and inflation. The optimal monetary policy depends on the relative cost and benefits of the insurance.

    Although the model is quite stylized, we find that the optimal monetary policy depends on the economic conditions – including the private sector's beliefs – in a rather complex way.

Page 405 of 579