Archives

  • 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-10
  • 2020-11
  • 2020-12
  • 2021-01
  • 2021-02
  • 2021-03
  • 2021-04
  • 2021-05
  • 2021-06
  • 2021-07
  • 2021-08
  • 2021-09
  • 2021-10
  • 2021-11
  • 2021-12
  • 2022-01
  • 2022-02
  • 2022-03
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-06
  • 2022-07
  • 2022-08
  • 2022-09
  • 2022-10
  • 2022-11
  • 2022-12
  • 2023-01
  • 2023-02
  • 2023-03
  • 2023-04
  • 2023-05
  • 2023-07
  • 2023-08
  • 2023-09
  • 2023-10
  • 2023-11
  • 2023-12
  • 2024-01
  • 2024-02
  • 2024-03
  • 2024-04

    • Similarly to Table the results from Table showed

    2018-11-13

    Similarly to Table 4, the results from Table 5 showed a positive relation between the distribution of the exportation (EXP) and the distribution of the AD cases initiated by Turkey, European Union, South Korea, India and United States. Therefore, these economies would be favoring the most competitive sectors via AD. Nevertheless, the estimation revealed that only the relation verified in Turkey and the European Union was significant. When the distribution of AD cases opened against these countries () was added in order to capture the retaliation effect, we noted a positive and significant coefficient to European Union, South Korea and India. Thus, there is evidence that these countries are using AD as a retaliation mechanism. In the case of European Union and India, the improvement of R2 and the adjusted R2, after including , indicated a strong motivation to use AD to retaliate other users. However, the signal and significance of EXP, to Turkey and European Union, does not changed when was included. So, both of them seem to be favoring the most competitive sectors, just as we had found in Table 4.
    Conclusion The antidumping literature revealed that, due to its lack of transparent legislation, that frequently favors the petitioner, the antidumping instrument (AD) has become one of the most important protectionist barriers of this day. Although GATT/OMC have discussed this problem in the Tokyo rounds (1973–1979) and, more emphatically, in Uruguay (1986–1994), the traditional users of AD, headed by USA and European Union, prevented imposing restrictions to its use. Thus, countries that were not considered big users of AD began using it dna ligase with more intensity after the Uruguay Round. To Aggarwal (2004), these countries, without tradition in using AD, would be using this tool to retaliate traditional users. According to him, this way of using could be reduced if the traditional users were able to reduce their use of AD against nontraditional countries. However, the challenge to inhibit the AD use can be encouraging other countries to use it, generating what Vandenbussche and Zanardi (2008) have called contagion effect. This excessive use has led authors to suggest that AD is far from its original purpose of avoiding unfair competition. Theuringer and Weiss (2001) have suggested that AD could be being used to benefit the big businesses’ interests in detriment of firms with reduced level of competitiveness. The cluster analysis, revealed that Brazil, Australia and South Africa, which represent 18% of the AD cases initiated in the period, are using this resource intensely against the Metal and its Works, Plastic and Rubber Products and Chemical sectors. Meanwhile, Argentina, European Union, Mexico, Indonesia and USA, which respond for almost 34% of the processes, are using the AD practice even more intensely against the Metal sector. Besides these, China, India, Pakistan and Japan, responsible for almost dna ligase 23% of the cases, appear as an Asian group that is extreme in use of AD against the Chemical sector. The data also indicated that India, USA, European Union, Argentina, Brazil, Australia and South Africa have become the main AD users after the Uruguay Round. Since USA, The European Union and Australia were already considered traditional users, the other mentioned countries arise as the main new users of AD. However, when the number of AD cases was weighted by the GDP of each country, prions is clear that Argentina and South Africa are using AD measures much more intensely than the others. The spatial analysis of the data revealed, through Moran\'s I, the presence of a weak spatial autocorrelation of the AA-BB type. In other words, countries that initiate many AD cases would tend to be close to other countries that also open a high number of processes. Thus, there would be a weak evidence of contagion effect. Nonetheless, when pondering the AD processes by the GDP, the Moran\'s I coefficient more than double. Therefore, the “neighborhood effect” on the number of AD cases is stronger when the economic relevance of each country is considered.