Motives for Using Trade Defense Instruments in the European Union

Trade and Development Discussion Paper No. 01/2012

70 Pages Posted: 17 Apr 2012

See all articles by Derk Bienen

Derk Bienen

BKP Development Research & Consulting GmbH; Addis Ababa University

Dan Ciuriak

Ciuriak Consulting Inc.; Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI); C.D. Howe Institute; Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada; BKP Development Research & Consulting GmbH

Timothée Picarello

BKP Development Research & Consulting GmbH

Date Written: March 1, 2012

Abstract

The European Union is one of the most active users of antidumping and antisubsidy measures (trade defense instruments or TDIs) worldwide. Traditionally, TDIs have been characterized as the international trade analogue of internal market competition policies, addressing predatory and other price-distorting and anti-competitive business practices of firms and market-distorting measures of foreign governments (whether for 'strategic policy' or mercantilist objectives). The economic literature, however, is quite overwhelmingly negative towards the way TDIs have been used and indeed calls into question whether there is any defensible policy rationale for their existence. This judgment is based on analyses of why, how and with what effect TDIs have been used. Since TDIs do not involve a motive test, motive must be inferred from patterns of use. As a result, numerous theories have emerged as to the de facto role of TDIs – as 'surge' protectors, buffers for macroeconomic shocks, retaliatory threats to safeguard market access abroad, domestic political economy grease for trade liberalization and so forth. This lack of clarity leads to many real problems. For trading firms, it creates uncertainties about the rules of the road for market access, which can have a chilling effect on trade. For governments, it results in an ad hoc quality to policy decisions. For public discourse, it contributes to the often confused, acrimonious and emotive nature of the debate about 'unfair' trade. This paper contributes to the literature by developing an enhanced framework of analysis for why TDIs are used and applying it to recent European experience. The analytical framework we propose infers motive from context, including the policy context (competition and industrial policy concerns, communitarian motives), business cycle and exchange rate dynamics, the trade policy context of cases (retaliatory TDI applications), and the competitiveness context (revealed comparative advantage for EU compared to target country). We find that the strongest case for TDI is based on an implicit 'insurance' role. The EU, like other WTO Members, in liberalizing access to its market under conditions of imperfect information and an absence of appropriate insurance markets, de facto uses TDI as a form of insurance policy to deal with disruptive pressures. This perspective on TDI reconciles trade liberalization with the occasional recourse to protection. The fact that TD has been the main instrument of this insurance policy, rather than the provisions in the WTO intended for the purpose (safeguards and renegotiation of commitments), appears to reflect weaknesses in the design of these latter instruments.

Keywords: trade remedies, anti-dumping, anti-subsidy, European Union

JEL Classification: F13, F14

Suggested Citation

Bienen, Derk and Ciuriak, Dan and Picarello, Timothée, Motives for Using Trade Defense Instruments in the European Union (March 1, 2012). Trade and Development Discussion Paper No. 01/2012. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2040664 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2040664

Derk Bienen (Contact Author)

BKP Development Research & Consulting GmbH ( email )

Jutastr. 14
München, 80636
Germany

Addis Ababa University ( email )

King George VI St
Addis Ababa, 1000
Ethiopia

Dan Ciuriak

Ciuriak Consulting Inc. ( email )

83 Stewart St.
Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6H9
Canada

Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) ( email )

57 Erb Street West
Waterloo, Ontario N2L 6C2
Canada

C.D. Howe Institute ( email )

67 Yonge St., Suite 300
Toronto, Ontario M5E 1J8
Canada

Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada ( email )

Canada

HOME PAGE: http://ciuriakconsulting.com/

BKP Development Research & Consulting GmbH ( email )

Romanstrasse 74
München, 80639
Germany

Timothée Picarello

BKP Development Research & Consulting GmbH ( email )

Romanstrasse 74
München, 80639
Germany

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
98
Abstract Views
828
rank
273,307
PlumX Metrics