關(guān)于反傾銷的擴散和影響（節(jié)選）

1、<p>　　中文2200字，1200單詞，6000英文字符</p><p>　　出處：Prusa T J. On the spread and impact of anti-dumping[J]. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, 2001, 34(3):591-611.</p>&l

2、t;p><b>　　原文 </b></p><p>　　On the spread and impact of anti-dumping</p><p>　　Prusa, Thomas J.</p><p><b>　　Abstract </b></p><p>　　This paper do

3、cuments two key costs of AD protection. First, once AD has been adopted countries often have a difficult time restraining its use. In recent years “new” users have accounted for half of the overall world total. Many of t

4、he heaviest AD users are countries who did not even have an AD statute a decade ago. Second, I will show that on average AD duties cause the value of imports to fall by 30–50%. I find that trade falls by almost as much f

5、or settled cases as those that result in duties</p><p>　　Keywords: Antidumping law; protection </p><p>　　1. Introduction </p><p>　　Of all the issues negotiated under the Uruguay Rou

6、nd, antidumping was perhaps the most contentious. Broadly stated, the debate pitted antidumping’s traditional users, essentially industrialized countries such as the US and EC, against traditional non-users, primarily de

7、veloping countries. Thanks to demands by the US and EC the Uruguay Round achieved only mixed success at tightening the rules governing antidumping (AD) actions. The strengthening of deminimis rules and the addition of su

8、nset revie</p><p>　　2. The Spread of Antidumping </p><p>　　Until relatively recently AD actions were not particularly common. For instance, in the 1960s all GATT members filed only about ten ant

9、idumping petitions per year (Schott, 1994). During the 1970s, however, a small set of users began to more actively initiate AD actions, primarily as a way to protect declining industries. Even as recently as the late-198

10、0s AD law was essentially only enforced by five territories—Canada, New Zealand, Australia, United States and the European Community. Over the de</p><p>　　Demand for AD protection has continued to grow durin

11、g the 1990s. Over the past ten years, almost 2200 AD cases have been filed worldwide, a filing rate about 25% greater than during the 1980s (see Table 1). While the overall usage has increased, the most noticeable trend

12、is the change in who is using the law. The once exclusive club has now opened its doors. Countries of all stages of development and industrialization have joined the ranks of active AD users. And, it is the dozens of new

13、 users t</p><p>　　Over the 1987–1997 period 29 countries initiated antidumping complaints, about triple the number during the prior ten years. Over the past ten years there has been a five-fold increase in A

14、D filings by “new” users. More impressively, as compared with the early 1980s, there has been a fifty-fold increase. </p><p>　　New users are not only filing more cases than they had previously, but they are

15、also accounting for an increasing share of total complaints. Between 1987–1992 new users filed about 20% of the AD cases in each year. By contrast, over the last five years new users account for well over half of AD comp

16、laints. The trend is even more striking in comparison with trends during the 1980s, when new users accounted for fewer than 5% of AD cases. </p><p>　　It is also striking how quickly AD is embraced once legis

17、lation is enacted. Mexico, for instance, signed the GATT/WTO antidumping code in 1987 and filed more than 30 cases within three years. Argentina filed its first AD case in 1991 and has since averaged almost 20 cases per

18、year. Likewise, South Africa has initiated more than 20 cases per year since it adopted an AD statute. Similar patterns of use—a rush to invoke the new law—are evidenced by India, Indonesia, Turkey, Malaysia, Peru, Israe

19、l, </p><p>　　The widespread adoption of AD law has also impacted which countries are targeted. In Table 2 I detail AD actions by targeted country. Several interesting trends are evidenced. First, note that o

20、ver the entire period almost 99 countries were investigated—about twice as many as were investigated during the 1980s. Apparently, AD’s expanding reach can be measured equally well by either the number of active users or

21、 the number of investigated countries. </p><p>　　Second, note that during the 1980s almost all dumping charges were made by a small number of countries and most targeted a very small set of countries. In par

22、ticular, during the 1980s two-thirds of AD investigations targeted another traditional user (Finger, 1993). By comparison, over the past decade only about one-third of the cases targeted a traditional AD user. In this se

23、nse, AD’s reach has expanded. </p><p>　　In another sense, however, the targets of AD investigations are much the same as they were during the 1980s. Note that during the 1980s two-thirds of AD investigations

24、 involved countries who were fellow AD users. Interesting, during the 1990s virtually the same percent of AD cases (1498 of 2196) were filed against fellow AD users. In other words, AD is still a policy largely wielded w

25、ithin the club of AD users; the big difference is that now the club is bigger than it was before. </p><p>　　3. Impact of Antidumping </p><p>　　The filing trends presented indicate that the AD ge

26、nie is out of the bottle. A multitude of countries have only recently enacted AD statutes and these new users are now filing a larger and larger number of cases. What do these filings mean for the markets affected? Under

27、 the best case scenario I could estimate the impact of AD for each country and sector that has used the law. Unfortunately, the data are not available to perform such an exercise. Instead, I will estimate the effect of A

28、D actions</p><p>　　For a couple of reasons the US is an excellent candidate for understanding the effects of AD protection. First of all, the US has filed more AD cases than any other user. Therefore, we hav

29、e a large sample of cases. US industries filed over 700 AD petitions between 1980 and 1994. About a quarter of the cases were settled; of the remaining cases, about half were rejected and half resulted in duties. Second,

30、 as the world’s most prominent AD user, the US statute has served as the basis for many coun</p><p><b>　　譯文 </b></p><p>　　關(guān)于反傾銷的擴散和影響</p><p><b>　　托馬斯·馬克</b

31、></p><p><b>　　摘要 </b></p><p>　　本文記載了文檔反傾銷保護的兩個關(guān)鍵成本。首先，一旦采用了反傾銷后，其他國家往往很難限制它的使用。近年來，“新”的貿(mào)易國家占整個世界總量的一半。其中，那些最激烈的反傾銷國家甚至在十年前，都沒有關(guān)于反傾銷的法規(guī)。其次，本文的研究將表明，通常來說，反傾銷的會導(dǎo)致進口額會下降 30 - 50%

32、。我發(fā)現(xiàn)貿(mào)易交易額幾乎也下降了一樣多。有趣的是，我還發(fā)現(xiàn), 甚至是對于那些拒絕反傾銷的國家。他們的進口額也下降了。反傾銷保護的擴散和影響肯定意味著反傾銷將繼續(xù)會成為世貿(mào)組織下一輪談判的一個關(guān)鍵項目。 </p><p>　　關(guān)鍵詞: 反傾銷法；保護 </p><p><b>　　1 引言 </b></p><p>　　在烏拉圭回合談判，所有專門討

33、論的問題中，反傾銷可能是最有爭議的一個議題。大體上說，推行反傾銷的傳統(tǒng)國家，實際上是工業(yè)化國家，如：美國和歐共體，挑戰(zhàn)的對象主要為發(fā)展中國家。由于美國和歐共體的要求，烏拉圭回合談判結(jié)果，最終同意收緊反傾銷規(guī)則。這一微小的規(guī)則方面的收緊政策，將會減少小型生產(chǎn)商的負擔(dān)。但不幸的是，這一協(xié)議同時還同意不限制價格。經(jīng)過多方面的考慮，有理由相信，反傾銷爭端不僅將持續(xù)增多，反傾銷的政策也將成為未來世貿(mào)回合談判的一個關(guān)鍵項目。 </p>

34、<p><b>　　2 反傾銷的擴散 </b></p><p>　　反傾銷的擴散行為并不是特別常見。例如：在 20 世紀 60 年代，所有的關(guān)貿(mào)總協(xié)定成員國中，每年提出反傾銷申請的只有十個左右( 斯科特，1994)。然而到了 70 年代，然而，少數(shù)國家開始更積極地發(fā)起反傾銷，主要是為了保護其本國國內(nèi)工業(yè)的下降趨勢。甚至在1980 年代末，執(zhí)行反傾銷的國家也只有五個：加拿大、新西蘭

35、、澳大利亞、美國和歐盟。過去的幾十年來，全世界有超過 1600 例反傾銷(芬格，1993)。在 80 年代，作為一個群體，“傳統(tǒng)”的國家，比如：美國、歐盟發(fā)起的反傾銷數(shù)量占到所有反傾銷國家總數(shù)的 95%以上。 </p><p>　　在 20 世紀 90 年代，反傾銷保護的需求繼續(xù)增長。在過去的十年中，全球大概有近 2200 個反傾銷的判例，在 80 年代，歸檔率大于25%左右。雖然總體的數(shù)量有所增加，但最明顯的趨

36、勢是所使用的反 傾銷法律的變化。一旦開始實施反傾銷，所有國家的發(fā)展和工業(yè)化都將會受到影響，并且會導(dǎo)致越來越多的國家加入到反傾銷的行列中，而這直接推動了反傾銷的持續(xù)增長。 </p><p>　　在 1987 - 1997 年期間，有 29 個國家發(fā)起了反傾銷投訴，大約比十年之前的 3 倍還多。在過去的十年里，已經(jīng)有 5 倍的反傾銷新用戶申請的增加。更令人印象深刻的是，與 1980 年代相比，增加了 50 倍。 &l

37、t;/p><p>　　申請反傾銷保護的新的國家，不僅他們自身的申請比以往要多，他們占所有國家投訴總量的比例也正在不斷增加。1987 – 1992 年，新用戶申請反傾銷保護的數(shù)量每年約有 20%。相比之下，最后的五年里，新用戶投訴的總量占所有投訴總量的一半以上。與 80 年代相比，這一增長趨勢是更引人注目的。 </p><p>　　反傾銷這么迅速地就進行了一次立法，這也是很引人注目的，例如，墨西

38、哥于 1987 年就簽署了一份關(guān)貿(mào)總協(xié)定，在這三年內(nèi)，其他國家的申請超過 30 例。阿根廷就申請了第一個反傾銷申請，1991 年以來平均每年都有近 20 例的反傾銷申請。同樣，南非的申請已超過20 例每年。類似的申請國家，還有印度、印度尼西亞、土耳其、馬來西亞、秘魯、哥倫比亞、哥斯達黎加、以色列和委內(nèi)瑞拉等。實證研究的結(jié)果是壓倒性的，即反傾銷并不是一個被遺忘不用的法令，一直以來，各國家對反傾銷的申請從未停止過。 </p>

39、<p>　　反傾銷法令的廣泛應(yīng)用對某些國家造成了很大的影響。我詳細地分析了目標國家的反傾銷法令。可以發(fā)現(xiàn)幾個有趣的結(jié)果。首先，請注意，在整個調(diào)查期間，有近 99 個國家都是用了反傾銷法令，是 80 年代的兩倍。顯然，反傾銷的擴散已到達相當大的程度。 </p><p>　　第二點要注意的是，在 80 年代幾乎所有的傾銷指控都是由少數(shù)國家發(fā)起的，針對的也是一些非常小的國家。特別是在 80 年代，三分之二反傾

40、銷調(diào)查都是有針對性施加于一些傳統(tǒng)用戶的(芬格，1993)。相比之下，在過去的十年里，這一數(shù)量只有大約三分之一。從這個意義上說，反傾銷的影響范圍已經(jīng)擴大了很多。 </p><p>　　然而，從另一個意義上說，在 80 年代，反傾銷調(diào)查的目標是一樣的。不過需要注意的是，在整個 80 年代，超過三分之二的反傾銷調(diào)查都涉及反傾銷法令的使用國。有趣的是，在 90 年代，幾乎相同的反傾銷案例百分比(1498/ 2196)的國

41、家為法令的使用國。換句話說，反傾銷仍是一個國家的貿(mào)易政策，很大程度上掌握在俱樂部的成員國手里，但是，現(xiàn)在最大的區(qū)別是，這個俱樂部的成員比以前大多了。 </p><p><b>　　3 反傾銷的影響 </b></p><p>　　提出反傾銷申請數(shù)量正不斷地增加。許多國家直到最近才開始實施反傾銷法規(guī)，這些新的使用反傾銷法令的國家，正越來越多地在申請反傾銷調(diào)查，數(shù)量越來越大

42、。這些案件對市場影響意味著什么?在最好的情況下，我可以估計到影響。不幸的是，沒有相關(guān)的數(shù)據(jù)可以參考。相反，我將使用反傾銷申請最多的美國的數(shù)據(jù)。 </p><p>　　對于選取美國作為研究案例，這有許多的原因。美國是一個很好的候選人，可以用來理解反傾銷保護的影響。首先，美國提出的反傾銷申請比其他任何國家都要多。因此，我們有一個很大的樣本數(shù)據(jù)來源。美國在 1980 年和 1994 年之間，提出的反傾銷申請多達 700

43、 例。 約占反傾銷總量的四分之一。其次，作為世界上最著名的反傾銷國家，美國的反傾銷法律已經(jīng)成為許多新采用反傾銷的國家，建立本國反傾銷法律的基礎(chǔ)。反傾銷關(guān)貿(mào)總協(xié)定規(guī)則相當廣泛，但大多數(shù)都是遵循的美國的程序。因此，盡管本文的數(shù)據(jù)來源于美國，不過，由于其他國家都效仿美國的反傾銷法令，因此，數(shù)據(jù)都比較近似，所以只要抓住美國這個典型案例就行了。第三，美國貿(mào)易數(shù)據(jù)本身的質(zhì)量很好。通過網(wǎng)絡(luò)可以查詢到美國在整個時期的進口統(tǒng)計數(shù)據(jù)。</p>