东亚的反倾销问题外文翻译

2126 单词 中文 3573 字 外文翻译 East Asia s Anti-dumping Problem Material Source: Wiley Online Library Author:Thomas J.Prusa 1. INTRODUCTION The more things change, the more they stay the same. In the 1970s anti-dumping (AD) was the most common type of trade dispute, and East Asian countries were the leading targets of these investigations. The same was true in the 1980s. The same was also true in the 1990s. The same is still true today. For all the hue and cry about safeguards, Super 301, government-subsidized exports, etc., AD was, is, and for the indefinite future will continue to be, the undisputed king of protection. Several authors have documented the worlds growing AD problem (Miranda et al., 1998; Prusa, 2001; and Zanardi, 2004). Each study provides evidence of the growing use and proliferation of AD protection. Prusa (2005) perhaps offers the best evidence, pointing out that in terms of the quantity of trade litigation, AD has lapped the field several times over. Between 1995 and 2000, WTO members reported 61 safeguard investigations, 115 countervailing duty investigations, and 1,441 AD investigations! Said somewhat differently, over the past 25 years there have been more disputes under the AD agreement than under all the other GATT/WTO trade statutes put together. While there is considerable disagreement whether AD levels or tilts the playing field, there can be little doubt that East Asian countries have been, and will likely continue to be, the leading targets of AD actions. Simply put, AD is a serious problem for East Asia; by almost any measure East Asian countries are subject to a disproportionate share of AD actions. The extent of the disparity has not been recognized in any previous studies. The goal of this paper is to eliminate this gap in the literature. For this paper, I review AD disputes over the past 25 years and find that East Asian economies Japan, Indonesia, South Korea, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, China-Taiwan and China-PRC are not only subject to an extraordinarily large number of AD actions but also account for most of the worldwide growth in AD actions. I will show that the growth of AD has largely come at the expense of East Asian countries. Another detail that this paper uncovers is that East Asian countries have largely shunned the use of AD. This is also depicted in Figure 1 where I calculate the fraction of AD cases filed by East Asian countries. As seen, East Asian countries generally account for less than five per cent of AD filings worldwide. As I will discuss, such restraint is highly unusual. It appears that East Asian countries are outliers on both perspectives they are subject to a remarkably large number of AD actions but file remarkably few AD actions. My hope is that this paper will give readers a better understanding of the patterns of AD by and against East Asian countries over the past 25 years. Whether measured by number of cases or by cases per dollar of trade, East Asian countries look significantly different from other large economies. To a large extent, the trends and patterns are so sharp that simple tables do a good job delivering the message. But, to confirm that other factors are not behind the patterns I also use more formal statistical methods to confirm the findings. For instance, after controlling for factors that might influence filings such as the exchange rate and trade volume, I find that East Asian countries are subject to about twice as many cases as either North American or Western European countries. Moreover, I find the trend in filings against East Asian countries is increasing, by which I mean that in recent years the propensity for countries to direct their AD filings against East Asian countries is growing. One concern is that the growing intensity of AD use against East Asia is driven by China-PRC. Importantly, I find a rising propensity even if I exclude China-PRC. Looking from the other side of the dispute, I also find that North American countries file more than six times as many cases as do East Asian countries, holding other factors constant. On either side of the AD process, East Asian countries are outliers. 2. A LOOK AT THE DATA a. Background In order to get a handle on the worldwide use of AD, I reviewed reports submitted to the WTO by member countries. By agreement, since 1980 all WTO members have been required to make semi-annual reports on their use of trade remedies, including AD activity. Using these reports a database of all AD actions filed by WTO members between 1980 and June 2002 was compiled; overall about 4,600 AD actions have been reported to the WTO. AD actions initiated by non-WTO members are not in my database.1 The WTO reports include only basic case information, such as the filing (reporting) country, the affected country, the name of the product being investigated and the date the case was filed. For some cases I also know whether a duty was imposed, but the size of duty is almost never reported. Also, one cannot use the WTO AD reports to track the trade impact because product (tariff) codes are not reported. Before looking at the patterns in AD use, a couple of comments on the database are in order. To begin with, the country- and product-specificity of AD investigations affects the accounting. AD cases are reported by product against a particular named country. For instance, occasionally an investigation involving a single product will be broken into multiple products and consequently reported as multiple cases. More common, an investigation will name multiple foreign countries, and hence be recorded as multiple cases. Both characteristics increase the number of AD filings as domestic industries seek to widen the scope of protection. More complicated accounting issues involve EU countries and former USSR republics. First, under EU rules AD cases are not filed by individual countries but on behalf of the entire EU. By contrast, AD cases filed against EU countries name individual countries.3 For instance, a US AD action against steel beams from France and Germany would be reported as two separate cases. In order to keep the accounting consistent, I have merged cases involving the same product filed at the same time against individual EU countries into a single EU case and have classified the affected country as the EU. This adjustment results in about 300 fewer cases. As a result, the numbers I report in this paper will differ from statistics reported elsewhere (Miranda et al., 1998; Prusa, 2001; and Zanardi, 2004). Nevertheless, I feel that combining cases against EU countries allows one a more consistent balance sheet of worldwide AD activity. b. AD Filing Patterns In Table 1, I report the number of AD cases filed since 1980, including subtotals for five-year intervals. As mentioned above, I aggregate the individual country filings to a regional basis in these summary tables. TABLE 1 Number of AD Cases Filed by Each Region Reporting 19806.2 19808 19858 199094 199599 20006. Region 002 4 9 02 North America 1,236 276 306 308 171 175 Pacific/Oceania 832 228 172 267 114 51 Western Europe 789 154 138 212 199 86 South America 742 0 36 279 264 163 South Asia 275 0 0 15 120 140 East Asia 186 0 6 32 103 45 East and Southern Africa 148 0 0 14 110 24 North Africa 28 0 0 0 20 8 Central America and Caribbean 24 0 0 0 19 5 Middle East 24 0 0 3 16 5 Eastern Europe 17 0 0 2 11 4 West Africa 0 0 0 0 0 0 Central Asia 0 0 0 0 0 0 Since 1980, North American countries have filed more AD cases than any other region. About 85 per cent of North American cases have been filed by the United States and Canada. Pacific/Oceania is the second heaviest AD-using region. This is almost entirely due to Australia. Western Europes total of 789 cases (which are primarily EU filings) makes it the third heaviest AD user. In other words, over the long run AD use has been dominated by the four traditional AD users: United States, Canada, Australia and the EU. When one looks at the filings for the individual sub-periods, however, an important dynamic pattern emerges. In particular, looking across the columns one can see the adoption of AD protection by more and more countries around the world. Early on (198084) all AD filing activity was confined to three regions, North America, Pacific/Oceania and Western Europe. Furthermore, the four traditional users account for 99 per cent of these filings. As pointed out by Finger (1993) for all intents and purposes, until the mid-1980s AD was an active policy instrument for only four users. Since that time AD use has progressively spread throughout the world. During the second half of the 1980s, for instance, South American and East Asian countries began to use AD. By the second half of the 1990s, AD was used by nearly all parts of the world. Today, only the poorest countries in Africa and Central Asia are not active AD users. What is more, the new users have not just dabbled with AD. As discussed in Prusa (2001 and 2005) when countries begin to use AD, they typically do so in a big way. Today, many of the most aggressive AD users are new users. As a result, for the last decade the traditional users have accounted for less than 40 per cent of all AD actions (Prusa, 2005). The emergence of China-PRC is a major reason for the rising trend of AD use against East Asia. Since the 1980s AD actions against China-PRC have increased five-fold. If we exclude China-PRC from the East Asian totals, we find that between 1985 and 2002 AD actions against East Asian countries grew by 75 per cent. It appears that China-PRC is part of the explanation for the increase but not the whole story. The message is clear: East Asian countries have not only borne the brunt of AD protectionism but also the burden is increasing over time. 3. MODEL AND RESULTS Specification H, which measures the potential industry effect, clarifies this unexpected result. In this specification I allow the industry effect to vary by region. Thus, I measure a steel/industry effect for South America, an effect for South Asia, etc. Interestingly, I find that none of the industry dummies are statistically significant. This suggests that the propensity of East Asian countries to be named in AD cases is not driven by industry. If anything, the results indicate that once we control for bilateral trade there is a small propensity for steel and chemical industries to be named slightly less often than others. 4. CONCLUDING COMMENTS In this paper I have presented compelling evidence that East Asian countries are subject to far more AD investigations than any other region in the world. Whether I simply looked at the number of filings or controlled for exports, East Asia stands head and shoulders above all others. When I used statistical techniques to control for macroeconomic factors that might influence filing patterns, I found that East Asia was the only region to have a statistically significant affected intensity greater than North America. In addition, I found that unlike all other regions that have a negative time trend, the time trend for East Asia is positive. This means that over time more and more cases are aimed at East Asia, yet all other regions seem to be experiencing fewer cases. What these findings mean, of course, is open to debate. In this paper I present no evidence on the question whether the cases against East Asia are appropriate. AD proponents such as Prestowitz (1988) and Mastel (1998) would surely argue that such filing patterns simply indicate that East Asian countries have closed home markets. This is an attractive explanation as it explains both why East Asia is subject to so many AD actions and also why East Asia files so few actions: a closed home market makes it likely that firms will dump in their export markets (meaning the AD actions against East Asia are appropriate) and also make it impossible for foreign firms to compete in Asian home markets (which means that East Asian firms need not resort to AD). Yet, there is no evidence that the Prestowitz-Mastel view is valid. In fact, given the persuasive evidence presented by Lindsey (1999) and Lindsey and Ikenson (2002), it seems far more likely that closed home markets (if such an allegation were true) have absolutely nothing to do with the AD patterns documented. More plausibly, East Asias AD problem first and foremost has to do with how these countries have developed. East Asian countries export manufactured goods, and AD is primarily used against manufacturing. 译文 东亚的反倾销问题 资 料 来 源 : 威 利 网 上 图 书 馆 作 者 ： 托 马 斯 J 普 鲁 萨 1介绍 事情变化的越多，越保持不变。 20 世纪 70 年代，反倾销是贸易争端最常见的类型，而东亚国家是这些调查的主要目标。在 20 世纪 80 年代，同样的也是真实的。在 20 世纪 90 年代也是如此。今天同样也是如此。 所有对保护措施的叫嚣声，超级 301，政府补贴出口，等等，反倾销在过去、现在和不明确的未来将继续成为最无可争议的保护方式。一些作者记录下了世界上日益增长的反倾销问题 （米兰达等人， 1998；普鲁萨， 2001；以及 扎纳尔迪， 2004）。每个研究提供了越来越多的反倾销扩散和使用的证据。普鲁萨在 2005 年或许提供了最好证据，他指出贸易诉讼从数量上，反倾销有好几次重叠的领域。 1995 年到 2000 年，世贸组织成员报告了 61 例保障调查， 115 例反补贴调查，和 1441 例反倾销调查！说一些不一样的，过去的 25 年，在反倾销协定下比在所有其他的关贸总协定和世贸组织的贸易法规放在一起的情况下有 更多的纠纷。 虽然在反倾销的竞争环境是否公平上有相当大的分歧，但是毫无疑问，东亚国家已经并且可能继续 是反倾销行动的主要目标。简单地说，反倾销对东亚地区而言是一个严重的问题，几乎用任何标准来衡量，东亚国家都受到了不相称比例的反倾销行动。贫富悬殊的程度在以往的任何研究中尚未确认。本文的目的是在文献中消除这种差距。 在本文中，我回顾了过去 25 年的反倾销纠纷并发现东亚经济体 日本，印度尼西亚，韩国，马来西亚，菲律宾，新加坡，泰国，中国台湾和中华人民共和国 不仅受到格外大量的反倾销行动而且占了全球反倾销行动的最大增长。我将表明反倾销的增长主要是以东亚国家为代价。 另一个细节，本文揭示的是东亚国家已经基本上避开了反倾 销的使用。我计算的东亚国家反倾销案件的一部分是在图一中所示。正如所见，东亚国家一般占了不到百分之五的全球反倾销申请。正如我将要讨论的，这种抑制是极为罕见的。这看来东亚国家异常的两个角度 他们受到了显著的大量的反倾销行为，但是反倾销行为的文件非常少。 我的希望是本文能给读者一个对过去 25 年东亚国家反倾销模式的更好的了解。无论是衡量案件数或是每美元的贸易案件数，东亚国家与其他大型经济体的不同看起来值得注意。在很大程度上，模式和趋势非常清晰，简单的表格传递信息可以做的很好。但是，确认其他因素的背后模式我也可以使用 更多的正规统计方法来确认调查结果。例如，在对可能的影响因素，如汇率和贸易额的控制，我发现，东亚国家受到比北美或西欧国家两倍多的案件。此外，我发现东亚国家的申请趋势在增加，我指的是最近几年各国倾向于直接对东亚国家反倾销申请不断增长。一个值得关注的是反倾销对中国的使用强度不断增长。重要的是，我发现即使排除中国也是一个上升的趋势。从纠纷的另一方面来看，我还发现在其他因素保持不变的情况下，北美国家的文件时东亚国家的六倍之多。反倾销的每边过程，东亚国家是异常的。 2 看数据 a 背景 为了了解世界范围内使用反倾销的情 况，我回顾了世贸组织会员国提交的报告。通过协议，自 1980 年以来，所有世贸组织成员被要求提交在贸易中使用的半年度报告补救方法，包括反倾销活动。使用世贸组织成员提交的 1980 年到2002 年所有反倾销活动数据库编制的报告，超过 4600 例 反倾销行动已经被报告给世贸组织。非世贸组织成员发起的反倾销活动都在我的数据库。世贸组织报告之包括基本事件信息，如申请的国家，受影响的国家，被调查产品的名称和日期的备案。对于某些事件我也知道责任是否被强加，但是责任的大小却从 来没有报道。此外，任何人都不能利用世贸 组织 的反倾销报告来追 踪贸易的影响，因为产品代码没有被报道。 在反倾销使用前的模式来看，对一对数据库发表评论符合程序。首先，反倾销调查的国家和产品的特征影响了会计。反倾销案件报告被国家特定命名的产品。例如，偶尔调查涉及单一的产品会被分解多个产品，因此成为多个案件。更常见的，调查会命名多个国家，因此被记录为多个案件。两个特征增长了反倾销申请的数量为国内产业寻找更广的保护范围。 更复杂的会计问题包括欧盟国家和前苏联共和国。首先，在欧盟法规下个体国家不申请反倾销案件，但是代表了整个欧盟的利益。相比之下，反倾销案件申请不利欧盟个体命名的 国家。例如，美国反倾销行为对与法国和德国的钢铁行业将以两个独立的案件来记录。为了保持会计统一，我有合并案例把包括在相同的时间以相同的产品对个别的欧盟国家申请成为单一的欧盟，已经归类为受欧盟影响的国家。这是在较少的情况下约 300 例调整的结果。因此，我在本文中记录的数字将不同于任何其他地区的统计报告（米兰达等人， 1998；普鲁萨， 2001；以及 扎纳尔迪， 2004）。然而，我觉得结合案例对欧盟国家允许一个更一致的全球范围内的反倾销活动的资产负债表。 b反倾销 申请模式 在表 1 中，我在 1980 年以来报告的反倾销案件的数量包括每五年汇总。如上所述，我合计了个别国家并在在这些地区基础上编制了汇总表。 表 1 各地区提出反倾销案例的数量 报告地区 19806.2002 198084 198589 199094 199599 20006.02 北美 1,236 276 306 308 171 175 太平洋 /大洋洲 832 228 172 267 114 51 西欧 789 154 138 212 199 86 南美 742 0 36 279 264 163 南亚 275 0 0 15 120 140 东亚 186 0 6 32 103 45 东非和南非 148 0 0 14 110 24 北非 28 0 0 0 20 8 中美洲和加勒比 24 0 0 0 19 5 中东