東亞的反傾銷問題外文翻譯

2126 單詞 中文 3573 字 外文翻譯 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. 譯文 東亞的反傾銷問題 資 料 來 源 : 威 利 網(wǎng) 上 圖 書 館 作 者 ： 托 馬 斯 J 普 魯 薩 1介紹 事情變化的越多，越保持不變。 20 世紀(jì) 70 年代，反傾銷是貿(mào)易爭端最常見的類型，而東亞國家是這些調(diào)查的主要目標(biāo)。在 20 世紀(jì) 80 年代，同樣的也是真實(shí)的。在 20 世紀(jì) 90 年代也是如此。今天同樣也是如此。 所有對保護(hù)措施的叫囂聲，超級(jí) 301，政府補(bǔ)貼出口，等等，反傾銷在過去、現(xiàn)在和不明確的未來將繼續(xù)成為最無可爭議的保護(hù)方式。一些作者記錄下了世界上日益增長的反傾銷問題 （米蘭達(dá)等人， 1998；普魯薩， 2001；以及 扎納爾迪， 2004）。每個(gè)研究提供了越來越多的反傾銷擴(kuò)散和使用的證據(jù)。普魯薩在 2005 年或許提供了最好證據(jù)，他指出貿(mào)易訴訟從數(shù)量上，反傾銷有好幾次重疊的領(lǐng)域。 1995 年到 2000 年，世貿(mào)組織成員報(bào)告了 61 例保障調(diào)查， 115 例反補(bǔ)貼調(diào)查，和 1441 例反傾銷調(diào)查！說一些不一樣的，過去的 25 年，在反傾銷協(xié)定下比在所有其他的關(guān)貿(mào)總協(xié)定和世貿(mào)組織的貿(mào)易法規(guī)放在一起的情況下有 更多的糾紛。 雖然在反傾銷的競爭環(huán)境是否公平上有相當(dāng)大的分歧，但是毫無疑問，東亞國家已經(jīng)并且可能繼續(xù) 是反傾銷行動(dòng)的主要目標(biāo)。簡單地說，反傾銷對東亞地區(qū)而言是一個(gè)嚴(yán)重的問題，幾乎用任何標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來衡量，東亞國家都受到了不相稱比例的反傾銷行動(dòng)。貧富懸殊的程度在以往的任何研究中尚未確認(rèn)。本文的目的是在文獻(xiàn)中消除這種差距。 在本文中，我回顧了過去 25 年的反傾銷糾紛并發(fā)現(xiàn)東亞經(jīng)濟(jì)體 日本，印度尼西亞，韓國，馬來西亞，菲律賓，新加坡，泰國，中國臺(tái)灣和中華人民共和國 不僅受到格外大量的反傾銷行動(dòng)而且占了全球反傾銷行動(dòng)的最大增長。我將表明反傾銷的增長主要是以東亞國家為代價(jià)。 另一個(gè)細(xì)節(jié)，本文揭示的是東亞國家已經(jīng)基本上避開了反傾 銷的使用。我計(jì)算的東亞國家反傾銷案件的一部分是在圖一中所示。正如所見，東亞國家一般占了不到百分之五的全球反傾銷申請。正如我將要討論的，這種抑制是極為罕見的。這看來東亞國家異常的兩個(gè)角度 他們受到了顯著的大量的反傾銷行為，但是反傾銷行為的文件非常少。 我的希望是本文能給讀者一個(gè)對過去 25 年東亞國家反傾銷模式的更好的了解。無論是衡量案件數(shù)或是每美元的貿(mào)易案件數(shù)，東亞國家與其他大型經(jīng)濟(jì)體的不同看起來值得注意。在很大程度上，模式和趨勢非常清晰，簡單的表格傳遞信息可以做的很好。但是，確認(rèn)其他因素的背后模式我也可以使用 更多的正規(guī)統(tǒng)計(jì)方法來確認(rèn)調(diào)查結(jié)果。例如，在對可能的影響因素，如匯率和貿(mào)易額的控制，我發(fā)現(xiàn)，東亞國家受到比北美或西歐國家兩倍多的案件。此外，我發(fā)現(xiàn)東亞國家的申請趨勢在增加，我指的是最近幾年各國傾向于直接對東亞國家反傾銷申請不斷增長。一個(gè)值得關(guān)注的是反傾銷對中國的使用強(qiáng)度不斷增長。重要的是，我發(fā)現(xiàn)即使排除中國也是一個(gè)上升的趨勢。從糾紛的另一方面來看，我還發(fā)現(xiàn)在其他因素保持不變的情況下，北美國家的文件時(shí)東亞國家的六倍之多。反傾銷的每邊過程，東亞國家是異常的。 2 看數(shù)據(jù) a 背景 為了了解世界范圍內(nèi)使用反傾銷的情 況，我回顧了世貿(mào)組織會(huì)員國提交的報(bào)告。通過協(xié)議，自 1980 年以來，所有世貿(mào)組織成員被要求提交在貿(mào)易中使用的半年度報(bào)告補(bǔ)救方法，包括反傾銷活動(dòng)。使用世貿(mào)組織成員提交的 1980 年到2002 年所有反傾銷活動(dòng)數(shù)據(jù)庫編制的報(bào)告，超過 4600 例 反傾銷行動(dòng)已經(jīng)被報(bào)告給世貿(mào)組織。非世貿(mào)組織成員發(fā)起的反傾銷活動(dòng)都在我的數(shù)據(jù)庫。世貿(mào)組織報(bào)告之包括基本事件信息，如申請的國家，受影響的國家，被調(diào)查產(chǎn)品的名稱和日期的備案。對于某些事件我也知道責(zé)任是否被強(qiáng)加，但是責(zé)任的大小卻從 來沒有報(bào)道。此外，任何人都不能利用世貿(mào) 組織 的反傾銷報(bào)告來追 蹤貿(mào)易的影響，因?yàn)楫a(chǎn)品代碼沒有被報(bào)道。 在反傾銷使用前的模式來看，對一對數(shù)據(jù)庫發(fā)表評(píng)論符合程序。首先，反傾銷調(diào)查的國家和產(chǎn)品的特征影響了會(huì)計(jì)。反傾銷案件報(bào)告被國家特定命名的產(chǎn)品。例如，偶爾調(diào)查涉及單一的產(chǎn)品會(huì)被分解多個(gè)產(chǎn)品，因此成為多個(gè)案件。更常見的，調(diào)查會(huì)命名多個(gè)國家，因此被記錄為多個(gè)案件。兩個(gè)特征增長了反傾銷申請的數(shù)量為國內(nèi)產(chǎn)業(yè)尋找更廣的保護(hù)范圍。 更復(fù)雜的會(huì)計(jì)問題包括歐盟國家和前蘇聯(lián)共和國。首先，在歐盟法規(guī)下個(gè)體國家不申請反傾銷案件，但是代表了整個(gè)歐盟的利益。相比之下，反傾銷案件申請不利歐盟個(gè)體命名的 國家。例如，美國反傾銷行為對與法國和德國的鋼鐵行業(yè)將以兩個(gè)獨(dú)立的案件來記錄。為了保持會(huì)計(jì)統(tǒng)一，我有合并案例把包括在相同的時(shí)間以相同的產(chǎn)品對個(gè)別的歐盟國家申請成為單一的歐盟，已經(jīng)歸類為受歐盟影響的國家。這是在較少的情況下約 300 例調(diào)整的結(jié)果。因此，我在本文中記錄的數(shù)字將不同于任何其他地區(qū)的統(tǒng)計(jì)報(bào)告（米蘭達(dá)等人， 1998；普魯薩， 2001；以及 扎納爾迪， 2004）。然而，我覺得結(jié)合案例對歐盟國家允許一個(gè)更一致的全球范圍內(nèi)的反傾銷活動(dòng)的資產(chǎn)負(fù)債表。 b反傾銷 申請模式 在表 1 中，我在 1980 年以來報(bào)告的反傾銷案件的數(shù)量包括每五年匯總。如上所述，我合計(jì)了個(gè)別國家并在在這些地區(qū)基礎(chǔ)上編制了匯總表。 表 1 各地區(qū)提出反傾銷案例的數(shù)量 報(bào)告地區(qū) 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 西歐 789 154 138 212 199 86 南美 742 0 36 279 264 163 南亞 275 0 0 15 120 140 東亞 186 0 6 32 103 45 東非和南非 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 中東