反倾销措施的贸易救济效果评估.pdf

反倾销措施的贸易救济效果评估 鲍晓华 【专题名称】外贸经济、国际贸易 【专 题 号】F52 【复印期号】2007 年 06 期 【原文出处】《经济研究》(京)2007 年 2 期第 71～84 页 【英文标题】 Trade Remedy Effects of Anti-dumping Measures: Empirical Analysis Based on China Data 【作者简介】鲍晓华，上海财经大学国际工商管理学院，上海 200433。 【内容提要】本文利用 1997—2004 年中国反倾销案例 8 位数税则号的涉案产品数据，考 察了反倾销措施引起的指控对象国和非指控对象国的贸易模式的变化，在此 基础上提出了反倾销行为贸易救济效果的证据。检验结果表明，中国反倾销 措施对指控对象国的进口有明显的“贸易限制效应”；不仅征税案例，即使 是无损害结案的反倾销指控仍然对指控对象国的进口贸易有重要影响，即反 倾销具有“调查效应”；但是涉案产品可能在指控对象国和非指控对象国之 间转移，这种“贸易转移效应”部分削弱了反倾销措施的保护效果；总体上 看，反倾销仍然起到了救济本国产业的作用，因为无论是指控对象国还是非 对象国的进口价格都会上升，从而控制了中国涉案产品的进口总量。 Using a data set based on 8 digital tariff codes identified in China antidumping cases from 1997 to 2004, the paper examines the trade patterns of both countries named in the petition and those countries not subject to the investigation, and presents evidences on the trade remedy effect of AD actions. Empirical test shows that AD measures in China have significant trade destruction effects on the named countries-both in import volume and import value terms. Not only final affirmative decisions have such an impact, the initiation of an antidumping investigation also does, which is called a harassment effect. However there is substantial trade diversion from named to non-named countries, which offset some of the protective effects of AD actions. In general, AD measures still effectively protect import competing domestic industries, because it induces substantial import price increases both by named and non-named countries. 【关 键 词】反倾销/贸易救济/贸易转移效应/调查效应/贸易限制效应Anti- dumping/Trade Remedy/Trade Diversion Effects/Harassment Effects/Trade Destruction Effe