Abstract
This study analyzes the factors that affects the number of antidumping investigations in Turkey using production and import database of domestic industries. Negative Binomial Regression estimates in which the regressors are total employment, output and import growth of domestic industries show that the size of the domestic industry, a fall in output and an increase in the imports increase the number of filings. This findings points the importance of the financial and lobbying power of industries, the ability to compete internationally and the economic performance on antidumping practices.
References
- Aggarwal, A., (2004), “Patterns and Determinants of Anti-Dumping: A Worldwide Perspective”. World Development, 32(6), 1043-1057.
- Avsar V. (2013), ‘’Antidumping, Retaliation threats and Export Prices’’, World Bank Economic Review, 27(1), 133-148.
- Avsar. (2013), ‘’Trade effects of Turkey’s Antidumping Duties’’, Uludağ Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, baskıda.
- Belderbos, R. (1997), “Antidumping and Tariff Jumping: Japanese Firms DFI in the European Union and the United States.” Review of World Economics, 133 (3), 419
- Bown, C. P. (2008), The WTO and antidumping in developing countries. Economics & Politics, 20(2), 255-288. (Erişim: 23.07.2013).
- Bown, C. (2012), “Global Antidumping Database.” Washington, DC: http://econ.worldbank.org/ttbd/gad.
- Dişbudak, C. ve K. Türkcan (2005), Antidamping Uygulamalarının Ekonometrik Analizi: Türkiye Örneği. Iktisat Isletme ve Finans, 20(233), 149-164.
- Feinberg, R. ve K. Reynolds (2006), “The Spread of Antidumping Regimes and the Role of Retaliation in Filings.” Southern Economic Journal, 72 (4), 877-90.
- Ganguli, B. (2008), “The Trade Effects of Indian Antidumping Actions.” Review of International Economics 16(5), 930-94.
- Knetter, M.. ve T. J. Prusa, (2003), “Macroeconomic Factors and Antidumping Filings: Evidence from Four Countries”. Journal of International Economics, 61, 1
- Konings, J., ve H. Vandenbussche. (2005), "Antidumping protection and markups of domestic firms." Journal of International Economics, 65(1), 151-165.
- Lasagni, A. (2000), Does Country-Targeted Antidumping Policy by the EU Create Trade Diversion, Journal of World Trade 34(4), 137-159.
- Malhotra N., ve H. Rus. (2009), “The Effectiveness of the Canadian Antidumping Regime.” Canadian Public Policy 35(2), 187-202
- Prusa T. (2001), “On the Spread and Impact of Antidumping.” Canadian Journal of Economics 34 (3), 591-611.
- Staiger, R. ve F. Wolak. (1994), “Measuring Industry Specific Protection: Antidumping in the United States,” Microeconomics, 1994, 51-103.
Türkiye’nin Antidamping Soruşturmalarını Etkileyen Faktörler: Sanayi Verileri ile Ekonometrik Bir Analiz
Abstract
Bu çalışmada yerel sanayiye ait üretim ve ithalat verileri ile Türkiye’deki antidamping soruşturma sayısını etkileyen faktörler analiz edilmiştir. Yerel sanayinin toplam istihdamı, üretim miktarlarındaki ve ürettikleri ürünlerin ithalatındaki yüzdelik değişiklik açıklayıcı değişken olarak kullanılarak tahmin edilen Negatif Binomial Regresyon sonuçlarına göre yerel sanayilerin büyüklüğü, üretimlerindeki azalma ve iç piyasada ithalattan dolayı artan rekabetin soruşturma sayılarını arttırdığı bulunmuştur. Bu bulgular yerel sanayilerin mali gücü ve lobicilik yetisinin, ayrıca uluslarası rekabet edebilme gücü ve ekonomik performasının antidamping uygulamaları açısından önemini ortaya koymaktadır.
References
- Aggarwal, A., (2004), “Patterns and Determinants of Anti-Dumping: A Worldwide Perspective”. World Development, 32(6), 1043-1057.
- Avsar V. (2013), ‘’Antidumping, Retaliation threats and Export Prices’’, World Bank Economic Review, 27(1), 133-148.
- Avsar. (2013), ‘’Trade effects of Turkey’s Antidumping Duties’’, Uludağ Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, baskıda.
- Belderbos, R. (1997), “Antidumping and Tariff Jumping: Japanese Firms DFI in the European Union and the United States.” Review of World Economics, 133 (3), 419
- Bown, C. P. (2008), The WTO and antidumping in developing countries. Economics & Politics, 20(2), 255-288. (Erişim: 23.07.2013).
- Bown, C. (2012), “Global Antidumping Database.” Washington, DC: http://econ.worldbank.org/ttbd/gad.
- Dişbudak, C. ve K. Türkcan (2005), Antidamping Uygulamalarının Ekonometrik Analizi: Türkiye Örneği. Iktisat Isletme ve Finans, 20(233), 149-164.
- Feinberg, R. ve K. Reynolds (2006), “The Spread of Antidumping Regimes and the Role of Retaliation in Filings.” Southern Economic Journal, 72 (4), 877-90.
- Ganguli, B. (2008), “The Trade Effects of Indian Antidumping Actions.” Review of International Economics 16(5), 930-94.
- Knetter, M.. ve T. J. Prusa, (2003), “Macroeconomic Factors and Antidumping Filings: Evidence from Four Countries”. Journal of International Economics, 61, 1
- Konings, J., ve H. Vandenbussche. (2005), "Antidumping protection and markups of domestic firms." Journal of International Economics, 65(1), 151-165.
- Lasagni, A. (2000), Does Country-Targeted Antidumping Policy by the EU Create Trade Diversion, Journal of World Trade 34(4), 137-159.
- Malhotra N., ve H. Rus. (2009), “The Effectiveness of the Canadian Antidumping Regime.” Canadian Public Policy 35(2), 187-202
- Prusa T. (2001), “On the Spread and Impact of Antidumping.” Canadian Journal of Economics 34 (3), 591-611.
- Staiger, R. ve F. Wolak. (1994), “Measuring Industry Specific Protection: Antidumping in the United States,” Microeconomics, 1994, 51-103.
Details
| Primary Language | Turkish |
|---|---|
| Journal Section | Articles |
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | November 2, 2014 |
| Submission Date | November 2, 2014 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2014 Volume: 9 Issue: 1 |