October 1, 1991
"American 'Dumping' Laws Gum Up the Game"
San Jose Mercury News
By Timothy Taylor
<< Back to 1991 menu
TRYING TO make a competition absolutely fair can be a good way to ruin it
altogether. Imagine a football game where every play would be reviewed from nine
possible camera angles, by referees who would halt play to call every penalty
In enforcing America's "fair trade" laws, something similar is happening.
Since the mid-1980s, the majority of the unfair trade petitions received by the
U.S. government have involved allegations of "dumping." Worldwide, about
80 percent of all unfair trade accusations are dumping complaints.
But do most anti-dumping accusations benefit competition? Or are they just
a convenient excuse for government to use "fairness" as a way to subsidize
domestic industries indirectly, by limiting foreign competition?
Silicon Valley has played a role in the trend toward more accusations of dumping,
with its decade of arguments over whether Japanese firms were dumping semiconductors
in the U.S. market, and the more recent claim that liquid crystal display panels
were being dumped.
The local cases have involved accusations of "cost dumping," when
a foreign competitor sells in the U.S. market at below its own average cost of
production. Other cases have alleged "price dumping," which is when
a foreign competitor sells in the U.S. market at below the price in the firm's
domestic market. In either case, the concern is that dumping is an unfair way
for a firm with greater financial resources to weaken or destroy its rivals.
The usual solution is for the government to "level the playing field"
by imposing duties on the imports. This offsets the effect of dumping on domestic
industry by raising the price for consumers.
Growing numbers of voices have started to argue that even if dumping laws seem
fair in the abstract, they have become economically destructive.
For example, the influential Economist magazine editorialized in June that
"anti-dumping actions should be outlawed." At about the same time, Robert
Reich wrote in the New Republic: "The anti-dumping law has no redeeming social
value, and should be dumped."
Similar views are surfacing in more specialized publications. The Review of
the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis has just published an article arguing that
anti-dumping laws "can be more accurately characterized as the bedrock for
protectionism rather than the bedrock for free trade."
In a recent book, a collection of essays on "Policy Implications on Anti-dumping
Measures," Brian Hindley of the London School of Economics writes: "Observations
by informed persons to the effect that anti-dumping policy 'has lost its moorings,'
and that current anti-dumping action 'has no economic basis' are now common."
These critics make several common points. They argue that true dumping is not
likely to happen often, because it is a very costly strategy for a firm to choose
to suffer losses over a long period of time in an attempt to drive out competitors.
Moreover, they emphasize that even if low prices of imported semiconductors
or panel displays hurt some manufacturers, they help businesses that use these
imported products to stay competitive in the world market. In the increasingly
global economy, more and more U.S. firms depend for their survival on guaranteed
access to the highest quality and lowest cost products from abroad.
However, government investigators of dumping claims are intensively lobbied
by one side: the domestic companies making the accusation of dumping. The law
offers several definitions of dumping, making it possible to choose whichever
one gives the desired protectionist result.
Accusations of cost dumping have a special bias. After all, most firms sometimes
sell at above their average cost and sometimes below it, depending on conditions
in the market and whether the product is new or established.
Between loose definitions and political pressure, almost every investigation
finds evidence of dumping. An accusation of dumping thus results either in negotiated
protectionism, as the foreign company tries to cut a deal, or government-imposed
protectionism, when the U.S. government imposes import duties on the product.
Anti-dumping laws can also produce peculiar results. Last week, the Commerce
Department limited the ability of foreign companies to file anti-dumping petitions
on behalf of their subsidiaries in the United States. The key question: Is the
U.S.-based firm truly a domestic producer? In an increasingly global economy,
it is sometimes difficult to tell, but the Commerce ruling makes the threshold
of proof very high.
Another news report last week told the story of how some Japanese firms may
not make their top technology immediately available to American firms, clearly
implying that this is a bad thing.
But because of anti-dumping duties imposed by the U.S. government, Toshiba
and other Japanese manufacturers are planning to move production of some sophisticated
lap-top computers from Southern California back to Japan. The world's leading
maker of liquid crystal display screens for lap-tops, the Japanese firm Hosiden
Corp., said last month that it will no longer bother trying to export the screens
to the United States, making them harder for U.S. firms to acquire.
Apparently, it is bad for Japan not to export leading technology that U.S.
firms can't make at the same price, because it injures U.S. firms. And it is also
bad for Japan to ship leading technology that U.S. firms can't make at the same
price, because that is dumping, which injures U.S. firms.
In general, the U.S. economy is best-served by encouraging competition in an
environment of rough-and-tumble free trade, rather than using "fairness"
as an excuse to reduce competition from abroad. If dumping laws can't be administered
without a bias toward protectionism, then it may be time to unload them.
<< Back to 1991 menu