Determinants of Temporary Trade Barriers in Global Forest Products Industry
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methodology
2.1. Empirical Models
2.2. Estimation Techniques
2.3. Data and Variables
3. Results
3.1. Summary Statistics and Model Selection
3.2. Determinants of Global and Developing Countries Scenario
3.3. Determinants of the Paper and Non-Paper Products Scenario
4. Discussion and Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Alexander, E.R. NAFTA, globalization and free trade: Can the US maintain leadership in the world economy? Bridgew. Rev. 2018, 37, 11–15. [Google Scholar]
- Buongiorno, J.; Johnston, C. Potential effects of US protectionism and trade wars on the global forest sector. For. Sci. 2018, 64, 121–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Johnson, R.C.; Noguera, G. A portrait of trade in value-added over four decades. Rev. Econ. Stat. 2017, 99, 896–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.; Haviarova, E.; Zhou, M. A welfare analysis of China’s tariffs on US hardwood products. For. Policy Econ. 2020, 113, 102085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aggarwal, A. Macro economic determinants of antidumping: A comparative analysis of developed and developing countries. World Dev. 2004, 32, 1043–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunkel, A. Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations. Foreign Trade Rev. 1987, 21, 369–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Finger, J.M.; Nogués, J.J. The unbalanced uruguay round outcome: The new areas in future WTO negotiations. World Econ. 2002, 25, 321–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ingco, M.D. Agricultural liberalization and the uruguay round. Financ. Dev. 1995, 32, 43–67. [Google Scholar]
- Bown, C.P. Taking stock of antidumping, safeguards and countervailing duties, 1990–2009. World Econ. 2011, 34, 1955–1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bown, C.P. The WTO and antidumping in developing countries. Econ. Politics 2008, 20, 255–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, L.-Y.; Huang, G. Tariff reduction and environment: Evidence from cafta and chinese manufacturing firms. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wilson, B. Compliance by WTO members with adverse WTO dispute settlement rulings: The record to date. J. Int. Econ. Law 2007, 10, 397–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bown, C.P. Temporary Trade Barriers Database Including the Global Antidumping Database. 2016. Available online: https://datacatalog.worldbank.org (accessed on 23 March 2020).
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Global Forest Resources Assessment; Main Report, FAO Forest Paper; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Buongiorno, J.; Johnston, C.; Zhu, S. An assessment of gains and losses from international trade in the forest sector. For. Policy Econ. 2017, 80, 209–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Johnston, C.M.; Buongiorno, J. Impact of brexit on the forest products industry of the united kingdom and the rest of the world. For. Int. J. For. Res. 2017, 90, 47–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kajima, S.; Uchiyama, Y.; Kohsaka, R. Intellectual property strategies for timber and forest products: The case of regional collective trademark applications by japanese forestry associations. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, X.; Sun, C. Effects of anti-dumping and countervailing duties on the market value of US petition firms in forest products markets. For. Econ. Manag. Policy All Flavors 2018, 41–55. [Google Scholar]
- Mei, B.; Sun, C. Event analysis of the impact of mergers and acquisitions on the financial performance of the U.S. Forest products industry. For. Policy Econ. 2008, 10, 286–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- U.S. Census Bureau. Quarterly Financial Report for Manufacturing, Mining, and Trade, and Selected Service Industries; U.S. Census Bureau: Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
- Chandrasekharan, C.; Schmincke, K.H. Terminology, Definition and Classification of Forest Products Other Than Wood; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Karjalainen, T.; Zimmer, B.; Berg, S.; Welling, J.; Schwaiger, H.; Finér, L.; Cortijo, P. Energy, carbon and other material flows in the life cycle assessment of forestry and forest products. J. Eur. For. Inst. Discuss. Pap. 2001, 10, 1–67. [Google Scholar]
- Lun, F.; Li, W.; Liu, Y. Complete forest carbon cycle and budget in China, 1999–2008. For. Ecol. Manag. 2012, 264, 81–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, H.; Zhang, X.; Hong, Y. Classification, production, and carbon stock of harvested wood products in China from 1961 to 2012. BioResources 2014, 9, 4311–4322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zavatta, R. The pulp and paper industry. In Progress in Intercalation Research; Springer: Dordrecht, Germany, 1993; pp. 91–119. [Google Scholar]
- Hetemäki, L.; Hurmekoski, E. Forest products markets under change: Review and research implications. Curr. For. Rep. 2016, 2, 177–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anders, S.M.; Caswell, J.A. Standards as barriers versus standards as catalysts: Assessing the impact of haccp implementation on U.S. Seafood imports. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2009, 91, 310–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Besedes, T.; Prusa, T.J. The hazardous effects of antidumping. Econ. Inq. 2017, 55, 9–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.-W.; Swagel, P. Trade barriers and trade flows across countries and industries. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1997, 79, 372–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krupp, C. Antidumping cases in the US chemical industry: A panel data approach. J. Ind. Econ. 1994, 42, 299–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Egger, P.; Nelson, D. How bad is antidumping? Evidence from panel data. Rev. Econ. Stat. 2011, 93, 1374–1390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sudsawasd, S. Tariff liberalization and the rise of anti-dumping use: Empirical evidence from across world regions. Int. Trade J. 2012, 26, 4–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bagayev, I.; Davies, R.B.; Hatzipanayotou, P.; Konstantinou, P.; Rau, M. Non-taRiff Barriers, Enforcement, and Revenues: The Use of Anti-Dumping as a Revenue Generating Trade Policy; School of Economics, University College Dublin: Dublin, Ireland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- World Bank. World Development Indicators Database; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Greene, W. Econometric Analysis; Prentice Hall, Pearson: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Heckman, J.J. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 1979, 47, 153–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, C.; Mingie, J.C.; Petrolia, D.R.; Jones, W.D. Economic impacts of nonresidential wildlife watching in the United States. For. Sci. 2015, 61, 46–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, X.; Sun, C.; Munn, I.A.; Hussain, A. Knowledge of three regeneration programs and application behavior among Mississippi nonindustrial private forest landowners: A two-step sample selection approach. J. For. Econ. 2009, 15, 187–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blonigen, B.A.; Bown, C.P. Antidumping and retaliation threats. J. Int. Econ. 2003, 60, 249–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Helpman, E.; Melitz, M.; Rubinstein, Y. Estimating trade flows: Trading partners and trading volumes. Q. J. Econ. 2008, 123, 441–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nakgyoon, C. Did anti-dumping duties really restrict import?: Empirical evidence from the US, the eu, China, and India. East Asian Econ. Rev. 2017, 21, 3–27. [Google Scholar]
- Bougette, P.; Charlier, C. Antidumping and Feed-in Tariffs as good Buddies? Modeling the EU-China Solar Panel Dispute. Energy J. 2018, 39, 171–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feinberg, R.M.; Reynolds, K.M. Friendly fire? The impact of US antidumping enforcement on US exporters. Rev. World Econ. 2008, 144, 366–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schuler, D.A.; Rehbein, K.; Cramer, R.; Boddewyn, J.; Hillman, A.J. Pursuing strategic advantage through political means: A multivariate approach. Acad. Manag. J. 2002, 45, 659–672. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, X.; Sun, C. The financial performance of public furniture firms with different positions in antidumping actions. For. Sci. 2018, 64, 491–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable | Description | Expected Value |
---|---|---|
Dependent variables | ||
Z | Dummy = 1 if imposed trade barriers; 0 otherwise | - |
Y | Number of trade barriers that countries implement | - |
Independent variables | ||
ForestArea | Forest area (thousand sq. km) | >0 |
ForestCov | Percentage of forest area in total land area (%) | >0 |
Employment | Employment in agriculture (% of total employment) | >0 |
Export | Exports of goods and services (% of GDP) | >0 |
Import | Imports of goods and services (% of GDP) | <0 |
Tariff | Tariff rate, most favored nation, manufactured products (%) | 0 |
FDI | Foreign direct investment, net inflows (% of GDP) | <0 |
GdpCur | GDP per capita (thousand US dollar) | >0 |
Expend | Expenditure on tertiary education | >0 |
Inflation | Inflation, consumer prices (annual %) | <0 |
Income | Income share held by highest 20% | <0 |
Variable | Minimum | Mean | Maximum | SD |
---|---|---|---|---|
Dependent variables | ||||
Z | 0 | 0.31 | 1 | - |
Y | 1 | 14.52 | 52 | 13.42 |
Independent variables | ||||
ForestArea | 0.00 | 369.48 | 7744.59 | 1095.98 |
ForestCov | 0.01 | 29.21 | 84.39 | 21.30 |
Employment | 0.09 | 12.01 | 56.74 | 11.67 |
Export | 3.27 | 34.85 | 97.18 | 17.14 |
Import | 4.87 | 38.94 | 82.65 | 16.78 |
Tariff | 0.57 | 6.10 | 15.51 | 3.44 |
FDI | 0.19 | 3.61 | 17.50 | 2.87 |
GdpCur | 0.28 | 9.11 | 65.70 | 13.43 |
Expend | 0 | 15.06 | 35.80 | 10.58 |
Inflation | 0.11 | 22.52 | 1225.33 | 131.65 |
Income | 0 | 14.92 | 51.45 | 15.38 |
All Variables | Global Countries | Developing Countries | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Coef. | t Value | ME | Coef. | t Value | ME | |
Selection step | ||||||
Constant | 0.021 | 0.039 | −0.015 | −0.023 | ||
ForestArea | 0.001 | 1.058 | 0.000 | −0.000 | −0.031 | −0.000 |
Import | −0.071 ** | −2.104 | −0.332 ** | −0.085 ** | −2.180 | −0.396 ** |
Export | 0.037 | 1.498 | 0.172 | 0.054 ** | 1.962 | 0.251 ** |
GdpCur | 0.016 | 1.333 | 0.073 | −0.014 | −0.598 | −0.191 |
Employment | 0.046 ** | 2.300 | 0.217 ** | 0.050 ** | 2.163 | 0.232 ** |
Outcome step | ||||||
Constant | 1.513 | 1.185 | 2.267 | 1.016 | ||
ForestCov | −0.018 *** | −2.833 | −0.137 *** | −0.018 * | −1.836 | −0.104 * |
Inflation | −0.040 *** | −3.444 | −0.296 *** | −0.045 *** | −3.343 | −0.258 *** |
Import | −0.082 * | −1.723 | −0.613 * | −0.113 | −1.556 | −0.655 |
Export | 0.079 * | 1.894 | 0.594 * | 0.103 | 1.569 | 0.593 |
Industry | 0.031 | 1.107 | 0.232 | 0.021 | 0.419 | 0.119 |
GdpCur | 0.040 ** | 2.245 | 0.298 ** | 0.034 | 0.590 | 0.191 |
Tariff | 0.068 | 1.405 | 0.512 | 0.051 | 0.907 | 0.293 |
Model statistics | ||||||
LogL | −138.691 | −107.105 | ||||
0.200 ** | 0.200 ** | |||||
0.112 * | 0.087 * | |||||
0.869 | 0.857 |
All Variables | Paper Products | Non-Paper Products | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Coef. | z Value | ME | Coef. | z Value | ME | |
Constant | −2.312 ** | −1.988 | −1.155 | −1.059 | ||
ForestArea | 0.000 ** | 1.946 | 0.000 ** | 0.001 * | 1.887 | 0.000 ** |
Inflation | −0.001 | −0.204 | −0.000 | −0.000 | −0.023 | −0.000 |
Import | −0.092 ** | −2.322 | −0.017 *** | −0.033 | −1.056 | −0.006 |
Export | 0.068 ** | 2.125 | 0.012 ** | 0.012 | 0.446 | 0.002 |
GdpCur | 0.030 * | 1.753 | 0.005 * | 0.013 | 0.651 | 0.002 |
Tariff | 0.138 * | 1.822 | 0.025 ** | −0.003 | −0.042 | −0.000 |
Expend | 0.059 *** | 2.544 | 0.011 *** | 0.026 | 1.194 | 0.005 |
Income | −0.016 | −0.974 | −0.003 | −0.000 | −0.006 | −0.000 |
FDI | −0.156 | −1.287 | −0.028 | −0.068 | −0.690 | −0.012 |
Employment | 0.089 *** | 3.316 | 0.016 *** | 0.040 ** | 1.924 | 0.007 ** |
0.432 | 0.371 |
Firms | Asset | Equity | Revenue | Gross Profit |
---|---|---|---|---|
Paper | ||||
IP | 33,576.0 | 7362.0 | 23,306.0 | 7748.0 |
MHK | 13,099.1 | 7433.8 | 9983.6 | 2885.1 |
GLT | 1339.8 | 538.9 | 866.3 | 130.4 |
Non-paper | ||||
ETH | 530.4 | 383.7 | 766.8 | 416.0 |
HOFT | 350.1 | 229.5 | 620.6 | 134.8 |
BSET | 291.6 | 190.3 | 456.9 | 277.3 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zhang, X.; Sun, C.; Gordon, J.; Munn, I.A. Determinants of Temporary Trade Barriers in Global Forest Products Industry. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3839. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093839
Zhang X, Sun C, Gordon J, Munn IA. Determinants of Temporary Trade Barriers in Global Forest Products Industry. Sustainability. 2020; 12(9):3839. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093839
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhang, Xufang, Changyou Sun, Jason Gordon, and Ian A. Munn. 2020. "Determinants of Temporary Trade Barriers in Global Forest Products Industry" Sustainability 12, no. 9: 3839. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093839
APA StyleZhang, X., Sun, C., Gordon, J., & Munn, I. A. (2020). Determinants of Temporary Trade Barriers in Global Forest Products Industry. Sustainability, 12(9), 3839. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093839