日本貿易救濟制度對其產業保護效果之研究

The Protective Effect for the Industry in Japan's Trade Remedies System

10.29963/TOJEB.200906.0003

黃智輝(Chi-Huei Huang)；中川幸平(Kohei Nakagawa)

反傾銷 ； 世界貿易組織 ； 日本反傾銷制度 ； 貿易保護 ； SPSS模型 ； Anti-dumping ； World Trade Organization ； Japanese anti-dumping system ； Trade protection ； SPSS model

真理財經學報

20期（2009 / 06 / 01）

51 - 80

繁體中文

於1995年世界貿易組織(WTO)成立後，在世界貿易組織的規範之下，各會員國減少使用關稅、配額等常見之傳統貿易障礙手段，但唯有反傾銷制度之實施卻保持有增無減之趨勢，以致突顯出反傾銷措施在國際貿易之進出口上成爲重要角色之一，而其措施對雙邊貿易國之影響更值得深入探討。 本研究以日本反傾銷案件爲基礎，探討反傾銷案件的調查結果對控訴圈、涉案國及非涉案國之間在貿易效果上之影響及反傾銷制度對控訴國國內產業之保護效果，進而對台灣政府、日本政府及相關廠商（產業）提出相關建議。 本研究採用「SPSS」統計分析系統來進行各項數據驗證，首先以皮爾森(Pearson)分析進行變數間之相關性分析，檢驗相關變數間是否存在顯著性。其次以多變量變異數分析(MANOVA)，探討不同皮傾銷案件結果對於涉案國之出口價值和數量變動是否有影響。最後是迴歸分析(Regression Analysis)，透過線性迴歸分析法對應變數與自變數之間，確認彼此間之關係程度，以驗證反傾銷相關變數，分別與涉案國之出口價值和數量及非涉案國之出口價值和數量之間是否存在關係及其關係程度。研究結果發現，若皮傾銷案件之判決結果爲肯定判決，則涉案國之出口價值和數量將會顯著下降且反傾銷稅課徵稅率越高，涉案圍之出口價值和數量下降越多。

Member countries have reduced their use of tariff and quotas as trade barrier since the establishment of World Trade Organization (WTO). However, the use of anti-dumping (AD) measure has become more popular among these countries. It shows that AD plays more important role in international trading activities. Hence, conduct to discuss the AD influence on trade. However, named products o f AD cases were defined specifically. In the meantime, there is rare study on the influence of named countries' styles on trading effect of AD system, so this study tries to analyze these AD cases which named countries are developed or developing countries separately to make up the gap of current 1iteratures. This study use SPSS statistical ana1ysis system which use multi-regression and ANOVA to analyze ten anti-dumping cases. We construct the field data in Japan during 1992-2009 to find out the trading effects of AD. The empirical result of this study shows the exporting va1ue (quantity) of named countries would fall significantly when the final judgment of AD case is affirmative. In addition, the exporting value (quantity) of named countries would fall more when AD duty is higher.

1. 黃智輝(2008)。銅版紙課徵反傾銷稅經濟效果與國家整體利益分析。台灣經濟預測與政策，39(1)，69-96。
   連結：
2. Belderbos, R. A.,Leo, S.(1998).Tariff Jumping FDI and Export Substitution Japanese Electronics Firms in Europe.International Journal of Industrial Organization,16,601-638.
3. Boltuck, R. D.(1987).An Economic Analysis of Dumping.Journal of World Trade Law,21,45-54.
4. Bown, C. P.,Crowley, M. A.(2007).Trade Deflection and Trade Depression.Journal of International Economics,72,176-201.
5. Devault, J. M.(1996).The Welfare Effects of US Antidumping Duties.Open Economies Review,7,19-33.
6. Devault, J. M.(1993).Economics and the International Trade Commission.Southern Economic Journal,60,463-478.
7. Durling, J. P.,Prusa, T. J.(2006).The Trade Effects Associated with an Antidumping Epidemic: The Hot-rolled Steel Market, 1996-2001.European Journal of Political Economy,22,675-695.
8. Feenstra, Robert C.(ed.)(1997).The Effects of US Trade Protection and Promotion Policies.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
9. Feinberg, R. M.(1989).Exchange Rates and Unfair Trade.Review of Economics and Statistics,71,704-707.
10. Finger, J. M.(1981).The Industry-Country Incidence of Less than Fair Value Cases in US Import Trade.Quarterly Review of Economics and Business,21,260-279.
11. Fischer, R. D.(1992).Endogenous Probability of Protection and Firm Behavior.Journal of International Economics,32,149-163.
12. Gallaway, M. P.,Bruce, A. B.,Joseph, E. F.(1999).Welfare Cost of US Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws.Journal of International Economic,49,211-244.
13. Haaland, J. I,Wooton, I.(1998).Anti-dumping Jumping: Reciprocal Anti-dumping and Industrial Location.Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv,134,340-362.
14. Hughes, J. S.,Lenway, S.,Rayburn, J.(1997).Stock Price Effects of US Trade Policy Responses to Japanese Trading Practices in Semi-conductors.Canadian Journal of Economics,30,922-942.
15. Kelly K. H.,Morkre, M. E.(1998).Do Unfairly Traded Imports Injure Domestic Industries.Review of International Economic,6,321-332.
16. Krupp, C. M.,Pollard, P. S.(1996).Market Responses to Antidumping Laws: Some Evidence from the US Chemical Industry.Canadian Journal of Economics,29,199-227.
17. Krupp, C. M.,Skeath, S.(2002).Evidence on the Upstream and Downstream Impacts of Antidumping Cases.North American Journal of Economics and Finance,78,1-16.
18. Kutner, M. H.,Nachtsheim, C. J.,Neter, J.(2004).Applied Linear RegressionModels.New York:McGraw-Hill Irwin.
19. Leidy, M. P.,Hoekman, B. M.(1990).Production Effects of Price-and Cost-based Antidumping Laws Under Flexible Exchange Rates Canadian.Journal of Economics,23,873-895.
20. Mahdavi, M.,Bhagwati, A.(1994).Stock Market Data and Trade Policy: Dumping and the Semiconductor Industry.International Trade Journal,8,207-221.
21. Messerlin, P. A.,Reed, G.(1995).Antidumping Policies in the United States and the European Community.Economic Journal,105,1565-1575.
22. Moore, M. O.(1992).Rules or Politics? An Empirical Analysis of ITC Anti-dumping Decisions.Economics Inquiry,30,449-466.
23. Nieberding, J. F.(1999).The Effect of U.S. Antidumping Law on Firms' Market Power: An Empirical Test.Review of Industrial Organization,14,65-84.
24. Prusa, T. J.(2001).On the Spread and Impact of Anti-dumping.Canadian Journal of Economics,34,591-611.
25. Reitzes, J. D.(1993).Antidumping Policy.International Economics Review,34,745-763.
26. Staiger, R. W.,Wolak, F. A.(1994).Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Microeconomics 1994.Brookings Institution Press.
27. Steele, K.(1996).Antidumping Under the WTO: A Comparative Review.London:Kluwer.
28. Tharakan, P. K.,Greenaway, M. D.,Tharakan, J.(1998).Cumulation and Injury Determination of the European Community in Antidumping Cases.Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv,134,320-339.
29. Tharakan, P.K.M.(ed.)(1991).Policy Implications of Antidumping Measures.Amsterdam:North Holland.
30. US International Trade Commission(1995).The Economy-Wide Effects of Outstanding Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders.The Economic Effects of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders and Suspension Agreements,Washington, DC:
31. Vandenbussche, H.,Koning, J.,Springael, L.(2002).Import Diversion under European Antidumping Policy.Journal of Industry,1,283-299.
32. 左峻德、楊秀玲(1999)。課徵反傾銷稅對產業影響之研究。貿易調查專刊，4，87-126。
33. 李淑媛(2006)。博士論文(博士論文)。國立台灣大學農業經濟研究所。
34. 沈筱玲(1999)。反傾銷措施裁定效應之分析—以本土個案為例。台北:天一圖書公司。
35. 陳坤銘、楊光華、陳財家(2000)。反傾銷制度與產業保護效果─臺灣個案研究。貿易調查專刊，5，297-329。
36. 黃智輝(2006)。貿易政策專題研究—貿易救濟防火牆進口救濟與世界貿易組織（制度篇）。台商圖書有限公司。
37. 黃智輝(2003)。反傾銷案件產業損害調查經濟效益實證分析。台灣銀行台灣經濟金融月刊，54(4)，216-248。
38. 黃智輝(2006)。世界貿易組織與進口救濟（續篇）。元照出版公司。
39. 黃智輝(2007)。台灣反傾銷案件產業損害認定關鍵因素之研究。台灣經濟金融月刊，43(10)，32-47。
40. 黃智輝(2008)。WTO架構下貿易救濟案件課徵反傾銷稅經濟效果及因應對策—以台灣產業受影響為例。台灣綜合發展研究院。

1. 黃智輝、郭麒榮、Hsieh, Ya-Chieh(2008)。台灣貿易救濟制度產業損害認定關鍵因素之研究。真理財經學報，19，53-78。