Talk:Non-tariff barriers to trade/Archives/2016

Untitled

Sometimes Non-Tariff Barriers (NTBs) are also called Non-Tariff Measures (NTMs) to avoid the negative connotation of the word "barriers" as the measures are created to protect the public; this includes SPS and TBT measures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitchaya Eam-on (talk • contribs) 12:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Postdlf wrote: "corrected stub article that was entirely in error--antidumping and countervailing duties ARE tariffs and are approved under WTO". While I agree that the expression is misleading, antidumping and countervailing duties are commonly labelled non-tariff barriers because they are no direct tariffs, just tariffs that are imposed under certain conditions. Cf. [1] [2] Furthermore, Non-tariff barriers to trade are not necessarily imposed by a nation - many non-tariff restrictions are imposed by trade unions like Mercosur, NAFTA or the European Union. Nor do they have to be "laws". For an anti-dumping case a firm can go to the courts and get a decision that the duty will be imposed. Non-tariff barriers also do not mean that the import is banned. In the case of antidumping the import is just restricted by a duty that in the end works like a tariff. In other cases imports are just restricted e.g. by excessive red tape. Unfortunately, the World Trade Organization - which replaced GATT - does not outrule neither antidumping nor countervailing duties. On the contrary, nationals courts are granted large powers to decide on their own whether antidumping or countervailing duties are appropriate. In case of obvious abuse like the "antidumping" steel tariffs introduced by George W. Bush the WTO needs two years to finally decide. A decision does not abolish an antidumping duty, nor is there any direct punishment. Only the victims of it are allowed to retaliate. Get-back-world-respect 17:49, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

I've never before heard of anyone in international trade law actually refer to either countervailing duties or antidumping measures as NTB, and as NTB is the exact term used by the GATT (in Article XX, I believe) for the types of product bans or quality requirements that I mentioned in my revision of the article (and that both of your links mostly mention too), I think it's necessary to retain some precision in its use. Perhaps it's less of a term of art than I think, but the more that's true, then the less reason there is for making it a separately defined article.

Even as a colloquial, non-legal usage for AD/CVD, I don't think it makes sense at all. Dumping and subsidies are themselves considered...not trade barriers, really...but trade impediments, imbalances, or manipulations under the WTO system and U.S. laws (indeed, one of your link lists subsidies as an NTB), and so antidumping measures are meant to compensate for the less-than-fair-market price, just as countervailing duties are supposed to for tariffs, and both are expressly approved under the WTO/GATT system as long as the nation imposing them has made the proper determination that the required conditions have been met. They are both imposed in the form of tariffs, which I have a hard time seeing as even "indirect" because they are directly imposed against the value of the goods. The process by which they are imposed may be "indirect" in the view of some, in that they are not automatic but often do need a complaint filed by an "injured" industry to get the governmental ball rolling. The initiation by a private party doesn't make them any less of a law...many laws are enforced frequently or entirely when private parties ask the government to.

I plan on expanding this article more when I have the time to go back and review GATT on this topic (and some of the WTO DSB cases, like the shrimp and beef hormone decisions). Perhaps there should be a mention that some people also label AD/CVD as NTB, but that this is contrary to WTO/GATT usage and more than merely misleading.

While a critique of the reasoning behind and implementation of AD/CVD by WTO/GATT and by individual nations is certainly reasonable, I think it would be more appropriate within those specific articles.

Oh, one more point...WTO didn't really replace GATT—it more kind of embraced it. The GATT agreements are enforced by the WTO DSB, and signing on to the GATT agreements is necessary before a country can become a WTO member. One main thing that WTO did replace in the GATT structure was that it unified all dispute settlement into one structure, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, where previously each GATT agreement had its own system. In all honesty I'm not entirely clear myself on the GATT-WTO relationship in all respects—it's a little confusing...but I wanted to mention that at least. Postdlf 12 June 2004 18:35 (UTC)

The UNCTAD has a list of barriers to trade. [3] Antidumping and countervaling duties are both listed as non-tariff barriers, which is a technical term in economics, which is why I created the article. Both increased dramatically when the WTO rules let average tariffs decrease significantly, and many see antidumping as a means by rich countries to undermine their self-proclaimed philosophy of free trade. Since the duties are only initiated when firms go to the courts and since courts cannot usually pass laws I doubt that there are usually laws for specific antidumping duties. Get-back-world-respect 19:22, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Huh. Interesting. I'll have to look more into that UNCTAD list later... No, there aren't usually laws for specific antidumping duties, but there is of course a law giving the government the power to impose them when it deems it necessary. In the U.S., the determinations aren't made by a court, but by Executive Branch agencies after receiving complaints—the Dept. of Commerce determines whether there has been dumping in a particular case and the International Trade Commission determines whether a domestic industry has been sufficiently injured by that dumping. Courts later review the determinations, of course, to make sure that the amount of dumping was calculated right and that the injury to a domestic injury was properly found, but the AD law sets those standards...the Executive agencies just do a fact finding, basically, and then implement the law. --Postdlf 21:39 12 June 2004 (UTC)

Dr. Anderson's comment on this article

Dr. Anderson has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

I think a reference to anti-dumping is needed here as a type of non-tariff barrier. To my surprise, there apparently is no anti-dumping article in wikipedia. There is an article on dumping.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Anderson has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

• Reference : James E. Anderson, 2008. "Consistent Trade Policy Aggregation," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 702, Boston College Department of Economics.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)