Years of analysis has proven that there is a disconnect between the rhetoric of antidumping supporters and the reality of antidumping practice. The law as currently written and enforced does not reliably identify price discrimination or below-cost sales.

Furthermore, the law lacks any mechanism for determining whether the pricing practices it condemns as unfair have any connection to market-distorting policies abroad. Although price discrimination and below-cost sales can result from government interventionism, they can also be due to perfectly normal marketplace behavior. Consequently, the antidumping law frequently punishes foreign firms for unexceptionable business practices routinely engaged in by American companies.

More on Antidumping and Other Trade "Remedies"

Commentary

The U.S. and China Are Both Wrong on Steel

By Daniel R. Pearson. Forbes. May 23, 2016.

Big Steel’s Dilemma: Trade Restriction Cure Is Worse Than the Disease

By Daniel R. Pearson. Investor’s Business Daily. May 17, 2016.

Leveling the Playing Field for U.S. Manufacturers

By Daniel R. Pearson. The Hill (Online). April 30, 2015.

Cato Studies

Global Steel Overcapacity: Trade Remedy “Cure” Is Worse than the “Disease”

By Daniel R. Pearson. Free Trade Bulletin No. 66. April 11, 2016.

It’s Time to Dump Nonmarket Economy Treatment

By K. William Watson. Free Trade Bulletin No. 65. March 9, 2016.

Antidumping Fowls Out: U.S.–South Africa Chicken Dispute Highlights the Need for Global Reform

By K. William Watson. Free Trade Bulletin No. 62. October 19, 2015.

Cato Reviews & Journals

The Myth of the Magic Bullet

Policy Report. January/February 2016.

Speeches

The Future of NAFTA: “Hecho en China”?

By Daniel Griswold. November 15, 2006.

Downsizing the Federal Government

Ending the Import-Export Bank

By Sallie James. October 2012.

International Trade Administration

By Tad DeHaven and Chris Edwards. February 2009.