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"


Leveling the Playing Field for U.S. Manufacturers

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

If You Like Higher Prices, Enriched Cronies, and Weak National Security, Then You’ll Love the Jones Act

By Scott Lincicome. The Federalist. January 22, 2015.

New Jersey Seduced by the False Promise of “Buy American” Laws

By Daniel J. Ikenson. December 18, 2014.

Cato Studies

Will Nonmarket Economy Methodology Go Quietly into the Night? U.S. Antidumping Policy toward China after 2016

By K. William Watson. Policy Analysis No. 763. October 28, 2014.

Time to X Out the Ex-Im Bank

By Sallie James. Trade Policy Analysis No. 47. July 6, 2011.

Economic Self-Flagellation: How U.S. Antidumping Policy Subverts the National Export Initiative

By Daniel J. Ikenson. Trade Policy Analysis No. 46. May 31, 2011.


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.