Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T06:43:01.332Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Slamming the Door on Trade Policy Discretion? The WTO Appellate Body’s Ruling on Market Distortions and Production Costs in EU–Biodiesel (Argentina)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2018

MEREDITH A. CROWLEY  and
JENNIFER A. HILLMAN
MEREDITH A. CROWLEY*
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge Faculty of Economics and Centre for Economic Policy Research
JENNIFER A. HILLMAN*
Affiliation:
Georgetown University Law Center
*
*Email: meredith.crowley@econ.cam.ac.uk.
**Email: jennifer.hillman@law.georgetown.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents a legal–economic analysis of the Appellate Body's decision in EU–Biodiesel (Argentina) that the WTO's Anti-Dumping Agreement (ADA) does not permit countries to take into account government-created price distortions of major inputs when calculating anti-dumping duties. In this case, the EU made adjustments to the price of biodiesel's principal input – soybeans – in determining the cost of production of biodiesel in Argentina. The adjustment was made based on the uncontested finding that the price of soybeans in Argentina was distorted by the existence of an export tax scheme that resulted in artificially low soybean prices. The Appellate Body found that the EU was not permitted to take tax policy-induced price distortions into account in calculating dumping margins. We analyze the economic rationale for Argentina's export tax system, distortions in biodiesel markets in Argentina and the EU, and the remaining trade policy options for addressing distorted international prices. We also assess whether existing subsidies disciplines would be more effective in addressing this problem and conclude that they would not.

Type
Review Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , April 2018 , pp. 195 - 213
Copyright
Copyright © Meredith A. Crowley and Jennifer A. Hillman 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bown, C. P. and Sykes, A. O. (2008), ‘The Zeroing Issue: A critical analysis of Softwood V’, World Trade Review, 7(1): 121–142.Google Scholar
Broda, C., Greenfield, J., and Weinstein, D. (2006), ‘From Groundnuts to Globalization: A Structural Estimate of Trade and Growth’, NBER Working Paper No. 12512, September 2006.Google Scholar
Broda, C., Limao, N., and Weinstein, D. E. (2008), ‘Optimal Tariffs and Market Power: The Evidence’, American Economic Review, 98(5): 2032–2065.Google Scholar
Crowley, M. A. and Howse, R. (2010), ‘US–Stainless Steel (Mexico)’, World Trade Review, 9(1): 117–150.Google Scholar
Crowley, M. A. and Palmeter, D. (2009), ‘Japan – Countervailing Duties on Dynamic Random Access Memories from Korea (DS336 and Corr.1, adopted 17 December 2007)’, World Trade Review, 8(1): 259–272.Google Scholar
De Santi, G., Edwards, R., Szekeres, S., Neuwahl, M. F., Mahieu, M., and Mahieu, V. (2008), ‘Biofuels in the European Context: Facts and Uncertainties’ European Commission, Joint Research Centre.Google Scholar
Horn, H. and Mavroidis, P. (2006), ‘European Community – Antidumping Duties on Malleable Cast Iron Tube or Pipe Fittings from Brazil’, World Trade Review, 5(S1), 87–129.Google Scholar
Lee, T., Tran, A., Hansen, J., and Ash, M. (2016) ‘Major Factors Affecting Global Soybean and Products Trade Projections’, Amber Waves, US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2 May 2016, https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2016/may/major-factors-affecting-global-soybean-and-products-trade-projections/.Google Scholar
Prusa, T. J. and Vermulst, E. (2009), ‘A One-Two Punch on Zeroing: US–Zeroing (EC) and US–Zeroing (Japan)’, World Trade Review, 8: 187–241.Google Scholar
Schnepf, R. D., Dohlman, E., and Bolling, C. (2001) ‘Agriculture in Brazil and Argentina: Developments and Prospects for Major Field Crops’, Market and Trade Economics Division, Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, Agriculture and Trade Report, WRS-01-3. November 2001.Google Scholar
Soderbery, A. (2015), ‘Estimating Import Supply and Demand Elasticities: Analysis and Implications’, Journal of International Economics, 96(1): 1–17.Google Scholar