1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. Publications
  3. College of Social Science
  4. Theses
  5. Item

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 公平貿易反傾銷稅的訂定：以中國毛巾傾銷案為例
Anti-dumping duty under fair trade rule：An application on the import of Chinese towels
作者 林佩瑩
貢獻者 翁永和
林佩瑩
關鍵詞 公平貿易
反傾銷措施
COMPAS模型
Fair Trade
Anti-Dumping Measure
COMPAS Model
日期 2009
上傳時間 9-May-2016 15:44:10 (UTC+8)
摘要 在推展全球化貿易下，面對市場逐漸開放之際，世界貿易組織為了減緩世界各國貿易自由化過程中所受到衝擊，允許會員國實施暫時性的保護措施，以矯正不公平貿易行為，其中又以反傾銷制度最為重要，為各國最常採用方式，但卻造成已開發國家如美國、歐盟過度濫用反傾銷措施，致過度保護本國產業。因此本研究以中國毛巾傾銷案作為研究對象，並運用美國國際貿易委員會所發展的COMPAS模型，來探討中國毛巾傾銷行為對我國毛巾產業之影響。除此之外，由於各國對於反傾銷稅的課徵是否過高頗有爭議，本研究因此進一步檢視我國在中國毛巾傾銷案中所課徵之反傾銷稅稅率是否過高？是否符合WTO反傾銷協定「公平貿易」之規範？若不符合，則在滿足「公平貿易」的前提下，其稅率訂定應該為何？
     由實證結果顯示，整體而言，傾銷對我國國內同類產品的產出、價格與收益，確實有負面的影響，國內市場佔有率則因受到低價傾銷進口品的替代，而呈現逐年下滑趨勢。在反傾銷稅課徵方面，在目前課徵稅率下（204.1％），確實可為國內廠商帶來正面的影響，然而本研究發現目前課徵稅率過高，而可能導致過度保護本國廠商，進而違反WTO「公平貿易」之規範。若將目前所課徵的稅率調降為符合「公平貿易」規範下之稅率（75.7％），其稅額會較採用傾銷差額課徵為低，不僅符合WTO 「較低稅率原則」，同時也可避免過度保護本國產業，對於整體社會福利之損失也較小。因此，本研究對政策的建議是反傾銷稅率訂定除了參考傾銷差率外，更須考量國內廠商之受損害程度，以課徵足以消除國內產業所受損害之稅率即可，來減少因稅賦所帶來之扭曲以及對國際貿易損害，而進一步傷害社會福利。
At the same time of expanding global trade and increasing openness of the market, World Trade Organization (WTO) has been trying to decrease the impacts on Members during the process of liberalization and has permitted Members to practice temporary measures of protection and to correct unfair trade. Among these measures, anti-dumping is the most important and common one. However, it has abused by several developed countries, such as the USA and European Union (EU), which lead to over-protection of their domestic industries. Therefore, the research chooses the dumping case of Chinese towels as its subject and applies a model of Commercial Policy Analysis System (COMPAS) developed by United States International Trade Commission to evaluate the impacts on domestic towel industry due to import dumping from China. In addition, it is still controversial over the levels of antidumping duty to remain fair trade. Thus, the research will estimate further that if the rate of the present anti-dumping duty on the dumping case of Chinese towels is overrated or meets the principles of “fair trade” under WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement. Besides, if it is not, what is the rate should be to meet the principles of “fair trade” under WTO.
     The empirical results showed that dumping does have a negative impact on the price, output, and revenue of the domestic industry. The domestic market share has been decreasing year after year because of the substitute effect from dumped imports. As for imposing anti-dumping duty, the empirical results indicate that imposing anti-dumping duty under the present duty rate (204.1%) has a positive effect on domestic industry. However, according to the finding of this research, the present duty rate is too high. Overcharging of the anti-dumping duty could lead to over-protection of domestic industry and to further violation of the principles of “fair trade” under WTO. If the present duty rate can be reduced to meet the principles of “fair trade” (the rate is 75.7%), the tax will be less than the dumping margin. At the same time, it will conform to the“lesser duty rule”under WTO, avoid over-protection of domestic industry and contribute the minimum loss to the social welfare. Hence, this research suggests that the government imposing anti-dumping duty rate should refer to the dumping margin and evaluate the depth of injury to domestic firms. It should only impose an appropriate duty to remove the injury to domestic industry. It is significant to reduce the distortion of the tax and the injury to the international trade, and further harm of social welfare.
參考文獻 一、中文部分
     王泰銓（2006），毛巾戰爭: WTO與兩岸貿易，台北：臺灣智庫。
     王鳳生（2000），進口救濟制度對產業結構調整之研究-多部門一般均衡模型，經濟部貿易調查委員會。
     左峻德（2000），課徵反傾銷稅對產業影響之研究，經濟部貿易調查委員會。
     邱永和（2005），運用反傾銷措施之主要WTO會員及其原因分析，經濟部貿易調查委員會94年度研究報告。
     李玉鳳（1998），傾銷與產業損害之經濟分析，國立政治大學經濟學系碩士論文。
     李淑媛（2006），反傾銷案件產業損害認定經濟分析模型之研究–台灣型鋼產業之應用，國立台灣大學農業經濟學系博士論文。
     李淑媛（2007），研析特定農產品–停止適用特別防衛或關稅配額之預期效果，經濟部貿易調查委員會研究計畫。
     吳再益、賴英崑（1997），美國實施反傾銷暨平衡稅措施經濟效益分析之探討，經濟部貿易調查委員會。
     周育生（2004），產品差異下最適反傾銷稅，國立政治大學行政管理碩士學程碩士論文。
     姚興川（2007），政府採行之產業政策對聚落產業發展之影響評估–以毛巾業為例，經濟部工業局。
     許芸瑋（2004），台灣Armington彈性值的卡曼濾波推估與分析，國立台灣大學農業經濟學研究所碩士論文。
     陳坤銘（2000），反傾銷制度與產業保護效果-台灣個案研究，經濟部貿易調查委員會。
     陳財家（2001），反傾銷制度與公共利益，國立政治大學國際貿易學系博士論文。
     黃孟瑩（2007），毛巾課徵反傾銷稅之經濟效果分析，佛光大學經濟學系碩士論文。
     黃智輝（2008），水泥課徵反傾銷稅的政策效果與競爭力分析-台灣實證分析，台灣經濟預測與政策，38，1-30。
     黃鴻、辛炳隆（1998），產業損害計量經濟分析方法之研究，經濟部貿易調查委員會。
     陸惠玲（1998），品質差異下之最適反傾銷稅，國立中正大學國際經濟研究所碩士論文。
     董素貞（1987），平衡稅與反傾銷稅制之研究，國立政治大學財政研究所碩士論文。
     蔡宏明（1994），「反傾銷稅的經濟分析」，進口救濟論叢，4，57-74。
     蔡宏明（2003），「反傾銷案件之較低稅率規則與損害差額」，進口救濟論叢，22，109-131。
     鄺承華（2000），從貿易救濟制度論進口競爭之規範目的，經濟部貿易調查委員會。
     謝文真（2006），「評估歐美與評估歐美國家處理課徵反傾銷稅對國家整體經濟利益之影響因素」，貿易救濟相關議題之探討，143 - 171。
     
     二、英文部分
     Anderson, J. (1992),“Domino Dumping I：Competitive Exporters,”American Economic Review, 82, 65-83.
     Anderson, J. (1993),“Domino Dumping II：Anti-dumping,”Journal of International Economics, 35, 133-150.
     Armington, P. S. (1969),“A Theory of Demand for Products Distinguished by Place of Production,”International Monetary Fund Staff Papers, 16.
     Blonigen, B. A. and S. E. Haynes (2002),“Antidumping Investigations and the Pass-through of Antidumping Duties and Exchange Rates,”The American Economic Review, 92, 1044-60.
     Blonigen, B. A. (2006),“Evolving Discretionary Practices of U.S. Antidumping Activity,”Canadian Journal of Economics, 39, 874-900.
     Boltuck, R. (1991),“Assessing the Effects on the Domestic Industry of Price Dumping,”Policy implications of antidumping measures, 99-140, New York：North-Holland.
     Brander, J. and P. Krugman (1983),“A Reciprocal Dumping Model of International Trade,”Journal of International Economics, 15, 313-21.
     Davies, S.W. and A. J. McGuinness (1982),“Dumping at Less Than Marginal Cost,” Journal of International Economics, 12, 169-182.
     Devault, J. M. (1996),“The Welfare Effects of U.S. Antidumping Duties,” Open Economics Review, 7, 19-33.
     Dixit, A. K. (1988),“Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties under Oligopoly,”European Economics, 32, 55-68.
     Ethier, W. J. (1982),“Dumping,”Journal of Political Economy, 90, 487-506.
     Finger, J. M., H. K. Hall, and D. R. Nelson (1982)“The Political Economy of Administered Protection,”The American Economic Review, 72, 452-466.
     Fischer, B. S. (1973),“The Antidumping Laws of the United States：A Legal and Economic Protection,” Law and Policy in International Business, 5, 88.
     Fukunaga, Y. (2004),“An Effect-Based Approach to Anti-Dumping：Why Should We Introduce a Mandatory Lesser Duty Rule?”Journal of World Trade, 38, 491-507.
     Gallaway, M.P., B.A. Blonigen, and J. E. Flynn (1999),“Welfare Cost of the U.S. Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws,”Journal of International Economics, 49, 211-244.
     Gruenspecht, H.K. (1988),“Dumping and Dynamic Competition,”Journal of International Economics, 25, 225-248.
     Hillman, A. L. and E. Katz (1986),“Domestic Uncertainty and Foreign Dumping,”Canadian Journal of Economics, 19, 403-416.
     Hughes, J. S., S. Lenway , and J. Rayburn (1997),“Stock Price Effects of U.S. Trade Policy Responses to Japanese Trading Practices in Semi-Conductors,”Canadian Journal of Economics, 30, 922-942.
     Jung, J. (2004),“Understanding The COMPAS Model：Assumptions, Structure, and Elasticity of Substitution,”The Degree of Doctor of Philosophy of University of Florida.
     Kinjo, S. (2005),“Adapting the COMPAS Model for Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada,”Trade and Economics analysis 2005,165-178.
     Nicolaides, P. (1991),“The Competition Effects of Dumping,”Journal of World Trade, 126.
     Reich, A. (2003),“Institutional and Substantive Reform of the Anti-Dumping and Subsidy Agreements-Lessons from the Israeli Experience,”The Berkeley Electronic Press.
     Viner, J. (1923), Dumping：A Problem in International Trade, Chicago：University of Chicago Press.
     Viner, J. (1931),“Dumping,”Encyclopedia of the Social Science, New York：Macmillan.
     Schmitz, T. G. and J. L. Seale (2004),“Countervailing Duties, Antidumping Tariffs, and the Byrd Amendment：A Welfare Analysis”American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meetings, Denver Colorado.
     Wares, W. A. (1977), The Theory of Dumping and American Commercial Policy, Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books.
     Webb, M. (1992),“The Ambiguous Consequences of Anti-Dumping Laws,”Economic Inquiry, 30, 437- 48.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
行政管理碩士學程
96921029
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0096921029
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 翁永和zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 林佩瑩zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) 林佩瑩zh_TW
dc.date (日期) 2009en_US
dc.date.accessioned 9-May-2016 15:44:10 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 9-May-2016 15:44:10 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 9-May-2016 15:44:10 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0096921029en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/95337-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 行政管理碩士學程zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 96921029zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 在推展全球化貿易下，面對市場逐漸開放之際，世界貿易組織為了減緩世界各國貿易自由化過程中所受到衝擊，允許會員國實施暫時性的保護措施，以矯正不公平貿易行為，其中又以反傾銷制度最為重要，為各國最常採用方式，但卻造成已開發國家如美國、歐盟過度濫用反傾銷措施，致過度保護本國產業。因此本研究以中國毛巾傾銷案作為研究對象，並運用美國國際貿易委員會所發展的COMPAS模型，來探討中國毛巾傾銷行為對我國毛巾產業之影響。除此之外，由於各國對於反傾銷稅的課徵是否過高頗有爭議，本研究因此進一步檢視我國在中國毛巾傾銷案中所課徵之反傾銷稅稅率是否過高？是否符合WTO反傾銷協定「公平貿易」之規範？若不符合，則在滿足「公平貿易」的前提下，其稅率訂定應該為何？
     由實證結果顯示，整體而言，傾銷對我國國內同類產品的產出、價格與收益，確實有負面的影響，國內市場佔有率則因受到低價傾銷進口品的替代，而呈現逐年下滑趨勢。在反傾銷稅課徵方面，在目前課徵稅率下（204.1％），確實可為國內廠商帶來正面的影響，然而本研究發現目前課徵稅率過高，而可能導致過度保護本國廠商，進而違反WTO「公平貿易」之規範。若將目前所課徵的稅率調降為符合「公平貿易」規範下之稅率（75.7％），其稅額會較採用傾銷差額課徵為低，不僅符合WTO 「較低稅率原則」，同時也可避免過度保護本國產業，對於整體社會福利之損失也較小。因此，本研究對政策的建議是反傾銷稅率訂定除了參考傾銷差率外，更須考量國內廠商之受損害程度，以課徵足以消除國內產業所受損害之稅率即可，來減少因稅賦所帶來之扭曲以及對國際貿易損害，而進一步傷害社會福利。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) At the same time of expanding global trade and increasing openness of the market, World Trade Organization (WTO) has been trying to decrease the impacts on Members during the process of liberalization and has permitted Members to practice temporary measures of protection and to correct unfair trade. Among these measures, anti-dumping is the most important and common one. However, it has abused by several developed countries, such as the USA and European Union (EU), which lead to over-protection of their domestic industries. Therefore, the research chooses the dumping case of Chinese towels as its subject and applies a model of Commercial Policy Analysis System (COMPAS) developed by United States International Trade Commission to evaluate the impacts on domestic towel industry due to import dumping from China. In addition, it is still controversial over the levels of antidumping duty to remain fair trade. Thus, the research will estimate further that if the rate of the present anti-dumping duty on the dumping case of Chinese towels is overrated or meets the principles of “fair trade” under WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement. Besides, if it is not, what is the rate should be to meet the principles of “fair trade” under WTO.
     The empirical results showed that dumping does have a negative impact on the price, output, and revenue of the domestic industry. The domestic market share has been decreasing year after year because of the substitute effect from dumped imports. As for imposing anti-dumping duty, the empirical results indicate that imposing anti-dumping duty under the present duty rate (204.1%) has a positive effect on domestic industry. However, according to the finding of this research, the present duty rate is too high. Overcharging of the anti-dumping duty could lead to over-protection of domestic industry and to further violation of the principles of “fair trade” under WTO. If the present duty rate can be reduced to meet the principles of “fair trade” (the rate is 75.7%), the tax will be less than the dumping margin. At the same time, it will conform to the“lesser duty rule”under WTO, avoid over-protection of domestic industry and contribute the minimum loss to the social welfare. Hence, this research suggests that the government imposing anti-dumping duty rate should refer to the dumping margin and evaluate the depth of injury to domestic firms. It should only impose an appropriate duty to remove the injury to domestic industry. It is significant to reduce the distortion of the tax and the injury to the international trade, and further harm of social welfare.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1
     第一節 研究動機 1
     第二節 研究目的 3
     第三節 研究範圍與架構 3
     第二章 我國毛巾產業發展歷程與現況 6
     第一節 毛巾產業發展歷程 6
     第二節 毛巾產業發展現況與困境 8
     第三章 反傾銷稅課徵之相關政策與施行 10
     第一節 WTO相關規範與施行依據 10
     第二節 台灣課徵反傾銷稅之相關政策與案例 16
     第四章 傾銷與反傾銷稅之文獻回顧 27
     第一節 傾銷對進口國之影響 27
     第二節 課徵反傾銷稅對進口國之影響 31
     第五章 COMPAS模型理論架構 40
     第一節 傾銷行為產業損害評估之基礎架構 41
     第二節 關稅課徵影響評估之基礎架構 47
     第六章 實證分析 49
     第一節 資料來源與研究對象之定義 49
     第二節 毛巾產業受傾銷行為影響之損害評估 52
     第三節 毛巾產業課徵反傾銷稅之經濟評估 54
     第七章 結論與建議 58
     第一節 研究成果 58
     第二節 研究限制與未來研究方向 59
     參考文獻 60		zh_TW
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0096921029en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 公平貿易zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 反傾銷措施zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) COMPAS模型zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Fair Tradeen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Anti-Dumping Measureen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) COMPAS Modelen_US
dc.title (題名) 公平貿易反傾銷稅的訂定：以中國毛巾傾銷案為例zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Anti-dumping duty under fair trade rule：An application on the import of Chinese towelsen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、中文部分
     王泰銓（2006），毛巾戰爭: WTO與兩岸貿易，台北：臺灣智庫。
     王鳳生（2000），進口救濟制度對產業結構調整之研究-多部門一般均衡模型，經濟部貿易調查委員會。
     左峻德（2000），課徵反傾銷稅對產業影響之研究，經濟部貿易調查委員會。
     邱永和（2005），運用反傾銷措施之主要WTO會員及其原因分析，經濟部貿易調查委員會94年度研究報告。
     李玉鳳（1998），傾銷與產業損害之經濟分析，國立政治大學經濟學系碩士論文。
     李淑媛（2006），反傾銷案件產業損害認定經濟分析模型之研究–台灣型鋼產業之應用，國立台灣大學農業經濟學系博士論文。
     李淑媛（2007），研析特定農產品–停止適用特別防衛或關稅配額之預期效果，經濟部貿易調查委員會研究計畫。
     吳再益、賴英崑（1997），美國實施反傾銷暨平衡稅措施經濟效益分析之探討，經濟部貿易調查委員會。
     周育生（2004），產品差異下最適反傾銷稅，國立政治大學行政管理碩士學程碩士論文。
     姚興川（2007），政府採行之產業政策對聚落產業發展之影響評估–以毛巾業為例，經濟部工業局。
     許芸瑋（2004），台灣Armington彈性值的卡曼濾波推估與分析，國立台灣大學農業經濟學研究所碩士論文。
     陳坤銘（2000），反傾銷制度與產業保護效果-台灣個案研究，經濟部貿易調查委員會。
     陳財家（2001），反傾銷制度與公共利益，國立政治大學國際貿易學系博士論文。
     黃孟瑩（2007），毛巾課徵反傾銷稅之經濟效果分析，佛光大學經濟學系碩士論文。
     黃智輝（2008），水泥課徵反傾銷稅的政策效果與競爭力分析-台灣實證分析，台灣經濟預測與政策，38，1-30。
     黃鴻、辛炳隆（1998），產業損害計量經濟分析方法之研究，經濟部貿易調查委員會。
     陸惠玲（1998），品質差異下之最適反傾銷稅，國立中正大學國際經濟研究所碩士論文。
     董素貞（1987），平衡稅與反傾銷稅制之研究，國立政治大學財政研究所碩士論文。
     蔡宏明（1994），「反傾銷稅的經濟分析」，進口救濟論叢，4，57-74。
     蔡宏明（2003），「反傾銷案件之較低稅率規則與損害差額」，進口救濟論叢，22，109-131。
     鄺承華（2000），從貿易救濟制度論進口競爭之規範目的，經濟部貿易調查委員會。
     謝文真（2006），「評估歐美與評估歐美國家處理課徵反傾銷稅對國家整體經濟利益之影響因素」，貿易救濟相關議題之探討，143 - 171。
     
     二、英文部分
     Anderson, J. (1992),“Domino Dumping I：Competitive Exporters,”American Economic Review, 82, 65-83.
     Anderson, J. (1993),“Domino Dumping II：Anti-dumping,”Journal of International Economics, 35, 133-150.
     Armington, P. S. (1969),“A Theory of Demand for Products Distinguished by Place of Production,”International Monetary Fund Staff Papers, 16.
     Blonigen, B. A. and S. E. Haynes (2002),“Antidumping Investigations and the Pass-through of Antidumping Duties and Exchange Rates,”The American Economic Review, 92, 1044-60.
     Blonigen, B. A. (2006),“Evolving Discretionary Practices of U.S. Antidumping Activity,”Canadian Journal of Economics, 39, 874-900.
     Boltuck, R. (1991),“Assessing the Effects on the Domestic Industry of Price Dumping,”Policy implications of antidumping measures, 99-140, New York：North-Holland.
     Brander, J. and P. Krugman (1983),“A Reciprocal Dumping Model of International Trade,”Journal of International Economics, 15, 313-21.
     Davies, S.W. and A. J. McGuinness (1982),“Dumping at Less Than Marginal Cost,” Journal of International Economics, 12, 169-182.
     Devault, J. M. (1996),“The Welfare Effects of U.S. Antidumping Duties,” Open Economics Review, 7, 19-33.
     Dixit, A. K. (1988),“Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties under Oligopoly,”European Economics, 32, 55-68.
     Ethier, W. J. (1982),“Dumping,”Journal of Political Economy, 90, 487-506.
     Finger, J. M., H. K. Hall, and D. R. Nelson (1982)“The Political Economy of Administered Protection,”The American Economic Review, 72, 452-466.
     Fischer, B. S. (1973),“The Antidumping Laws of the United States：A Legal and Economic Protection,” Law and Policy in International Business, 5, 88.
     Fukunaga, Y. (2004),“An Effect-Based Approach to Anti-Dumping：Why Should We Introduce a Mandatory Lesser Duty Rule?”Journal of World Trade, 38, 491-507.
     Gallaway, M.P., B.A. Blonigen, and J. E. Flynn (1999),“Welfare Cost of the U.S. Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws,”Journal of International Economics, 49, 211-244.
     Gruenspecht, H.K. (1988),“Dumping and Dynamic Competition,”Journal of International Economics, 25, 225-248.
     Hillman, A. L. and E. Katz (1986),“Domestic Uncertainty and Foreign Dumping,”Canadian Journal of Economics, 19, 403-416.
     Hughes, J. S., S. Lenway , and J. Rayburn (1997),“Stock Price Effects of U.S. Trade Policy Responses to Japanese Trading Practices in Semi-Conductors,”Canadian Journal of Economics, 30, 922-942.
     Jung, J. (2004),“Understanding The COMPAS Model：Assumptions, Structure, and Elasticity of Substitution,”The Degree of Doctor of Philosophy of University of Florida.
     Kinjo, S. (2005),“Adapting the COMPAS Model for Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada,”Trade and Economics analysis 2005,165-178.
     Nicolaides, P. (1991),“The Competition Effects of Dumping,”Journal of World Trade, 126.
     Reich, A. (2003),“Institutional and Substantive Reform of the Anti-Dumping and Subsidy Agreements-Lessons from the Israeli Experience,”The Berkeley Electronic Press.
     Viner, J. (1923), Dumping：A Problem in International Trade, Chicago：University of Chicago Press.
     Viner, J. (1931),“Dumping,”Encyclopedia of the Social Science, New York：Macmillan.
     Schmitz, T. G. and J. L. Seale (2004),“Countervailing Duties, Antidumping Tariffs, and the Byrd Amendment：A Welfare Analysis”American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meetings, Denver Colorado.
     Wares, W. A. (1977), The Theory of Dumping and American Commercial Policy, Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books.
     Webb, M. (1992),“The Ambiguous Consequences of Anti-Dumping Laws,”Economic Inquiry, 30, 437- 48.		zh_TW