Fishy Issues: The U.S. Shrimp Antidumping Case

P. Debaere
{"title":"Fishy Issues: The U.S. Shrimp Antidumping Case","authors":"P. Debaere","doi":"10.1108/case.darden.2016.000123","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This case features a prominent antidumping case in the United States against six of its major foreign shrimp suppliers. The case fits well in a discussion and analysis of the (welfare) consequences of protectionism, the basic case for free trade, and the political economy of protectionism. \n \nExcerpt \n \nUVA-G-0600 \n \nRev. July 14, 2009 \n \nFishy Issues: The U.S. Shrimp Antidumping Case \n \nIn the fall of 2002, the Southern Shrimp Alliance (SSA), a coalition of shrimp vessel owners and processors, was formed to fight what it called unfair competition from developing countries. The SSA represented eight southern states: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas. In December 2003, the alliance called for punitive tariffs against the main importers of shrimp to the United States: Thailand, Vietnam, India, Brazil, Ecuador, and China (Exhibit 1). The tariffs it requested ranged from 30% to 349%. The actions by the SSA constituted the broadest trade complaint since the Bush administration had imposed tariffs on imports of foreign steel in 2002. SSA members argued that they were driven out of business by the artificially low prices that these exporters charged in U.S. markets. The SSA's petition led to a showdown with U.S. seafood distributors, retailers, restaurateurs, and other businesses involved in shrimp processing and marketing, as well as with the targeted countries. Those parties opposed higher tariffs and accused the United States of blatant protectionism. They argued that the lower shrimp prices offered by developing countries' exporters were evidence of their comparative advantage in producing shrimp. In the words of Wally Stevens, president of the American Seafood Distributors Association: “These duties will do nothing to make the domestic shrimpers more competitive.” \n \nTrends in the Shrimp Market \n \nThe global shrimp market had changed dramatically since the 1950s. Exhibit 2 presents estimates by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) that illustrate the worldwide expansion of shrimp production and consumption. Worldwide production of shrimp increased from 0.31 million to 3.8 million tons between 1950 and 2002. Of particular interest was the changing distribution of production during that period as shown in Exhibit 3. Developing countries' share of shrimp production increased consistently, and that of the main consumers of shrimp—in particular Japan, the United States, and Europe—steadily decreased. One study estimated that Japan, Europe, and the United States consumed some 60% of world production in 2000. \n \n. . .","PeriodicalId":365834,"journal":{"name":"Food Laws","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food Laws","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/case.darden.2016.000123","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

This case features a prominent antidumping case in the United States against six of its major foreign shrimp suppliers. The case fits well in a discussion and analysis of the (welfare) consequences of protectionism, the basic case for free trade, and the political economy of protectionism. Excerpt UVA-G-0600 Rev. July 14, 2009 Fishy Issues: The U.S. Shrimp Antidumping Case In the fall of 2002, the Southern Shrimp Alliance (SSA), a coalition of shrimp vessel owners and processors, was formed to fight what it called unfair competition from developing countries. The SSA represented eight southern states: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas. In December 2003, the alliance called for punitive tariffs against the main importers of shrimp to the United States: Thailand, Vietnam, India, Brazil, Ecuador, and China (Exhibit 1). The tariffs it requested ranged from 30% to 349%. The actions by the SSA constituted the broadest trade complaint since the Bush administration had imposed tariffs on imports of foreign steel in 2002. SSA members argued that they were driven out of business by the artificially low prices that these exporters charged in U.S. markets. The SSA's petition led to a showdown with U.S. seafood distributors, retailers, restaurateurs, and other businesses involved in shrimp processing and marketing, as well as with the targeted countries. Those parties opposed higher tariffs and accused the United States of blatant protectionism. They argued that the lower shrimp prices offered by developing countries' exporters were evidence of their comparative advantage in producing shrimp. In the words of Wally Stevens, president of the American Seafood Distributors Association: “These duties will do nothing to make the domestic shrimpers more competitive.” Trends in the Shrimp Market The global shrimp market had changed dramatically since the 1950s. Exhibit 2 presents estimates by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) that illustrate the worldwide expansion of shrimp production and consumption. Worldwide production of shrimp increased from 0.31 million to 3.8 million tons between 1950 and 2002. Of particular interest was the changing distribution of production during that period as shown in Exhibit 3. Developing countries' share of shrimp production increased consistently, and that of the main consumers of shrimp—in particular Japan, the United States, and Europe—steadily decreased. One study estimated that Japan, Europe, and the United States consumed some 60% of world production in 2000. . . .
渔业问题:美国虾类反倾销案
本案的特点是美国针对其六个主要外国虾供应商的著名反倾销案。这个案例非常适合讨论和分析保护主义的(福利)后果、自由贸易的基本案例以及保护主义的政治经济学。渔业问题:美国虾类反倾销案2002年秋天,由虾类船主和加工商组成的联盟南方虾类联盟(SSA)成立,旨在打击其所谓的来自发展中国家的不公平竞争。SSA代表八个南方州:阿拉巴马州、佛罗里达州、佐治亚州、路易斯安那州、密西西比州、北卡罗来纳州、南卡罗来纳州和德克萨斯州。2003年12月,该联盟呼吁对美国虾类的主要进口国泰国、越南、印度、巴西、厄瓜多尔和中国征收惩罚性关税(表1)。该联盟要求的关税从30%到349%不等。自2002年布什政府对进口钢铁征收关税以来,SSA的行动构成了最广泛的贸易申诉。SSA成员认为,他们被这些出口商在美国市场上人为压低的价格赶出了市场。SSA的请愿导致了与美国海鲜分销商、零售商、餐馆老板和其他涉及虾加工和营销的企业以及目标国家的摊牌。这些政党反对提高关税,并指责美国公然实行保护主义。他们认为,发展中国家出口商提供的较低虾价证明了它们在生产虾方面的比较优势。用美国海产品经销商协会(American Seafood Distributors Association)主席沃利•史蒂文斯(Wally Stevens)的话来说:“这些关税对提高国内捕虾企业的竞争力毫无帮助。”自20世纪50年代以来,全球虾市场发生了巨大变化。表2列出了联合国粮食及农业组织(粮农组织)的估计数,说明了虾的生产和消费在世界范围内的扩大。从1950年到2002年,全世界虾的产量从31万吨增加到380万吨。特别令人感兴趣的是这一时期生产分配的变化,如表3所示。发展中国家在虾产量中所占的份额持续增加,而虾的主要消费国——特别是日本、美国和欧洲——所占的份额则稳步下降。一项研究估计,日本、欧洲和美国在2000年消耗了世界产量的60%左右. . . .
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信