Adhesive producers are often caught up in decisions by governments that the materials they use are being sold in their country at a less than fair value. In some situations, companies charge a lower price for a good in a foreign market than in their domestic market, a situation known as dumping. In response governments restrict imports and levy anti-dumping duties to raise the price to levels they consider fair. This is a worldwide phenomenon: In February 2011 the US imposed anti-dumping duties on polyvinyl alcohol, used in emulsion polymerisation of materials used in water-based adhesives, produced in Taiwan.1 More recently India has been considering duties on polyvinyl chloride (PVC) paste resin used in solvent cements.2 While this is clearly beneficial to raw material producers in the country importing the material, is it beneficial to the users? According to the Washington DC, US, based libertarian think tank the Cato Institute, the answer is a resounding "No!".3 It notes that US laws on dumping "forbids the administering authorities from considering the economic impact of anti-dumping restrictions on those firms or on the economy at large. Such restrictions raise the costs of production for downstream firms, rendering them less competitive at home and abroad." The Cato Institutes research shows that in the US the paints, coatings and adhesives industry is particularly badly affected. It has the second most anti-dumping orders on upstream materials, despite earning a relatively small amount of export revenues.
Downstream producers like adhesive companies dont just suffer from higher input prices as a result of the duties, argues the Cato Institutes Daniel Ikenstein. They are also faced with trying to compete against manufacturers in countries without the duties, who have been able to make their products at lower cost. Consequently companies who are subject to the duties are squeezed between raised costs and reduced revenues. With the manufacturers being squeezed more likely to export their products and create jobs, the situation is also a negative one for economies overall, Ikenstein argues. Many members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) which strives to remove all trade barriers, see anti-dumping measures as important temporary protection measures against fluctuating trading patterns. Yet even the WTO expressed concern that discriminatory, protective, anti-dumping measures have replaced traditional stable, transparent tariffs.4 The number of new anti-dumping orders each year across the world has dropped since they reached a record high of 371 in 2001, to 209 in 2009.5 Still, the widespread use of temporary protections clearly seems to disagree with WTO principles.
|
加载中...
