Reference no: EM133428850

Case Study: European Union (EU) regulates anti-dumping to China and Vietnam's shoes product just because the importer from China and Vietnam sold their products in cheaper price than EU local product and also cheaper than the products that being sold in home

countries itself, China and Vietnam (dumping). In EU point of view, China and Vietnam are non-market economies which means that those two countries domestic prices are artificial. According to financial times, anti-dumping usually used in large scale

business and capital intensive like steel and in this context, shoes making is not one of those. Shoes are not the only product protected by anti-dumping in EU. In 2005, bicycle industry also being protected by anti-dumping against China and Vietnam

products. Some observers think that it was unfair to combine Vietnamese and Chinese product in the same trade suit but in other hand, European commission concluded that Vietnam and China bicycle have same type and distribution.

The anti-dumping caused low import shoes product from China and Vietnam and it became opportunity to other country to enter the market since EU consists of lots of countries and consumers.

CASE - DISCUSSION QUESTION

1. When tariffs are imposed on European imports of shoes from China and Vietnam, who stands to gain? Who stands to lose?

2. European policymakers object to the fact that some Asian shoe production is government subsidized. But as an editorial in the Financial times noted "If Beijing and Hanoi want to subsidize European consumers to build their shoe collections, let them." Do you agree?

3. Anti-dumping countries can be described as a form of protectionism. As the global economic crisis happened in 2008 and 2009, many countries began implementing protectionist. Is this a positive trend or are such policies likely toprolong the recession?