🇪🇺🇬🇧 "In short, economic geography and power politics suggest the UK will over time find a better relationship with… https://t.co/jJVOgLsWhu📢 Be sure to join our new webinar!
Tune in our upcoming online conversation on business and politics in China with… https://t.co/ZDXmJPhs9L🌎🚢 IP-intensive sectors export 68% of all EU exports. Stronger IP provisions in EU FTAs can lead to an increase of… https://t.co/Nr6oolhcYJ"The same hawks who are usually (and rightly) dogmatic about Chinese market distortions are now fiercely advocating… https://t.co/SGZ8FU3RMiIs China closing itself? How are new business restrictions causing friction? What are the secrets for success in Ch… https://t.co/RVXLXdyxUq
Anti-dumping rules are flexible and open to political bias. In the past ten years, EU investigating institutions have been biased towards the imposition of measures. The European Commission claims that all anti-dumping investigations are “rigorously and professionally carried out”. This new paper by Lucy Davis tests the validity of that statement. Davis makes a rigorous examination of the publicly available information from EU anti-dumping cases. She concludes that procedural reform is needed in the investigation process, to raise assessment standards and abate suspicions of anti-dumping protectionism.