Perils in the Brussels‐Washington Steel Pact of 1982
1982; Wiley; Volume: 5; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1111/j.1467-9701.1982.tb00055.x
ISSN1467-9701
AutoresHans G. Mueller, Hans van Der Ven,
Tópico(s)Global trade and economics
ResumoThe World EconomyVolume 5, Issue 3 p. 259-278 Perils in the Brussels-Washington Steel Pact of 1982 Hans Mueller, Hans Mueller HANS MUELLER: Professor of Economics, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, United States of America, where he has been since 1961; co-author, with Kiyoshi Kawahito, of Steel Industry Economics: a Comparative Analysis of Structure, Conduct and Performance (1978) and, with several staff members of the Federal Trade Commission, of The United States Steel Industry and its International Rivals (1977)Search for more papers by this authorHans van Der Ven, Hans van Der Ven HANS VAN DER VEN: Paul Henri Spaak Fellow, Center for International Affairs, Harvard University, Cambridge, MassachusettsSearch for more papers by this author Hans Mueller, Hans Mueller HANS MUELLER: Professor of Economics, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, United States of America, where he has been since 1961; co-author, with Kiyoshi Kawahito, of Steel Industry Economics: a Comparative Analysis of Structure, Conduct and Performance (1978) and, with several staff members of the Federal Trade Commission, of The United States Steel Industry and its International Rivals (1977)Search for more papers by this authorHans van Der Ven, Hans van Der Ven HANS VAN DER VEN: Paul Henri Spaak Fellow, Center for International Affairs, Harvard University, Cambridge, MassachusettsSearch for more papers by this author First published: November 1982 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9701.1982.tb00055.xCitations: 3 ‘US-EC Steel Arrangement’, International Trade Administration, United States Department of Commerce, Washington, fact sheet released on 21 October 1982. ‘Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing-duty Determinations: Certain Steel Products from Belgium, Brazil, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, South Africa and the United Kingdom’, press release of 11 June 1982, International Trade Administration, United States Department of Commerce, Washington, reproduced in 47 Federal Register, 17 June 1982, pp. 26300–5. ‘Affirmative Countervailing-duty Determinations; Various Countries; and Suspension of Investigation; Brazil’, press release of 25 August 1982, International Trade Administration, United States Department of Commerce, Washington, reproduced in 47 Federal Register, 7 September 1982, pp. 39303–95. Kiyoshi Kawahito, ‘Japanese Steel in the American Market’, The World Economy, September 1981. Kawahito, ‘Steel and the US Anti-dumping Statutes’, Journal of World Trade Law, March-April 1982. Obviously with the intent of being better prepared for that eventuality, the European Community added a law very similar to the American statute to its arsenal (Council Regulation No. 3017/79 of 20 December 1979, Official Journal of the European Communities, L339 of 31 December 1979). Thus there is a possibility that in a future trade war the participants on both sides might attempt to maintain the appearance of merely enforcing ‘the laws of the land’. Such practices only constitute dumping if it can be established that they caused material injury to American sellers. But this becomes a minor point in a recession, as the International Trade Commission may interpret the mere decline of output, capacity utilisation, employment or prices as ‘injury’. Staff Report on the United States Steel Industry and its International Rivals: Trends and Factors Determining International Competitiveness (Washington: US Government Printing Office, for the Federal Trade Commission, 1977). Cost Competitiveness in ECSC Steel Industries: the Effects of Government Policies (Richmond, Surrey: British Iron and Steel Consumers’ Council, 1981) pp. 2–10. Staff Report on the United States Steel Industry and its International Rivals: Trends and Factors Determining International Competitiveness, op. cit., pp. 315–16. ‘Comment: in the Matter of Certain Steel Products from Belgium, Brazil, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Romania, South Africa, Spain and the United Kingdom’, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, mimeograph, 1982, p. 8. Ibid., p. 30. Ibid., p. 39. Ibid., pp. 11–12 Louis Lister, Europe's Coal and Steel Community (New York: Twentieth Century Fund, 1960) pp. 70–72. Current Industrial Reports: Steel Mill Products, Series MA-33B (Washington: US Government Printing Ofice, for the United States Department of Commerce, 1977); Iron and Steel Yearbook, Statistical Oflice of the European Community, Luxembourg, 1976 and 1979; and Metal Intelligence International, 2 December 1981. For a comparison of hourly earnings and output per hour in the American steel industry, see Richard G. Anderson and Mordechai E. Kreinin, ‘Labour Costs in the American Steel and Auto Industries’, The World Economy, June 1981. US Industrial Competitiveness: a Comparison of Steel, Electronics and Automobiles (Washington: US Government Printing Office, for the Office of Technology Assessment, United States Congress, 1981) pp. 54–60; Wages and Incomes, Statistical Office of the European Community, Luxembourg, May 1980, Table 1; and Maigetsu Kinro Tokei Chosa, Ministry of Labour, Government of Japan, November 1981. Indirect Trade in Steel: 1962 to 1979 (Brussels: International Iron and Steel Institute, 1982). The material in this section is based on Walter Adams and Hans Mueller, ‘The Steel Industry’, in Adam (ed.), The Structure of American Industry (New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1982). These figures are estimated on the assumption that pre-tax profits range from 6–12 per cent of sales revenue and a ton of steel products cost $500 on average. This estimate allows for some cost degression due to the rising volume of output. This estimate is based on the assumption that the average price of steel is $500 per ton and annual shipments amount to 80 million tons. The Code on Subsidies and Countervailing Duties is formally referred to as the Agreement on Interpretation and Application of Articles VI, XVI and XXIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Geneva: GATT Secretariat, 1979). In referring to the GATT ministerial meeting in an address to the Ostasiatisches Liebesmahl, Hamburg, on 5 March 1982, Arthur Dunkel, Director-General of the GATT, said: ‘It will, of course, reaffirm the commitment of the Contracting Parties to the rules of the GATT, but I think governments appreciate that a merely verbal reaffirmation would not be enough. Mere words would confirm to the business world that governments have exhausted their capacity for constructive and cooperative action and are reduced to collective incantation.’ See Victoria Curzon Price, ‘Surplus Capacity and What the Tokyo Round Failed to Settle’, The World Economy, September 1979; and Sidney Golt, ‘Beyond the Tokyo Round’, The Banker, August 1979. See René Joliet, ‘Cartelisation, Dirigism and Crisis in the European Community’, The World Economy, January 1981. AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume5, Issue3November 1982Pages 259-278 RelatedInformation
Referência(s)