[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/9119.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Protectionism during the crisis: Tit-for-tat or chicken games?

Author

Listed:
  • Olarreaga, Marcelo
  • Boffa, Mauro
Abstract
During the recent financial crisis many countries resorted to protectionist measures to try to boost demand for domestically-produced goods. In this paper we explore the extent to which the adoption of protectionist measures led to retaliation by other countries undermining the increase in demand. We found no evidence of retaliation. On the contrary, there is strong evidence of chicken-games being played. Indeed, the probability of a protectionist measure being imposed on a trading partner's export bundle is significantly smaller when the partner imposes a protectionist measure on home exports.

Suggested Citation

  • Olarreaga, Marcelo & Boffa, Mauro, 2012. "Protectionism during the crisis: Tit-for-tat or chicken games?," CEPR Discussion Papers 9119, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    • Handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:9119
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cepr.org/publications/DP9119
    Download Restriction: CEPR Discussion Papers are free to download for our researchers, subscribers and members. If you fall into one of these categories but have trouble downloading our papers, please contact us at subscribers@cepr.org
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Giovanni Maggi & Andrés Rodríguez-Clare, 2007. "A Political-Economy Theory of Trade Agreements," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1374-1406, September.
    2. A. Colin Cameron & Jonah B. Gelbach & Douglas L. Miller, 2011. "Robust Inference With Multiway Clustering," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(2), pages 238-249, April.
    3. Robert W. Staiger & Kyle Bagwell, 1999. "An Economic Theory of GATT," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 215-248, March.
    4. Douglas A. Irwin, 1998. "The Smoot-Hawley Tariff: A Quantitative Assessment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(2), pages 326-334, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marie-Laure Cabon-Dhersin & Nathalie Etchart-Vincent, 2013. "Wording and gender effects in a Game of Chicken. An explorative experimental study," Working Papers hal-00796708, HAL.
    2. Furceri, Davide & Ostry, Jonathan D. & Papageorgiou, Chris & Wibaux, Pauline, 2021. "Retaliatory temporary trade barriers: New facts and patterns," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 873-891.
    3. Furceri, Davide & Ostry, Jonathan D. & Papageorgiou, Chris & Wibaux, Pauline, 2023. "Retaliation through Temporary Trade Barriers," CEPR Discussion Papers 17853, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    4. Grundke, Robert & Moser, Christoph, 2019. "Hidden protectionism? Evidence from non-tariff barriers to trade in the United States," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 143-157.
    5. Georgios Georgiadis & Johannes Gräb, 2016. "Growth, Real Exchange Rates and Trade Protectionism since the Financial Crisis," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(5), pages 1050-1080, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Crowley, Meredith & Meng, Ning & Song, Huasheng, 2018. "Tariff scares: Trade policy uncertainty and foreign market entry by Chinese firms," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 96-115.
    2. Bown, Chad P., 2014. "Trade policy instruments over time," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6757, The World Bank.
    3. Giovanni Maggi & Ralph Ossa, 2020. "Are Trade Agreements Good For You?," NBER Working Papers 27252, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Bown, Chad P. & Crowley, Meredith A., 2014. "Emerging economies, trade policy, and macroeconomic shocks," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 261-273.
    5. Albornoz, Facundo & Calvo Pardo, Héctor F. & Corcos, Gregory & Ornelas, Emanuel, 2012. "Sequential exporting," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 17-31.
    6. Javorcik, Beata S. & Narciso, Gaia, 2017. "WTO accession and tariff evasion," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 59-71.
    7. Cole, Matthew T. & Lake, James & Zissimos, Ben, 2021. "Contesting an international trade agreement," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    8. Emanuel Ornelas, 2016. "Special and Differential Treatment for Developing Countries," CESifo Working Paper Series 5823, CESifo.
    9. Richard Baldwin & Frédéric Robert-Nicoud, 2015. "A simple model of the juggernaut effect of trade liberalisation," International Economics, CEPII research center, issue 143, pages 70-79.
    10. Blanchard, Emily J., 2010. "Reevaluating the role of trade agreements: Does investment globalization make the WTO obsolete?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 63-72, September.
    11. Nuno Limão & Patricia Tovar, 2018. "Policy choice: Theory and evidence from commitment via international trade agreements," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Policy Externalities and International Trade Agreements, chapter 6, pages 179-198, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    12. Bown, Chad, 2015. "What's Left for the WTO?," CEPR Discussion Papers 11003, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    13. David R. DeRemer, 2015. "Opportunities for Cooperation in Removing Prohibitive Trade Barriers," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 1533, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    14. David R. DeRemer, 2016. "The Principle of Reciprocity in the 21st Century," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 1613, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    15. David J. Kuenzel, 2019. "Do trade flows respond to nudges? Evidence from the WTO’s Trade Policy Review Mechanism," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 735-764, August.
    16. Asrat Tesfayesus, 2016. "Liberalization Agreements in the GATT/WTO and the Terms-of-trade Externality Theory: Evidence from Three Developing Countries," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(5), pages 1000-1022, November.
    17. Zissimos, Ben, 2007. "The GATT and gradualism," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 410-433, April.
    18. Bown, Chad, 2007. "Developing Countries and Enforcement of Trade Agreements: Why Dispute Settlement Is Not Enough," CEPR Discussion Papers 6459, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    19. Tang, Man-Keung & Wei, Shang-Jin, 2009. "The value of making commitments externally: Evidence from WTO accessions," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 216-229, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Chicken-games; Financial crisis; Trade retaliation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:9119. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cepr.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.