EFEKTIVITAS TINDAKAN ANTI DUMPING INDONESIA 1996-2010

  • Aditya Paramita Alhayat Kementerian Perdagangan
DOI: https://doi.org/10.30908/bilp.v8i2.95
Abstract Views: 400 | PDF Downloads: 796

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
  
Keywords: Anti-Dumping, Efek Restriksi Perdagangan, Efek Pengalihan Perdagangan, Trade Restriction Effect, Trade Diversion Effect

Abstract

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mempelajari secara empiris dampak tindakan anti-dumping Indonesia terhadap kinerja impor produk terkait pada periode 1996-2010. Dengan menggunakan model regresi Lee, Park, dan Cui yang dikembangkan pada tahun 2013 ,dampak tindakan anti-dumping dapat dibedakan menjadi efek restriksi dan efek pengalihan perdagangan. Hasil empiris menunjukkan bahwa tindakan anti-dumping tidak efektif dalam memberikan efek restriksi perdagangan dari negara yang menjadi target anti-dumping. Bahkan, impor dari negara yang bukan menjadi target anti-dumping meningkat secara definitif pada tahun ditetapkannya anti-dumping. Secara agregat, efek netto restriksi dan pengalihan perdagangan terbukti mampu menekan impor pada periode investigasi anti-dumping, namun pada periode sesudahnya impor kembali meningkat. Penelitian ini merekomendasikan agar pemerintah mempertimbangkan instrumen kebijakan tindakan pengamanan perdagangan lain yang dapat menekan impor dengan lebih efektif dan bersifat jangka panjang.

 

This study aims to investigate the effects of Indonesia’s anti-dumping actions on import performance of related products during 1996-2010. Utilizing the Lee, Park, dan Cui regression model developed in 2013, the effects of anti-dumping actions can be distinguished into two effects, namely trade restriction and trade diversion. The study shows that anti-dumping measures are not effective in providing trade restriction effect to the targeted countries. In fact, imports from non-targeted countries definitively increased in the year when anti-dumping measures was being set up. The net effects of anti-dumping action are proven to reduce imports during the investigation period, but imports continued to rise afterwards. The study recommends the government to consider other trade remedies policy which could give significant and long term trade restriction effect.

Author Biography

Aditya Paramita Alhayat, Kementerian Perdagangan
Pusat Kebijakan Perdagangan Luar Negeri, Badan Pengkajian dan Pengembangan Kebijakan Perdagangan

References

Arnan, I. (2014). Peranan Komite Anti Dumping Indonesia dalam Pencegahan Praktik Dumping terhadap Barang Impor. Skripsi. Makassar: Program Studi Ilmu Hukum, Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Hasanuddin.

Bown, C.P. (2014). Global Antidumping Database. The World Bank. Diunduh tanggal 19 Juli 2014 dari http://econ.worldbank.org/ttbd/gad/

BPS. (2014). Nilai Ekspor dan Impor (Juta US$), 1984-2012. Diunduh tanggal 30 Juli 2014 dari http://www.bps.go.id/tab_sub/view.php?kat=2&tabel=1&daftar=1&id_subyek=08&notab=1

Brenton, P. (2001). Anti-Dumping Policies in the EU and Trade Diversion. European Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 17, pp. 593–607.

Dinlersoz, E. dan C. Dogan. (2010). Tariffs Versus Anti-Dumping Duties. International Review of Economics & Finance, Vol. 19 (3), pp. 436-451, DOI: 10.1016/j.iref.2009.10.007.

Egger, P. dan D. Nelson. (2011). How Bad is Antidumping? Evidence from Panel Data. Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 93 (4), pp. 1374-1390, DOI:10.1162/REST_a_00132.

Erlina, R. (2006). Anti Dumping dalam Perdagangan Internasional: Sinkronisasi Peraturan Anti Dumping Indonesia terhadap WTO Anti Dumping Agreement. Tesis. Medan: Magister Ilmu Hukum, Sekolah Pascasarjana, Universitas Sumatera Utara.

Ganguli, B. (2008). The Trade Effects of Indian Antidumping Actions. Review of International Economics, Vol.16 (5), pp. 930-941.

IMF. (2014, Agustus). International Financial Statistics. CD-ROM.

Kim, H.J. (2012). Court backs EU anti-dumping duties on Chinese shoes. Diunduh tanggal 21 Juli 2014 dari https://kimsstudyblog.wordpress.com/2012/09/24/court-backs-eu-anti-dumping-duties-on-chinese-shoes/

Konings, J., H. Vandenbussche dan L. Springael. (2001). Import Diversion under European Antidumping Policy. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Vol. 1 (3), pp. 283-299.

Lasagni, A. (2000). Does Country Targeted Antidumping Policy by the EU Create Trade Diversion. Journal of World Trade, Vol. 34 (4), pp. 137-159.

Lee, M., D. Park, dan A. Cui. (2013). Invisible Trade Barriers: Trade Effects of US Antidumping Actions Against the People’s Republic of China. ADB Economics Working Paper Series No. 378. Manila: Asian Development Bank.

Lu, Y, Z. Tao, dan Y. Zhang. (2013). How Do Exporters Respond to Antidumping Investigations? Journal of International Economics, Vol. 91 (2), pp. 290-300, DOI: 10.1016/j.jinteco.2013.08.005.

Malhotra, N., S. Kassam, dan H. Rus. (2008). Antidumping Duties in the Agriculture Sector: Trade Restricting or Trade Deflecting? Global Economy Journal, Vol. 8 (2), DOI: 10.2202/1524-5861.1299.

Niels, G. (2003). Trade Diversion and Trade Destruction Effects of Antidumping Policy: Empirical Evidence from Mexico. Paper for the European Trade Study Group Annual Conference, Madrid.

Park, S. (2009). The Trade Depressing and Trade Diversion Effects of Antidumping Actions: The Case of China. China Economic Review, Vol. 20(3), pp. 542-548.

Prusa, T. J. (1996). The Trade Effects of U.S. Antidumping Actions. NBER Working Paper No. 5440.

Prusa, T. J. (2001). On the Spread and Impact of Anti-Dumping. Canadian Journal of Economics, Vol. 34 (3), pp. 591-611.

Raz, A.F., et al. (2012). Krisis Keuangan Global dan Pertumbuhan Ekonomi: Analisa dari Perekonomian Asia Timur. Buletin Ekonomi Moneter dan Perbankan, Vol. 15 (2), Oktober.

Rohmayanti, D. (2011). Tinjauan Ekonomi Syariah terhadap Praktik Dumping dalam Perdagangan Internasional. Skripsi. Jakarta: Program Studi Muamalat, Fakultas Syariah dan Hukum, UIN Syarif Hidayatullah.

Rumus Statistik. (2014). Rata-rata Tertimbang (Terbobot). Diunduh tanggal 24 Agustus 2014 dari http://www.rumusstatistik.com/2013/08/rata-rata-tertimbang-terbobot.html

Staiger, R. W. dan F. A. Wolak. (1994). Measuring Industry-Specific Protection: Antidumping in the United States. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics, pp. 51-118.

van Marion, M. (2014). Market Structure and Dumping. International Trade Policy and European Industry Contributions to Economics, pp. 141-171. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-00392-4_8.

Vandenbussche, H. dan M. Zanardi. (2010). The Chilling Trade Effects of Antidumping Proliferation. European Economic Review, Vol. 54 (6), pp. 760-777), DOI:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2010.01.003.

WTO. (2014a). Statistics on Anti-Dumping. Diunduh tanggal 6 Juni 2014 dari http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/adp_e/adp_e.htm

WTO. (2014b). Statistics on Safeguard Measures. Diunduh tanggal 6 Juni 2014 dari http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/safeg_e/safeg_e.htm

WTO. (2014c). Statistics on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. Diunduh tanggal 6 Juni 2014 dari http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/scm_e/scm_e.htm

WTO. (2014d). Understanding the WTO: The Agreements of Anti-Dumping, Subsidies, Safeguards. Diunduh tanggal 22 Juli 2014 dari http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm8_e.htm

WTO. (2014e). Anti-Dumping: Technical Information on Anti-Dumping. Diunduh tanggal 22 Juli 2014 dari http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/adp_e/adp_info_e.htm

Yustiawan, D. G. P. (2011). Perlindungan Industri Dalam Negeri dari Praktik Dumping. Tesis. Denpasar: Program Megister Studi Ilmu Hukum, Universitas Udayana.

Published
2014-12-31
How to Cite
Alhayat, A. P. (2014). EFEKTIVITAS TINDAKAN ANTI DUMPING INDONESIA 1996-2010. Buletin Ilmiah Litbang Perdagangan, 8(2), 247-268. https://doi.org/10.30908/bilp.v8i2.95
Section
Articles