Of the total use of antidumping during the WTO’s first ten years by what are now more than 140 member countries, these nine developing countries made up 40% of all new antidumping investigations and 45% of all new antidumping measures imposed.<sup>2</sup> This is a substantial shift from the prior ten year period, when the four historical developed-country users initiated almost 75% of all antidumping investigations.

Within these nine developing countries, which _industries_ chose to use antidumping to pursue protection from imports? While the steel and chemical industries have sought and received antidumping protection across virtually all of these nine countries, table 2 illustrates that most of the 28 different 3- digit ISIC industries that we analyze also pursued antidumping in at least one of these countries. Nevertheless, there is substantial variation across countries as to whether particular industries have pursued antidumping, and there is also substantial variation across countries and industries as to whether antidumping measures have been imposed as well as the coverage of imposed measures. Our empirical approach is to exploit this variation to explain industry pursuit of antidumping within developing countries. We use the criterion specified by the WTO Antidumping Agreement and the theory of endogenous trade policy to motivate our empirical framework.

Do basic features of the industry data in these developing countries suggest specific politicaleconomic characteristics that may affect the pursuit of antidumping? The top half of table 3 motivates our formal analysis by examining summary statistics from 3-digit ISIC industries in 1994. We compare industries that pursued AD over the subsequent 1995-2003 period with those that did not. Industries that pursued antidumping in these nine countries were characterized, on average, by higher import penetration (27.9% versus 23.5%) than industries that did not use AD. The size of the industry may be expected to affect its ability to finance a costly investigation as well as its political influence over antidumping authorities; the raw data indicate that initiating industries were indeed larger than non-initiating industries when measured by the mean value of their output ($5.10 billion versus $1.65 billion) or by their mean share of total employment (0.3% versus 0.2%).

A second important feature of our analysis is to examine whether industries that successfully pursue antidumping protection in developing countries actually face the changing economic conditions that are legally necessary under the WTO: specifically, injury, dumping, and increased competition from

> production data limitations. For similar reasons we also do not include countries such as Egypt, Malaysia and Thailand, whose use of antidumping has also been recently increasing.

> 2 However, these countries did not all begin using antidumping in 1995. As Zanardi (2004) reports, most had implemented antidumping legislation prior to the WTO’s inception: Argentina (1972), India (1985), Mexico (1986), Brazil (1987), Turkey (1989), Colombia (1990), Peru (1991), Venezuela (1992) and Indonesia (1995). While most of these countries did not begin intensive use of antidumping until after joining the WTO in 1995, there are several exceptions (Mexico in 1987, Turkey in 1990, Brazil in 1992). These countries undertook substantial trade liberalization episodes prior to joining the WTO and increased their use of antidumping shortly thereafter.

1