The U.S. Steel Trigger Price Mechanism: Import Impact and Strategic Response

By Palia, Aspy P. | Akron Business and Economic Review, Summer 1990 | Go to article overview

The U.S. Steel Trigger Price Mechanism: Import Impact and Strategic Response


Palia, Aspy P., Akron Business and Economic Review


The U.S. Steel Trigger Price Mechanism: Import Impact and Strategic Response

In 1947 American steel producers were the most efficient and most productive in the world. They produced 57 percent of the world steel output, an amount that was 82.4 times that of Japan, 2.7 times that of the European Community (EC), and 3.9 times that of Eastern Europe. By 1984 the U.S. had lost its dominant position in the world steel industry. It accounted for only 11.8 percent of world steel production. Indeed, U.S. steel production was only 80 percent of Japanese steel production, 70 percent of that of the EC, and 39 percent of the production of the Communist countries. During this period the U.S. lost its status as the leading exporter of steel and became the largest steel importer. Trade surpluses in steel until 1959 were replaced by large recurring annual deficits. According to the American Iron and Steel Institute [1], steel imports, which constituted only 4.7 percent of apparent supply as recently as 1960 and 13.5 percent in 1975, reached 20.5 percent in 1983 and as much as 26.4 percent in 1984. Barnett and Schorsch [2] and Crandall [3] have reported that in addition to losing their leading position in the technology race, American steel producers were unable to compete at home and abroad.

This steel import penetration occurred at the same time that capacity utilization and employment within the U.S. steel industry had been falling. Stagnant steel demand accompanied by substantial global excess capacity led to a price war. Aggressive price competition depressed prices and reduced the market share and profitability of the U.S. integrated steel firms. A global oversupply of steel resulted from an expansion of steel producing capacity by the developed and developing nations. Furthermore, the use of substitutes, like fiber glass and metallic alloys, and product down-sizing reduced the demand for steel. The Federal Trade Commission [4] and Grossman [5] have pointed out that the combination of excess supply and reduced demand led to aggressive international competition, with imported steel gaining a substantial share of the U.S. market. Jones [6] stated that the growth in market share of imported steel led U.S. steel producers to complain about unfair price competition. American producers alleged that foreign companies were being subsidized by their governments and/or were dumping steel in the U.S. market.

Two tests may be used to determine whether dumping has transpired under the Antidumping Act of 1921 as amended by the Trade Act of 1974 (U.S. Congress [10]), the "fair value" test and the "cost of production" test (U.S. International Trade Commission [11]). Under the fair value test, a foreign good is sold at "less than fair value" if, over a substantial period of time, the product is systematically sold at a higher price in the exporting country than in the U.S. Under the "cost of production" test, an American firm may allege dumping even if the U.S. price of the product is not below the price in the exporter's home market provided the price at which the product is sold in the U.S. is below the foreign manufacturer's full cost of production.

The steel Trigger Price Mechanism (TPM), or Solomon [7] Plan, was designed to protect U.S. steel producers from "unfair" import competition. It was to achieve this objective by (1) discouraging sales of imported steel products at prices below the foreign producer's cost of production plus the cost of landing the steel in the U.S. and by (2) expediting implementation of traditional anti-dumping investigations.

The cost of production test was incorporated in U.S. dumping legislation by the Trade Act of 1974. To conclude dumping has occurred, a finding is necessary that the sales made at prices below the manufacturer's cost of production continued for an extended period of time and involved a substantial quantity of the product (Williams [12]). Moreover, it must be found that the sales are not atprices that permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

The U.S. Steel Trigger Price Mechanism: Import Impact and Strategic Response
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Author Advanced search

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.