1 On the negotiating process, see Gherson, Giles, “Washington's Agenda,” in Cameron, The Free Trade Deal, 1–15.Google Scholar A second description that presents the negotiations as a more orderly process can be found in Gordon Ritchie, “The Negotiating Process,” in Crispo, The Real Story, 16–22. The most widely debated evolutionary aspects of the FTA are probably the proposed attempt to negotiate a subsidies code in the first five to seven years of the agreement and how successful the Canada-United States Trade Commission (chap. 18 of the FTA) and the binational panel reviews (chap. 19 of the FTA) will be. For excellent discussions, see Robert A. Young, “The Canada-U.S. Agreement and Its International Context,” in Gold and Leyton-Brown, Trade-Offs, 26–27; Bruce Wilkinson, “The Canada-United States Economic Integration Agreement,” Ibid., 60–61; Richard Lipsey, “The Free Trade Agreement in Context,” Ibid., 69–70; Daniel Drache, “The Mulroney-Reagan Accord: The Economics of Continental Power,” Ibid., 80–81; Stephen Clarkson, “The Canada-United States Trade Commission: The Political Implications of CUSTER for Canada,” Ibid., 160–67; William J. Davey, “Dispute Settlement Under the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement,” Ibid., 173–81; D. P. Steger, “Dispute Settlement,” Ibid., 182–87; John Quinn, “A Critical Perspective on Dispute Settlement,” Ibid., 188–96; J. Kazanjian, “Dispute Settlement Procedures in Canadian Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Cases,” Ibid., 197–204; Gilbert Winham, “Dispute Settlement and the Question of Subsidies,” Ibid., 205–11; Carolyn Tuohy, “Implications of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement for the Health Services Sector in Canada,” Ibid., 310–19; Derek Hum, “Harmonization of Social Programs Under Free Trade,” in Drover, Social Policy, 25–47; Marjorie G. Cohen, “Services: The Vanishing Opportunity,” in Cameron, The Free Trade Deal, 145–47; S. Sinclair and M. Clow, “Regional Disparities,” Ibid., 183–96; T. Courchene, “Social Policy and Regional Development,” in Crispo, The Real Story, 135–47.

2 See for instance Young, “International Context”; Drache, “Continental Power”; Clarkson, “Political Implications of CUSTER”; Winham, “Question of Subsidies”; Howard Leeson, “The Free Trade Agreement, Western Canada and Natural Resources: A Trojan Horse?” in Gold and Leyton-Brown, Trade-Offs, 224–32; Tuohy, “Health Services Sector”; A. W. Johnson, “Free Trade and Cultural Industries,” in Gold and Leyton-Brown, Trade-Offs, 350–60; Donald Smiley, “A Note on Canadian-American Free Trade and Canadian Political Autonomy,” Ibid., 442–45; and Denis Stairs, “The Impact on Public Policy: A Leap of Faith,” Ibid., 454–58. The literature about a FTA between Canada and the United States brings out particularly clearly the different professional orientations among political scientists, economists, and business school professors. Most, though not all, economists demonstrate an underlying faith in trade liberalization and a suspicion of state intervention. Most business school writers focus on economic rationalization and business strategies under an FTA and are equally suspicious of state intervention. Political scientists, for their part, view the Canadian state as a less alien and more loveable creature and worry about its capacity to adjust.

3 A number of other volumes received by the Journal were excluded from this review because of considerations of overlapping coverage and the time frame for preparation of this article. These include Wonnacott, Paul, The United States and Canada: The Quest for Free Trade (Washington: Institute for International Economics, 1987)Google Scholar; Fry, Earl H. and Radbaugh, Lee H. (eds.), The Canadal U.S. Free Trade Agreement: The Impact on Service Industries (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, 1988)Google Scholar; Wonnacott, Ronald J. with Hill, Roderick, Canadian and U.S. Adjustment Politics in a Bilateral Trade Agreement (Toronto: C. D. Howe Institute, 1987)Google Scholar; Price, Victoria Curzon, Free Trade Areas: The European Experience (Toronto: C. D. Howe Institute, 1987)Google Scholar; and Finn, Ed with Cameron, Duncan and Calvert, John, The Facts on Free Trade (Toronto: James Lorimer, 1988).Google Scholar

4 I have taken the liberty of classifying authors as either opponents or proponents of the FTA. I realize that this classification is a crude one and lumps together authors of varying degrees of support or opposition.

5 For an earlier effort along similar lines, see Nossal, Kim Richard, “Economic Nationalism and Continental Integration: Assumptions, Arguments and Advocacies,” in Stairs, D. and Winham, G. (eds.), The Politics of Canada's Economic Relationship with the United States (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986), 55–94.Google Scholar

6 Especially see A. Rugman and J. Verbeke, “Strategic Responses to Free Trade,” in Farrow and Rugman, Business Strategies, 13–29.

7 Courchene, “The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement: Selected Political and Economic Perspectives,” in Gold and Leyton-Brown, Trade-Offs, 39–40.

8 An interesting case is made along these lines by Jean-Luc Migué, “True Independence Through Free Trade,” Ibid., 446–53.

9 Courchene, “Political and Economic Perspectives,” 40.

10 Alan Rugman is the strongest proponent of the bloc or triad power thesis. See “Multinationals and Free Trade,” in Gold and Leyton-Brown, Trade-Offs, 10–11.

11 See Young, “International Context”; Wilkinson, “Economic Integration Agreement”; Drache, “Continental Power”; Leeson, “A Trojan Horse”; Hugh Mackenzie, “Free Trade and the Auto Industry,” in Gold and Leyton-Brown, Trade-Offs, 289–92; Rick Salutin, “Culture and the Deal: Another Broken Promise,” Ibid., 365–69; Fred Lazar, “The Trade Agrement: A Dissenting Opinion,” Ibid., 434–41; Smiley, “Canadian Political Autonomy”; Stairs, “A Leap of Faith”; and Warnock, New Right Agenda.

12 In particular, see Young, “International Context,” and Wilkinson, “Economic Integration Agreement.” Both authors prefer to refer to the FTA as the Economic Integration Agreement.

13 Donald Cameron, Stephen Clarkson and Mel Watkins, “Market Access,” in Cameron, The Free Trade Deal, 46–58.

14 Young, “International Context,” 20–28. Also see Goldstein, Judith, “The Political Economy of Trade: Institutions of Protection,” American Political Science Review 80 (1986), 161–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 Young, “International Context,” 21. Also see Warnock, New Right Agenda, 59.

16 See Hazeldine, Tim, “Canada-U.S. Free Trade? Not So Elementary, Watson,” Canadian Public Policy 14 (1988), 204–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Leslie, Peter, Federal State, National Economy (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987).Google Scholar

18 See D. P. Steger, “Dispute Settlement,” in Crispo, The Real Story, 88, and Lipsey and York, A Guided Tour, 21–22.

19 See Cameron, The Free Trade Deal, and Warnock, New Right Agenda.

20 Courchene, “Political and Economic Perspectives,” 37.

21 Leeson, “A Trojan Horse,” 229.

22 Ibid.

23 See Cohen, “The Vanishing Opportunity”; J. Surich, “Throwing in the Towel: The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement,” in Gold and Leyton-Brown, Trade-Offs, 415–22; Dennis Guest, “Canadian and American Income Security Responses to Five Major Risks: A Comparison,” in Drover, Social Policy, 83–102.

24 See Winham, “Question of Subsidies”; Stairs, “A Leap of Faith”; Hum, “Harmonization”; and Cohen, “Vanishing Opportunity.”

25 See Sinclair and Clow, “Regional Disparities,” and Malcolm Lester, “Free Trade and Canadian Book Publishing,” in Gold and Leyton-Brown, Trade-Offs, 361–64.

26 See Winham, “Question of Subsidies,” and Hum, “Harmonization.”

27 Winham, “Question of Subsidies,” 207.

28 Lipsey, “Free Trade Agreement in Context,” 74; Katie McMillan, “Free Trade and Service Industries: The Impact on Canadian Women,” in Gold and Leyton-Brown, Trade-Offs, 308; and Paul Wonnacott, “Autos and the Free Trade Agreement: Toward a More Secure Trading Environment,” Ibid., 381.

29 Hum, “Harmonization,” 38, 42.

30 Ibid., 42.

31 Rugman, “Multinationals,” 5.

32 Garth Stevenson, “The Agreement and the Dynamics of Canadian Federalism,” in Gold and Leyton-Brown, Trade-Offs, 140.

33 Warnock, New Right Agenda, and Drache, “Continental Power.”

34 Clarkson, “Political Implications of CUSTER,” and H. Scott Fairley, “Jurisdictional Limits on National Purpose: Ottawa, the Provinces and Free Trade with the United States,” in Gold and Leyton-Brown, Trade-Offs, 107–16.

35 Fairley, “Jurisdictional Limits,” 108.

36 Stevenson, “Canadian Federalism,” and Daniel Latouche, “Le petit, le gros et le moyen: L'Accord de libre-échange en perspective,” in Gold and Leyton-Brown, Trade-Offs, 148–59.

37 Stevenson, “Canadian Federalism,” and Clarkson, “Political Implications of CUSTER.”

38 Lazar, “Dissenting Opinion”; Smiley, “Political Autonomy”; Migué, “True Independence”; Stairs, “A Leap of Faith.”

39 In particular, see Clarkson, “Political Implications of CUSTER”; Davey, “Dispute Settlement”; Steger, “Dispute Settlement”; Quinn, “Critical Perspective”; Kazanjian, “Dispute Settlement Procedures”; Winham, “Question of Subsidies”; and the editors’ introduction to chapter 6 (Gold and Leyton-Brown, Trade-Offs).

40 Davey treats this chapter as establishing two different mechanisms, separating general dispute settlement from binding arbitration of safeguard measures (“Dispute Settlement,” 173–77). Clarkson refers to this Commission by the acronym CUSTER. Presumably the FTA is Canada's “last stand.”

41 Lipsey and York, Guided Tour, 91.

42 Quinn, “Critical Perspective,” 196; Clarkson, “Political Implications of CUSTER,” 165.

43 Steger, “Dispute Settlement,” and Winham, “Question of Subsidies.”

44 Quinn, “Critical Perspective,” 190.

45 Steger, “Dispute Settlement,” 185.

46 Clarkson sees increased conflict resulting whereas Steger and Winham—the latter more over the longer term—are more optimistic that the result will be positive. Clarkson, “Political Implications of CUSTER,” 167; Steger, “Dispute Settlement,” 184; Winham, “Question of Subsidies,” 207.

47 Steger, “Dispute Settlement”; Quinn, “Critical Perspective”; Kazanjian, “Dispute Settlement Procedures.”

48 Davey, “Dispute Settlement,” 174; Quinn, “Critical Perspective,” 291.

49 Quinn, “Critical Perspective,” 195.

50 Kazanjian, “Dispute Settlement Procedures,” 202.