Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T18:50:43.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is There an End to U.S.–Canadian Softwood Lumber Disputes?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Stephen Devadoss
Stephen Devadoss*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I develop a two-country theoretical trade model to show that Canadian subsidies increase lumber supplies and exports to the United States, and the U.S. retaliatory tariff raises U.S. prices and safeguards producers, but hurts consumers. These results underscore the shortsightedness of policy decisions in a bilateral trade dispute, as empirical results from the multiregional spatial equilibrium trade model highlight that both countries pursue myopic policies without taking into account the reactions of other exporters and importers. For instance, after the imposition of U.S. tariffs, other exporters grab the market share lost by Canada in the United States, while Canada augments its exports to other importers.

Keywords

Canadian subsidylumber marketU.S. tariffWTO rulingF13
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , April 2006 , pp. 137 - 153
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, D.M. “Market and Resource Impacts of a Canadian Lumber Tariff.” Journal of Forestry 101(2003):48–52.Google Scholar
Adams, D.M., and Haynes, R.W.. The 1993 Timber Assessment Market Model: Structure, Projections and Policy Simulation. U. S. Department of Agricultural Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-368, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernard, J.T., Bouthillier, L., Catimel, J., and Gelinas, N.. “An Integrated Model of Quebec-Ontario-U.S. Northeast Softwood Lumber Markets.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79(1997):987–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, R.G., Doroodian, K., and Abdul-Latif, S.. “The Effects of Tariff Removals on the North American Lumber Trade.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 41(1993):311-28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, R.G., and Krutilla, K.. “The Welfare Impacts of U.S. Trade Restrictions against the Canadian Softwood Lumber Industry: A Spatial Equilibrium Analysis.” Canadian Journal of Economics 20(1987): 17–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canada Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Softwood Lumber Trade Actions: Chronology & Background. Internet site: http://www.daift-maeci.gc.ca/...TradeActionsBackground-e.html (Accessed November 20, 2001).Google Scholar
Devadoss, S., and Aguiar, A.. “Recent Developments in the U.S.-Canadian Softwood Lumber Disputes,” International Law and Trade Policy 5(2)(2004): 168-94.Google Scholar
Devadoss, S., Aguiar, A.H., Shook, S.R., and Araji, J.. “A Spatial Equilibrium Analysis of U.S.-Canadian Disputes on the World Softwood Lumber Market.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 53(2005): 177–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations [FAO]. Statistics Database. Internet site: http://apps.fao.org (Accessed October 10, 2003).Google Scholar
International Labor Organization. Laborstat. Internet site: http://laborsta.ilo.org (Accessed October 20, 2003).Google Scholar
International Monetary Fund. International Finance Statistics Yearbook. Washington, DC, 2003.Google Scholar
Kinnucan, H., and Zhang, D.. “Incidence of the 1996 Canada-U.S. Softwood Lumber Agreement and Optimal Export Tax.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 52(2004):73–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindsey, B., Groombridge, M.A., and Loungani, P.. Nailing the Homeowner: The Economic Impact of Trade Protection of the Softwood Lumber Industry. Washington, DC: CATO Institute, 2000.Google Scholar
Myneni, G., Dorfman, J.H., and Ames, G.C.W.. “Welfare Impacts of the Canada-US Softwood Lumber Trade Dispute: Beggar Thy Consumer Trade Policy.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 42(1994):261-71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahman, S., and Devadoss, S.. “Economics of the U.S.-Canada Softwood Lumber Dispute: A Historical Perspective.” The Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy (2002): 29–45.Google Scholar
Random Lengths, Inc. 2003 Yearbook: Forest Product Market Prices and Statistics. Portland, OR: Random Lengths Publications, Inc., 2004.Google Scholar
Reed, L.Two Centuries of Softwood Lumber War Between Canada and the United States. Prepared for The Free Trade Lumber Council. Internet site: http://www.ftlc.org/index.cfm?Section = 2&DownloadID=37 (Accessed March 20, 2005).Google Scholar
Takayama, T., and Judge, G.. Spatial and Temporal Price Allocation Models. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Co., 1971.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce [USDOC]. Internet site: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/lumber/02-7849.txt (Accessed November 12, 2002).Google Scholar
U.S. Federal Register. Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada. 24159, (Final Determination). Washington, DC, May 31, 1983.Google Scholar
U.S. Federal Register. Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada. No. 51, 37, 453, 37, 458-63. Washington, DC, 1986.Google Scholar
U.S. International Trade Commission [USITC]. Investigations Nos. 701-TA-414 and 731-TA-928, Washington, DC, 2001.Google Scholar
Van Kooten, G.C. “Economic Analysis of the Canada-United States Softwood Lumber Dispute: Playing the Quota Game.” Forest Science 48(4)(2001):712-21.Google Scholar
Wear, D.N., and Lee, K.J.. “U.S. Policy and Canadian Lumber Effects of the 1986 Memorandum of Understanding.” Forest Science 39(4)(1993): 799–815.Google Scholar
Williamson, T., Hauer, G., and Luckert, M.K.. “A Restricted Leontief Profit Function Model of the Canadian Lumber and Chip Industry: Potential Impacts of US Countervail and Kyoto Ratification.” Canadian Journal of Forest Research 34(2004): 1833-44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Trade Organization [WTO]. United States— Preliminary Determinations with Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada, Panel Report, WT/DS236/R, 2002.Google Scholar
World Trade Organization [WTO]. United States— Final Countervailing Duty Determinations with Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada. DS257, 2003.Google Scholar
World Trade Organization [WTO]. United States— Final Countervailing Duty Determinations with Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada. DS257/AB/R. 2004.Google Scholar
Zhang, D. “Welfare Impacts of the 1996 U.S.-Canada Softwood Lumber Agreements.” Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31(11)(2001): 195–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, D., and Sun, C.. “U.S.-Canada Trade Disputes and Softwood Lumber Price Volatility.” Forest Products Journal 51(4)(2001):21–27.Google Scholar