Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T10:24:31.250Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Evaluation of Canadian and U.S. Policies of Log and Lumber Markets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2015

Stephen Devadoss
Stephen Devadoss*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Idaho Moscow, ID
Get access

Abstract

The recent lumber trade war between Canada and the United States deals with Canadian stumpage policies, Canada's log export controls, and U.S. retaliatory duty. This study determines the appropriate level of U.S. countervailing duty (CVD) by employing a vertically interrelated log–lumber model. The theoretical results show that the U.S. CVD can be greater (will be less) than the Canadian subsidy for a vertically related log–lumber market (for lumber market only). Empirical results support the theoretical findings in that the U.S. CVD for the log–lumber market (lumber market alone) is 1.55 (0.91) times the Canadian subsidy.

Keywords

countervailing dutydisputeloglumbersubsidyF13
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , April 2007 , pp. 171 - 184
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2008

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., Boyd, R., and Angle, J. “Evaluating the Stability of Softwood Lumber Demand Elasticity by End-use Sector: a Stochastic Parameter Approach.” Forest Science 36(1992):825–41.Google Scholar
Adams, D.M., and Haynes, R.W. “The 1980 Softwood Timber Assessment Market Model: Structure, Projections, and Policy Simulations.” Forest Science Monographs 26(3):22.Google Scholar
Adams, D.M., and Haynes, R.W. “A Model of National Forest Timber Supply and Stumpage Markets in the Western United States.” Forest Science 35(1989):401–24.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.Google Scholar
Baker, B. “The Impact of the Corporate Tax Reform on the Sawmill Planning Mill, and Shingle Mill Products Industries: an Update.” Economics Branch Note, Quebec: Forestry Canada: Economics Branch, 1989.Google Scholar
Baker, B. “Regional Output Supply and Input Demand in the Canadian Lumber Industry.” Research Note, Ottawa, Ontario: Forestry Canada, Forest Sector Analysis Division, Economics and Statistics Directorate, 1990.Google 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
Bhagwati, J. “The Generalized Theory of Distortions and Welfare.” Trade, Balance of Payment and Growth, Bhagwati, J., Mundell, R., Jones, R. and Vanek, J. eds. Amsterdam: North Holland, 1971.Google 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
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.Google Scholar
Chen, N.J., Ames, G.C.W., and Hammett, A.L. “Implications of a Tariffon Imported Canadian Softwood Lumber.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 36(1988):69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Constantino, L.F., and Haley, D. “Wood Quantity and the Input and Output Choices of Saw-milling Producers for the British Columbia Coast and United States Pacific Northwest, West Side.” Canadian Journal of Forest Research 18(1988):202–08.Google Scholar
Devadoss, S. “Is There an End to U.S.–Canadian Softwood Lumber Disputes?” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 38(2006):137–53.CrossRefGoogle 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):177–92.Google Scholar
DFAIT (Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade), Canada. “Softwood Lumber Trade Actions: Chronology & Background.” Internet site: www.daift-maeci.gc.ca/...TradeActionsBackground-e.html (Accessed November 20, 2001).Google Scholar
DFAIT (Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade). “Softwood Lumber, Canada’s Legal Actions.” Internet site: www.dfait-macci.gc.ca/trade/eicb/softwood/wto_challenges-en.asp (Accessed May 5, 2005).Google Scholar
Harris, B., and Devadoss, S. “Why Did the Byrd Amendment Not Fly with the WTO?” Journal of International Law and Trade Policy 6(2005):226–50.Google Scholar
Irwin, D.A. “The Optimal Export Tax on Antebellum US Cotton Exports.” Journal of International Economics 60(2003):275–91.Google Scholar
Kalt, J. “The Political Economy of Protectionism: Tariffs and Retaliation in the Timber Industry.” Trade Policy Issues and Empirical Analysis, Baldwin, R.E. ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.Google Scholar
Kinnucan, H., and Zhang, D. “Incidence of the 1996 Canada-U.S. Softwood Lumber Agreement and the Optimal Export Tax.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 52(2004):73–88.Google Scholar
Latta, G.S., and Adams, D.M. “An Econometric Analysis of Output Supply and Input Demand in the Canadian Softwood Lumber Industry.” Canadian Journal Forest Research 30(2000):1419–28.Google Scholar
Lewandrowski, J.K., Wohlgenant, M.K., and Grennes, T.J. “Finished Product Inventories and Price Expectation in the Softwood Lumber Industry.” American Journal Agricultural Economics 76(1994):83–93.Google Scholar
McKillop, W., Stuart, T.W., and Geissler, P.J. “Competition Between Wood Products and Substitute Structural Products: An Econometric Analysis.” Forest Science 26(1980):134–48.Google Scholar
Miranda, J. “On the Use and Abuse of Trade Remedies by Developing Countries.” Paper presented at the Dartmouth-Tuck Forum on International Trade and Business, Managing Global Trade: The WTO-Trade Remedies and Dispute Settlement, Washington, DC, December 16–17, 2003.Google Scholar
Moschini, G., and Meilke, K.D. “Production Subsidy and Countervailing Duties in Vertically Related Markets: The Hog-Pork Case Between Canada and the United States.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 74(1992):952–61.Google Scholar
Myneni, G., Dorfman, J.H., and Ames, G.C.W. “Welfare Impacts of the Canada–U.S. Softwood Lumber Trade Dispute: Beggar Thy Consumer Trade Policy.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 42(1994):261–71.Google 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. 2001 Yearbook: Forest Product Market Prices and Statistics. Portland, OR: Random Lengths Publication, 2001.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: www.ftlc.org/index.cfm?Section= 2&=37 (Accessed March 20, 2005).Google Scholar
Spelter, H. “A Product Diffusion Approach to Modeling Softwood Lumber Demand.” Forest Science 31(1985):685–700.Google Scholar
U.S. Federal Register, Washington DC, April 2001:21328–21332.Google Scholar
USDOC, International Trade Administration and U.S. International Trade Commission, 2001a. “Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties Pursuant to the Section 731 of the Tariff Act of 1930, Investigation A 122–838.” Internet site: www.dbtrade.com/casework/softwood/AD%20Volume.pdf (Accessed July 16, 2002).Google Scholar
USDOC, International Trade Administration, 2001b. “Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duties: Cetrain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada, Investigation C 122–839.” Internet site: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/0104frn/01-10687.txt (Accessed August 2, 2002).Google Scholar
USDOC, International Trade Administration. 2002. “Notice of Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Negative Critical Circumstances Determination: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada, Investigation C 122–839.” Internet site: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/lumber/02-7849.txt (Accessed November 12, 2002).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.Google Scholar
WTO (World Trade Organization). United States-Final Countervailing Duty Determinations with Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada. DS257, 2003.Google Scholar
WTO (World Trade Organization). United States–Final Countervailing Duty Determinations with Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada. DS257/AB/R, 2004.Google Scholar
WTO (World Trade Organization). “Index of disputes issues.” Internet site: www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_subjects_index_e.htm (Accessed January 4, 2007).Google Scholar
Zhang, D. “Welfare Impacts of the 1996 U.S.Canada Softwood Lumber Agreements.” Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31,11(2001):1958–67.Google Scholar
Zhang, D. The Political Economy of the U.S.–Canada Softwood Lumber Dispute. Washington DC: Resources for the Future, 2007.Google Scholar