IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cpp/issued/v32y2006i2p157-172.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating Export Response in Canadian Provinces to the Canada-US Softwood Lumber Agreement

Author

Listed:
  • Sumeet Gulati
  • Nisha Malhotra

Abstract

We estimate the degree of trade diversion from provinces named under the Softwood Lumber Agreement (SLA) to provinces not named. Our regression results indicate that the SLA had a significant impact on the exports of non-named SLA provinces. Controlling for other factors, the SLA by itself would have increased exports from these provinces four times. The corresponding effect for the provinces named in the SLA is estimated at minus 5 percent. This decrease is not, however, statistically significant.

Suggested Citation

  • Sumeet Gulati & Nisha Malhotra, 2006. "Estimating Export Response in Canadian Provinces to the Canada-US Softwood Lumber Agreement," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 32(2), pages 157-172, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:cpp:issued:v:32:y:2006:i:2:p:157-172
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4128726
    Download Restriction: only available to JSTOR subscribers
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas J. Prusa, 2021. "The Trade Effects of U.S. Antidumping Actions," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Thomas J Prusa (ed.), Economic Effects of Antidumping, chapter 3, pages 21-43, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Jozef Konings & Hylke Vandenbussche & Linda Springael, 2001. "Import Diversion under European Antidumping Policy," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 1(3), pages 283-299, September.
    3. Deardorff, Alan V., 1984. "Testing trade theories and predicting trade flows," Handbook of International Economics, in: R. W. Jones & P. B. Kenen (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 10, pages 467-517, Elsevier.
    4. McCallum, John, 1995. "National Borders Matter: Canada-U.S. Regional Trade Patterns," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(3), pages 615-623, June.
    5. Bruce A. Blonigen & Thomas J. Prusa, 2001. "Antidumping," NBER Working Papers 8398, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Robert C. Feenstra, 1997. "The Effects of US Trade Protection and Promotion Policies," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number feen97-1, June.
    7. Robert C. Feenstra, 1997. "Introduction to "The Effects of U.S. Trade Protection and Promotion Policies"," NBER Chapters, in: The Effects of US Trade Protection and Promotion Policies, pages 1-7, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Feenstra, Robert C. (ed.), 1997. "The Effects of U.S. Trade Protection and Promotion Policies," National Bureau of Economic Research Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226239514, July.
    9. Malhotra, Nisha & Gulati, Sumeet, 2003. "The Users Of Lumber And The Us-Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement: An Event Study," Working Papers 15842, University of British Columbia, Food and Resource Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kathy Baylis & Jeffrey M. Perloff, 2010. "Trade diversion from tomato suspension agreements," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(1), pages 127-151, February.
    2. Parajuli, Rajan & Zhang, Daowei & Kosman, Keta, 2018. "Province specific impacts of the 2006 United States-Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement: A seemingly unrelated regression approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 1-6.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hylke Vandenbussche & Maurizio Zanardi, 2008. "What explains the proliferation of antidumping laws? [‘Antidumping Laws in the US; Use and Welfare Consequences’]," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 23(53), pages 94-138.
    2. Malhotra Nisha & Rus Horatiu & Kassam Shinan, 2008. "Antidumping Duties in the Agriculture Sector: Trade Restricting or Trade Deflecting?," Global Economy Journal, De Gruyter, vol. 8(2), pages 1-19, June.
    3. Vandenbussche, Hylke & Konings, Jozef, 2002. "Does Antidumping Protection Raise Market Power? Evidence from Firm Level Data," CEPR Discussion Papers 3571, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    4. Chad Bown, 2013. "How Different Are Safeguards from Antidumping? Evidence from US Trade Policies Toward Steel," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 42(4), pages 449-481, June.
    5. Bown, Chad P. & Crowley, Meredith A., 2006. "Policy externalities: How US antidumping affects Japanese exports to the EU," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 696-714, September.
    6. Lorenzo Trimarchi, 2020. "Trade Policy and the China Syndrome," Working Papers ECARES 2020-15, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    7. Joseph, Siny & Lavoie, Nathalie, 2008. "Effectiveness of COOL in the U.S. Seafood Industry," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6260, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. Jozef Konings & Hylke Vandenbussche & Linda Springael, 2001. "Import Diversion under European Antidumping Policy," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 1(3), pages 283-299, September.
    9. Khatibi, Arastou, 2014. "The signaling power of trade protection," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 226-228.
    10. Bruce A. Blonigen & Benjamin H. Liebman & Wesley W. Wilson, 2007. "Trade Policy and Market Power: The Case of the US Steel Industry," NBER Working Papers 13671, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Sourafel Girma & David Greenaway & Katherine Wakelin, 2002. "Does antidumping stimulate FDI? Evidence from Japanese firms in the UK," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 138(3), pages 414-436, September.
    12. Vandenbussche, Hylke & Zanardi, Maurizio, 2010. "The chilling trade effects of antidumping proliferation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(6), pages 760-777, August.
    13. Bown, Chad P. & Crowley, Meredith A., 2007. "Trade deflection and trade depression," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 176-201, May.
    14. Kagitani, Koichi & Harimaya, Kozo, 2015. "Safeguards and voluntary export restraints under the World Trade Organization," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 29-41.
    15. Konings, Jozef & Vandenbussche, Hylke, 2008. "Heterogeneous responses of firms to trade protection," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 371-383, December.
    16. Co, Catherine Y., 2001. "Trade, foreign direct investment and industry performance," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(1-2), pages 163-183, January.
    17. Ahmed Nawaz Hakro & Syed Hasanat Shah, 2007. "Economic Rationale, Trade Impact and Extent of Antidumping – A Case Study of Pakistan," Lahore Journal of Economics, Department of Economics, The Lahore School of Economics, vol. 12(1), pages 79-98, Jan-Jun.
    18. Ludo Cuyvers & Michel Dumont, 2005. "EU Anti‐dumping Measures against ASEAN Countries: Impact on Trade Flows," Asian Economic Journal, East Asian Economic Association, vol. 19(3), pages 249-271, September.
    19. Jozef KONINGS & Hylke VANDENBUSSCHE, 2009. "Antidumping Protection hurts Exporters: Firm-level evidence from France," LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 2009017, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    20. Jozef Konings & Hylke Vandenbussche, 2013. "Antidumping protection hurts exporters: firm-level evidence," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 149(2), pages 295-320, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cpp:issued:v:32:y:2006:i:2:p:157-172. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Iver Chong (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.utpjournals.press/loi/cpp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.