Softwood Lumber Imports From Canada: History and Analysis of the Dispute
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Softwood lumber imports from Canada have been of concern to U.S. lumber producers for many years because of questions about Canadian government timber pricing policies.In 1996, the United States and Canada reached a 5-year agreement on restrictions -a fee on lumber imports from four Canadian provinces in excess of the specified quota -that expires on March 31, 2001.Resolutions and bills have been introduced in recent Congresses that, had they been enacted, would have restricted lumber imports from Canada or eliminated the basis for restricting those imports.The 107 th Congress may also consider legislation on this issue.U.S. lumber producers argue that they have been injured by subsidies to their Canadian competitors.Stumpage fees (for the right to harvest trees) charged by the provinces are asserted to be subsidized (priced at less than their market value).In Canada, provincial government timberlands dominate the supply system, with longterm leases to private firms to assure stable timber supplies, and with timber priced administratively to assure financially feasible production.Private timberlands dominate the U.S. supply system, with competitive bidding to allocate and price most public timber.The use of administered prices by the provincial governments opens the possibility that the Canadian system results in transfers to the private sector at less than the fair market value.Major differences in tree species, sizes, and grades, in measurement systems, in requirements on harvesters, in environmental protection, and in other factors, however, make comparisons difficult, controversial, and generally inconclusive.Canadian log export restrictions are also asserted to be subsidies, because the restrictions assure more supply (less competition for timber) for Canadian producers.Evidence from the U.S. Pacific Northwest, where private logs can be exported but public timber cannot, indicates a substantial price differential, with higher prices for exported logs.However, Canada has recently challenged as GATT violations the U.S. trade law provisions that include export restrictions as subsidies.Injuries to U.S. lumber producers have also been difficult to establish decisively.Canada's share of the U.S. lumber market has risen substantially, from less than 7% in the early 1950s to more than 35% in the mid-1990s.Under the 1996 agreement, the quantity of imports has continued to rise, but the market share has been relatively stable.In the past two years, the dispute has also included whether certain softwood products are modified construction lumber subject to the 1996 restrictions (the U.S. view) or are specialty products outside the agreement (the Canadian view).The impact of import restrictions on domestic lumber prices is not easily estimated, but supply/demand theory suggests that restrictions would put upward pressure on U.S. lumber prices.Other factors are also important.The persistence of the dispute may reflect tensions between increasingly free-trade U.S. policies and protection from imports available under U.S. trade law.Also, probable differences in environmental protection complicate cross-border comparisons.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».