MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000324946 · doi:10.1080/02722010309481149

The Trade-Security Nexus: The New Reality in Canada-U.S. Economic Integration

2003· article· en· W2000324946 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maureen Appel Molot

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Review of Canadian Studies · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNexus (standard)International tradeEconomic integrationEconomic securityPolitical scienceEconomicsEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

...the relatively unrestricted mobility of capital between Canada and the United States has done more to integrate the economies of the two countries than any other factor except geography. (Aitken 1961,19) ...the further regional economic integration proceeds in other parts of the world the more vital will relations with Canada become for the national interests of the United States... [at the same time] If Canada wants the United States to do something she must be able to prove that it is in the interests of the United States to do it. (Aitken 1961,155-6) ********** Hugh Aitken said more than can be captured in the above quotes in his prescient book, American Capital and Canadian Resources, published more than four decades ago. He also noted the differences between the way integration was unfolding in North America and in Europe, the interrelationship between economic integration and continental defense, and the challenges the increasingly intimate relationship with the U.S. posed, and would continue to pose, for Canada (Aitken 1961, ch. 1). Aitken was describing a relationship that was the result of decisions of corporate and individual investors, not government policy (2) (though some U.S. government concerns such as security of supply of certain key commodities in the context of the Cold War did influence U.S. corporate investment in Canadian resources). The questions Aitken raised about the implications of Canada's growing economic ties with the U.S. remain at the center of the Canadian agenda. The immediate economic impact of closure of the border following the terrorist attacks on the U.S. on September 11, 2001, emphasized the differences in national priorities. For Canada the issue was and remains economic security, which translates into unimpeded access to the U.S. market for Canadian exports and imports. For the U.S. the issue was and continues to be homeland security, in which a secure border trumps economic connectedness with Canada and Canadian economic dependence. This article examines Canada-U.S. economic relations in light of the now critical connection between trade and security. It demonstrates the linkages between the two economies and the asymmetrical character of that relationship and argues that lack of attention to the linkage between trade and security could hinder the hitherto predictable cross-border movement of goods on which Canada's economic health has come to depend. The article begins with some discussion of two of the analytical prisms through which the bilateral relation ship has been understood. The second section outlines the origins of bilateral economic ties in the nineteenth century, and then in the third attempts to measure the extent of Canada-U.S. economic integration, with particular attention to trends since the implementation of Canada- U.S. Free Trade Agreement (CUSETA) in 1989 and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994. This section of the paper also looks at business attitudes toward the relationship. The fourth part of the article quickly reviews impact of the September 11 terrorist attacks. The conclusion examines some of the factors shaping the environment in which the next stages in the relationship will unfold. 1. Analytical Perspectives on the Canada-U.S. Economic Relationship Two of the many analytical paradigms on Canada-U.S. relations inform this article. The first is the literature on economic integration, particularly the European experience, and the way in which, implicitly or explicitly, our understanding of what has occurred (and is occurring) in Europe shapes our analysis of the Canada-U.S. (and sometimes the Canada-U .S.-Mexico) relationship. The second is the Keohane and Nye conclusion about lack of issue linkage in the Canada-U.S. relationship, the idea that since World War II differences of views between the two-on-one issue in their relationship normally did not affect the outcome of bargaining on other unrelated matters (2001, 146-51). …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.693
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Review of Canadian StudiesSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207