Incidence of the 1996 Canada–U.S. Softwood Lumber Agreement and the Optimal Export Tax
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our partial‐equilibrium analysis suggests 63% of the Canada‐U.S. Softwood Lumber Agreement's export tax is absorbed by Canadian consumers. Still, sufficient surplus was extracted from U.S. consumers for the agreement to be in Canada's national interest. In fact, the agreement was suboptimal from a Canadian perspective in that a higher tax rate would have raised national welfare, at least in the short run. Although the agreement decreased U.S. welfare, the net loss for the combined U.S. and Canadian economies is modest, about 5% of the bilateral softwood lumber trade value according to our baseline estimates. This suggests the agreement's tariff rate quota scheme is a reasonably efficient mechanism for redistributing economic surplus from U.S. consumers to producers. Still, a better policy may be to enlarge the softwood lumber market via a research and promotion program funded by a modest (say, 5%) tax on Canadian exports.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".