Impact of inefficient quota allocation under the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber dispute: A calibrated mixed complementarity approach

Author

Craig M.T. Johnston and G. Cornelis van Kooten

Forest Policy and Economics, 2017, vol. 74, issue C, pages 71-80

Abstract: In this paper, a spatial price equilibrium model developed to shed new light on the economic impact of restrictive trade sanctions adopted in the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber dispute. Mixed complementarity programming is used to solve a 21-region, global trade model that is calibrated to 2011 observed bilateral trade flows using positive mathematical programming. In addition, the model employs a mechanism for analyzing the effects of the tariff rate quota used in the 2006 Softwood Lumber Agreement (SLA). It is estimated that the SLA created an annual deadweight loss of $28 million, paid by U.S. consumers. The quota constrained Alberta lumber producers while BC producers had excess quota. The lack of a proper mechanism for capturing quota rent, such as a tradable quota scheme or quota auction resulted in the survival of high-cost firms, perhaps to the detriment of lower-cost firms in Alberta. In the absence of SLA, it is estimated that Alberta would supply an additional 9% of Canadian softwood lumber to the U.S., eroding the supply share of all other regions while improving aggregate welfare.

Keywords: Canada-U.S. lumber trade dispute; Tariff rate quota; Mixed complementarity programming; Global trade model; Model calibration; Quota trading(search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: C61 C63 F13 Q23 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2017
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations Track citations by RSS feed

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138993411630209X
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:forpol:v:74:y:2017:i:c:p:71-80

Access Statistics for this article

Forest Policy and Economics is currently edited by M. Krott

More articles in Forest Policy and Economics from  Elsevier
Series data maintained by Dana Niculescu (repec@elsevier.com).

For further details log on website :
http://econpapers.repec.org/article/eeeforpol/v_3a74_3ay_3a2017_3ai_3ac_3ap_3a71-80.htm