Are Log Markets Competitive? Empirical Evidence And Implications For Canada-U.S. Trade In Softwood Lumber
AbstractUnder the U.S. Department of Commerce's 'changed circumstances' review, it is possible that the countervail duty on Canadian lumber can be lowered if administered stumpage prices are based on a transaction evidence appraisal - on actual auction data and regression analysis. The Province of British Columbia is implementing such a market-based approach to set stumpage fees, relying on timber auction data from the Small Business Forest Enterprise Program and OLS regression. We employ Program data to estimate a truncated regression model, comparing our estimates of stumpage fees with the OLS results. It turns out that the OLS approach is biased and likely results in overestimates of stumpage in some timber stands and underestimates in others. Further, we demonstrate that number of bidders has an important impact on bids.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association) in its series 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO with number 19985.
Date of creation: 2004
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: 555 East Wells Street, Suite 1100, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
Phone: (414) 918-3190
Fax: (414) 276-3349
Web page: http://www.aaea.org
More information through EDIRC
Other versions of this item:
- Kurt Niquidet & G. Cornelis van Kooten, 2004. "Are Log Markets Competitive? Empirical Evidence and Implications for Canada-U.S. Trade in Softwood Lumber," Working Papers 2004-04, University of Victoria, Department of Economics, Resource Economics and Policy Analysis Research Group.
- F10 - International Economics - - Trade - - - General
- Q23 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Forestry
- Q27 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Issues in International Trade
- Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Boltz, Frederick & Douglas, R. Carter & Michael, G. Jacobson, 2002. "Shadow pricing diversity in U. S. national forests," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 185-197.
- Nelson, Forrest D., 1984. "Efficiency of the two-step estimator for models with endogenous sample selection," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 181-196.
- Brannman, Lance Eric, 1996. "Potential Competition and Possible Collusion in Forest Service Timber Auctions," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 34(4), pages 730-45, October.
- Paarsch, Harry J., 1984. "A Monte Carlo comparison of estimators for censored regression models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 197-213.
- Brannman, Lance & Klein, J Douglass & Weiss, Leonard W, 1987. "The Price Effects of Increased Competition in Auction Markets," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 69(1), pages 24-32, February.
- Steer, Henry B., 1938. "Stumpage Prices of Privately Owned Timber in the United States," Technical Bulletins 166176, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
- James J. Heckman, 1976. "The Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation, Sample Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for Such Models," NBER Chapters, in: Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, Volume 5, number 4, pages 475-492 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.