IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v123y2005i3p393-410.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From Senators to the President: Solve the lumber problem or else

Author

Listed:
  • Daowei Zhang
  • David Laband

Abstract

We use key events associated in the two decade-long U.S.–Canada softwood lumber trade dispute to present the dynamic relationship between U.S. Congress and the Administration in the formation of international trade policy. We find that the executive branch of the U.S. government responded quickly to several letters from a group of U.S. Senators demanding a solution to the “lumber problem.” A roll call analysis is used to identify factors influencing Senators’ willingness to sign these letters and pressure the President on behalf of the U.S. lumber industry. The results show that the economic importance of the lumber industry in a Senator’s home state is positively correlated with signatory on these letters and that the presence of a large housing industry in a state makes a Senator less likely to sign these letters. Copyright Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Suggested Citation

  • Daowei Zhang & David Laband, 2005. "From Senators to the President: Solve the lumber problem or else," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 123(3), pages 393-410, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:123:y:2005:i:3:p:393-410
    DOI: 10.1007/s11127-005-7168-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11127-005-7168-z
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11127-005-7168-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gordon C. Rausser & William E. Foster, 1990. "Political Preference Functions and Public Policy Reform," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 72(3), pages 641-652.
    2. Kalt, Joseph P & Zupan, Mark A, 1984. "Capture and Ideology in the Economic Theory of Politics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(3), pages 279-300, June.
    3. Dong Dong Zhang, 1997. "The Transformation in the Political Economy of China's Agricultural Trade Liberalisation," Asia Pacific Economic Papers 265, Australia-Japan Research Centre, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    4. George J. Stigler, 1971. "The Theory of Economic Regulation," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 2(1), pages 3-21, Spring.
    5. Paul L. Joskow, 1972. "The Determination of the Allowed Rate of Return in a Formal Regulatory Hearing," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 3(2), pages 632-644, Autumn.
    6. J.M. Finger & H. Keith Hall & Douglas R. Nelson, 2002. "The Political Economy of Administered Protection," Chapters, in: Institutions and Trade Policy, chapter 8, pages 81-95, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Bruce Gardner, 1983. "Efficient Redistribution through Commodity Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 65(2), pages 225-234.
    8. Gordon C. Rausser, 1982. "Political Economic Markets: PERTs and PESTs in Food and Agriculture," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 64(5), pages 821-833.
    9. Zusman, Pinhas, 1976. "The Incorporation and Measurement of Social Power in Economic Models," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 17(2), pages 447-462, June.
    10. Joseph P. Kalt, 1988. "The Political Economy of Protectionism: Tariffs and Retaliation in the Timber Industry," NBER Chapters, in: Trade Policy Issues and Empirical Analysis, pages 339-368, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Peltzman, Sam, 1984. "Constituent Interest and Congressional Voting," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 27(1), pages 181-210, April.
    12. Sayeed R. Mehmood & Daowei Zhang, 2001. "A Roll Call Analysis of the Endangered Species Act Amendments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(3), pages 501-512.
    13. Teske, Paul & Best, Samuel & Mintrom, Michael, 1994. "The Economic Theory of Regulation and Trucking Deregulation: Shifting to the State Level," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 79(3-4), pages 247-256, June.
    14. Noll, Roger G., 1989. "Economic perspectives on the politics of regulation," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 22, pages 1253-1287, Elsevier.
    15. R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), 1989. "Handbook of Industrial Organization," Handbook of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 2, number 2.
    16. Robert E. Baldwin, 1988. "Trade Policy Issues and Empirical Analysis," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number bald88-2.
    17. Nelson, Randy A, 1982. "An Empirical Test of the Ramsey Theory and Stigler-Peltzman Theory of Public Utility Pricing," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 20(2), pages 277-290, April.
    18. Gordon C. Rausser, 1982. "Political Economic Markets: PERTs and PESTs in Food and Agriculture," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 64(5), pages 821-833.
    19. Gordon C. Rausser, 1982. "Political Economic Markets: PERTs and PESTs in Food and Agriculture," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 64(5), pages 821-833.
    20. Gardner, Bruce L, 1987. "Causes of U.S. Farm Commodity Programs," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 95(2), pages 290-310, April.
    21. R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), 1989. "Handbook of Industrial Organization," Handbook of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 1.
    22. Gary S. Becker, 1983. "A Theory of Competition Among Pressure Groups for Political Influence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 98(3), pages 371-400.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shaun M. Tanger & Richard Alan Seals Jr. & David N. Laband, 2011. "Does Bill Co-sponsorship Affect Campaign Contributions?: Evidence from the U.S. House of Representatives, 2000-2008," Auburn Economics Working Paper Series auwp2011-09, Department of Economics, Auburn University.
    2. Tanger, Shaun M. & Laband, David N., 2009. "An empirical analysis of bill co-sponsorship in the U.S. Senate: The Tree Act of 2007," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 260-265, July.
    3. Zhang, Daowei & Tanger, Shaun, 2017. "Is there a connection between campaign contributions and legislative commitment? An empirical analysis on the cosponsorship activity of the 2007 Tree Act," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(P1), pages 85-94.
    4. Raghbendra Jha & Hari K. Nagarajan & Kailash C. Pradhan, 2011. "Aligning With One's Own: Private Voting and Public Outcomes in Elections in Rural India," ASARC Working Papers 2011-09, The Australian National University, Australia South Asia Research Centre.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Crone, Lisa & Tschirhart, John, 1998. "Separating economic from political influences on government decisions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 405-425, May.
    2. Gordon C. Rausser, 1992. "Predatory versus Productive Government: The Case of U.S. Agricultural Policies," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 6(3), pages 133-157, Summer.
    3. Potters, Jan & Sloof, Randolph, 1996. "Interest groups: A survey of empirical models that try to assess their influence," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 403-442, November.
    4. Rausser, Gordon C. & de Gorter, Harry, 1988. "Endogenizing Policy In Models Of Agricultural Markets," 1988 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Knoxville, Tennessee 270460, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    5. Tanger, Shaun M. & Laband, David N., 2009. "An empirical analysis of bill co-sponsorship in the U.S. Senate: The Tree Act of 2007," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 260-265, July.
    6. D. MacLaren, 1991. "Agricultural Trade Policy Analysis And International Trade Theory: A Review Of Recent Developments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(3), pages 250-297, September.
    7. Jacobson, Elaine Mullaly & Emerson, Robert D., 1989. "The Influences Of Id Ogy And Economic Interests On Dairy Legislation," 1989 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 2, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 270466, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. Jonathan Brooks, 1996. "Agricultural Policies In Oecd Countries: What Can We Learn From Political Economy Models?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1‐4), pages 366-389, January.
    9. Wenshou Yan & Kaixing Huang, 2022. "Geographic politics, loss aversion and trade policy: The case of cotton in China," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(9), pages 2854-2881, September.
    10. Rausser, Gordon C. & Foster, William E., 1990. "Public goods and wealth transfer tradeoffs," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt7f97x962, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    11. Kym Anderson & Gordon Rausser & Johan Swinnen, 2013. "Political Economy of Public Policies: Insights from Distortions to Agricultural and Food Markets," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 51(2), pages 423-477, June.
    12. Foster, William E. & Rausser, Gordon C., 1990. "Coalition breaking and policy reform," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt17s211z5, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    13. Myers, Robert J. & Oehmke, James F., 1987. "Instability and Risk as Rationales for Government Intervention in Agriculture," Staff Paper Series 200938, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    14. Larry Blank & John Mayo, 2009. "Endogenous Regulatory Constraints and the Emergence of Hybrid Regulation," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 35(3), pages 233-255, November.
    15. Fredriksson, Per G. & Gaston, Noel, 1999. "The "greening" of trade unions and the demand for eco-taxes," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 663-686, November.
    16. David S. Bullock & Klaus Salhofer & Jukka Kola, 1999. "The Normative Analysis of Agricultural Policy: A General Framework and Review," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(3), pages 512-535, September.
    17. Wenshou Yan & Kaixing Huang, 2018. "Determinants of agricultural protection in China and the rest of the world," Asian-Pacific Economic Literature, The Crawford School, The Australian National University, vol. 32(2), pages 64-75, November.
    18. Paul Joskow & Nancy Rose & Andrea Shepard, 1993. "Regulatory Constraints on CEO Compensation," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 24(1 Microec), pages 1-72.
    19. Harvey, David R., 2004. "Policy dependency and reform: economic gains versus political pains," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 31(2-3), pages 265-275, December.
    20. Çetin, Tamer & Yasin Eryigit, Kadir, 2013. "The economic effects of government regulation: Evidence from the New York taxicab market," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 169-177.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:123:y:2005:i:3:p:393-410. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.