IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/motpip/29163.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Harmonization And Convergence Of Canadian And U.S. Grain And Oilseeds Policies: 1985-1996

Author

Listed:
  • Gray, Richard S.
  • Smith, Vincent H.

Abstract

The United States and Canada share the longest common border and largest bilateral trading relationship in the world. Recent trading agreements--CUSTA, NAFTA and WTO--have enhanced trade by encouraging elimination of many remaining trade barriers. However, one cause for concern about the effectiveness of these trade agreements has been the frequency of Canadian-U.S. trade disputes over bilateral wheat and barley trade arrangements and trade flows. To some extent, these disputes have arisen because of differences in and lack of harmonization between the domestic and trade policies implemented by the two countries, although other political factors have also clearly been important causes of these disagreements. Since 1986, many dimensions of the agricultural policies of both countries have undergone radical changes, perhaps especially with respect to small grains and oilseeds. Here we provide assessments of whether important aspects of the two countries' domestic and trade grains and oilseeds have converged toward harmonization since implementation of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in 1989. It should also be noted that many of the changes in each countries' agricultural policies cannot be attributed to free trade agreements. Rather, they reflect government responses to budgetary pressures, commitments under international trade agreements, changes in the relative political importance of rural and urban voters, and other factors. Changes in General Levels of Support Producer Subsidy Equivalents are indicators of the proportion of total revenues from sales of a crop resulting from government subsidies and other income support policies such as tariffs. U.S. producer subsidy equivalents for wheat and other grains have declined substantially from their 1993-1995 average levels as a result of the decoupling of income support payments under the 1996 FAIR Act. Similarly, the average wheat, other grains and oilseeds producer subsidy equivalents reported for Canada over the same period overstate current producer subsidy equivalents because of the elimination of Canadian grain transportation subsidies in 1995. Thus, generally, levels of government support for wheat and small grains have fallen quite considerably both in the U.S. and in Canada, indicating some movement in the direction of policy harmonization for these commodities. Farm Income Supports Over the past twenty years, farm income support in Canada has been delivered throughseveral different programs. Increasing budgetary pressures and a greater focus on market orientation led to the elimination of the Gross Revenue Insurance Program and the western grain transportation subsidies by 1996. The only current direct income support program is the Net Income Stabilization Account (NISA), which provides modest subsidies on interest rates paid to farmers on moneys they themselves pay into an income stabilization account. In the United States during the 1980s and early 1990s, changes were made to the deficiency payment/loan rate farm income support programs for wheat and small grains that tended to reduce the size of government payments to wheat and barley producers. Then, in 1996, the FAIR Act changed the entire farm income support mechanism, largely decoupling direct government payments to producers of those crops from current production decisions. In summary, the distortionary effects of Canadian and U.S. income support programs for wheat and other grains have been substantially curtailed, especially over the past three years. Similarly, the distortionary effects of Canadian income support programs for oilseeds have also been reduced toward the relatively modest levels associated with the U.S. oilseeds program, which has changed relatively little over the past ten years. There has been convergence in this area of farm policy. Grain Marketing and Export Subsidy Programs To the extent that U.S. export subsidy programs have become subject to GATT disciplines and funding for the U.S. export enhancement program has been reduced, the U.S. has moved toward a less distortionary set of trade policies for grains and oilseeds. The removal of freight subsidies has also moved Canada's grains trade policy in a less distortionary direction. However, Canada's export marketing board policy for wheat and barley (operated through the Canadian Wheat Board) has not changed in recent years. With respect to export credit guarantees, both countries operate roughly comparable programs, although under the GSM-103 program, the U.S. is able to offer somewhat longer term (3-7 year) lines of credit. These programs have been subject only to relatively modest changes over the past ten years. On balance, there has probably been less harmonization of U.S. and Canadian export policies than of the two countries' income support programs. Thus, export policies, particularly the existence of the U.S. export enhancement program and the marketing powers of the CWB, will continue to be part of bilateral trade issues.

Suggested Citation

  • Gray, Richard S. & Smith, Vincent H., 1997. "Harmonization And Convergence Of Canadian And U.S. Grain And Oilseeds Policies: 1985-1996," Policy Issues Papers 29163, Montana State University, Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics, Trade Research Center.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:motpip:29163
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.29163
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/29163/files/pip04.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.29163?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Julian M. Alston & Philip G. Pardey, 1996. "Making Science Pay: The Economics of Agricultural R&D Policy," Books, American Enterprise Institute, number 53242, September.
    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. Gardner, Bruce L., 2002. "North American Agricultural Policies And Effects On Western Hemisphere Markets Since 1995, With A Focus On Grains And Oilseeds," Working Papers 28602, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    2. Gardner, Bruce L., 2002. "U.S./Canadian Agricultural Policies And Effects On Western Hemisphere Markets Since 1995, With A Focus On Grains And Oilseeds," Working Papers 28577, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    3. Klein, Kurt K. & Storey, Gary, 1998. "Structural Developments In The Canadian Grains And Oilseeds Sector," Proceedings of the 4th Agricultural and Food Policy Systems Information Workshop 1998: Economic Harmonization in the Canadian\U.S.\Mexican Grain-Livestock Subsector; 16758, Farm Foundation, Agricultural and Food Policy Systems Information Workshops.

    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. Michael J. Andrews, 2020. "Local Effects of Land Grant Colleges on Agricultural Innovation and Output," NBER Chapters, in: Economics of Research and Innovation in Agriculture, pages 139-175, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Tokgoz, Simla, 2003. "R&D Spillovers In Agriculture: Results From A North-South Trade Model," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22258, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. Foltz, Jeremy D. & Kim, Kwansoo & Barham, Bradford L., 2001. "A Dynamic Count Data Analysis of University Ag-Biotech Patents," Research Reports 25230, University of Connecticut, Food Marketing Policy Center.
    4. Shew, Aaron M. & Nalley, Lawton L. & Durand-Morat, Alvaro & Meredith, Kylie & Parajuli, Ranjan & Thoma, Greg & Henry, Christopher G., 2021. "Holistically valuing public investments in agricultural water conservation," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 252(C).
    5. Maredia, Mywish K. & Raitzer, David A., 2012. "Review and analysis of documented patterns of agricultural research impacts in Southeast Asia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 46-58.
    6. Bradford Barham & Jeremy Foltz & Kwansoo Kim, 2002. "Trends in University Ag-Biotech Patent Production," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 24(2), pages 294-308.
    7. Federico Ciliberto & GianCarlo Moschini & Edward D. Perry, 2019. "Valuing product innovation: genetically engineered varieties in US corn and soybeans," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 50(3), pages 615-644, September.
    8. Wallace E. Huffman & Richard E. Just, 1999. "The organization of agricultural research in western developed countries," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 21(1), pages 1-18, August.
    9. Schimmelpfennig, David, 2003. "Agricultural Science Policy: Changing Global Agendas: Julian M. Alston, Philip G. Pardey, Michael J. Taylor (Eds.), Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London, International Food Policy Rese," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 74-76, January.
    10. Huffman, Wallace E., 1999. "New Insights on the Organization of Agricultural Research: Theory and Evidence for Western Developed Countries," ISU General Staff Papers 199907010700001319, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    11. E. C. Pasour, Jr., 2004. "Agricultural Economists and the State," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 1(1), pages 106-133, April.
    12. Lambert, David K., 1997. "A Programming Approach To Estimate Production Functions Using Bounds On The True Production Set," Discussion Papers 12956, University of Nevada at Reno, Department of Resource Economics.
    13. Alston, Julian M. & Marra, Michele C. & Pardey, Philip G. & Wyatt, T.J., 2000. "Research returns redux: a meta-analysis of the returns to agricultural R&D," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 44(2), pages 1-31.
    14. Weatherspoon, Dave D. & Oehmke, James F. & Raper, Kellie Curry, 2000. "An Era Of Confusion: The Land Grant Research Agenda And Biotechnology," Staff Paper Series 11559, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    15. King, John L. & Toole, Andrew A. & Fuglie, Keith O., 2012. "The Complementary Roles of the Public and Private Sectors in U.S. Agricultural Research and Development," Economic Brief 138925, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    16. Anderson, J. R., 1996. "On Getting Agricultural Growth In Sub-Saharan And South Africa," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 35(4), December.
    17. Philip G. Pardey & Julian M. Alston & Connie Chan-Kang & Eduardo C. Magalhães & Stephen A. Vosti, 2006. "International and Institutional R&D Spillovers: Attribution of Benefits among Sources for Brazil's New Crop Varieties," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(1), pages 104-123.
    18. Jock R. Anderson, 1999. "Institutional Reforms for Getting an Agricultural Knowledge System to Play Its Role in Economic Growth," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 38(4), pages 333-354.
    19. Huffman, Wallace, 2005. "Developments in the Organization and Finance of Public Agricultural Research in the United States, 1988-1999," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12485, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    20. Alston, Julian M. & Pardey, Philip G., 2007. "Public Funding for Research into Specialty Crops," Staff Papers 7312, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    International Relations/Trade;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ags:motpip:29163. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/damtsus.html .

    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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/damtsus.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.