Abstracts
Résumé
Dans le conflit canado-américain du bois d’œuvre, malgré les ententes de libre-échange et l’importance des consommateurs de ce produit aux États-Unis, les producteurs américains continuent d’obtenir gain de cause. Qu’est-ce qui empêche les consommateurs américains de bois d’œuvre d’être plus efficaces que les producteurs auprès des décideurs publics ? Pour répondre, nous utilisons un cadre analytique à trois niveaux : la société, le cadre institutionnel et le niveau international. Si les groupes opposés au protectionnisme échouent à faire prévaloir leurs intérêts, c’est parce que la diversité industrielle de leurs membres rend leurs efforts de lobbying inefficaces, que les lois américaines limitent l’action juridique des consommateurs et que certains intervenants canadiens ont miné leurs efforts en appuyant la position des producteurs américains.
Mots clés:
- États-Unis,
- Canada,
- protectionnisme,
- bois d’œuvre,
- lobbying
Abstract
In the conflict between Canada and the United States over softwood lumber, U.S. producers have consistently maintained the upper hand, in spite of free trade agreements and in spite of the importance of U.S. softwood consumers as an economic and political force. Why have American softwood consumers not been nearly as efficient as producers in their lobbying efforts? Anti-protection groups have consistently failed to prevail because the industrial diversity of their members hampered their lobbying efforts, U.S. trade laws limit the actions of consumers in cases of administrative protection; and some Canadian actors in this conflicts undermined their efforts and favoured the protectionist position of U.S. producers.
Keywords:
- United States,
- Canada,
- protectionism,
- softwood lumber,
- lobbying
Appendices
Bibliographie
- Apsey T.M. et J.C. Thomas, 1997, The Lessons of the Softwood Lumber Dispute. Politics, Protectionism, and the Panel Process, Vancouver, bcCouncil of Forest Industries. Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Arnold Douglas R., 1990, The Logic of Congressional Action, New Haven, Yale University Press.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Baldwin Robert E., 1995, « The New Protectionism. A Response to Shifts in National Economic Power », dans J.A. Frieden et D.A. Lake (dir.), International Political Economy. Perspectives on Global Power and Wealth, New York, ny, St. Martin’s Press : 362-375.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Becker Gary S., 1983, « A Theory of Competition among Pressure Groups for Political Influence », Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 98, no 3, août : 371-400.10.2307/1886017 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Cashore Benjamin, 1998, An Examination of Why a Long-term Resolution of the Canada-us Softwood Lumber Dispute Eludes Policy Makers, Working Paper 98.02, Victoria, bc, Pacific Forestry Center.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Center for Responsive Politics, consulté sur Internet (www.opensecrets.org) le 8 janvier 2009.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Coursol, Martin, 2002, Le conflit canado-américain du bois d’oeuvre (1982-2002), Mémoire de maîtrise, Montréal, qc, Département de science politique, Université de Montréal.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Descôteaux David, 2009, Désunis dans l’adversité. Le lobbying des consommateurs américains pendant le conflit du bois d’œuvre, Mémoire de maîtrise, Montréal, qc, Département de science politique, Université de Montréal.
10.7202/038090ar Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Destler I.M. et John S. Odell, 1987, Anti-Protection. Changing Forces in us Trade Policies, Washington, dc, Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Doran Charles F. et Timothy J. Naftali, 1987, us-Canadian Softwood Lumber. Trade Dispute Negotiations, Washington, dc, Foreign Policy Institute.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Drope Jeffrey M. et Wendy Hansen, 2004, « Purchasing Protection ? The Effect of Political Spending on us Trade Policy », Political Research Quarterly, vol. 57, no 1, mars : 27-37.10.1177/106591290405700103 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Fox Irving K., 1991, « The Politics of Canada-us Trade in Forest Products », dans R. Uhler (dir.), Canada-us Trade in Forest Products, Vancouver, bc, University of British Columbia Press. Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Lowery David, 2007, « Why Do Organized Interests Lobby ? A Multi-Goal, Multi-Context Theory of Lobbying », Polity, vol. 39, no 1, janvier : 29-54.10.1057/palgrave.polity.2300077 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Grenier Carl, 2007, Entrevue téléphonique, 28 novembre.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Groen James P., 1994, « British Columbia’s International Relations. Consolidating a Coalition-Building Strategy », bc Studies, no 102, été : 25-59. Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Gossman Gene M. et Elhanan Helpman, 1994, « Protection for Sale », American Economic Review, vol. 84, no 4, septembre : 833-850.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Johnson Pierre Marc, 2007, Entrevue personnelle, 3 décembre.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Mayhew David R., 1974, Congress. The Electoral Connection, New Haven, Yale University Press. Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Martin Pierre, 1995, « Représentation des intérêts et législation commerciale au Sénat des États-Unis », Revue canadienne de science politique, vol. 28, no 2, juin : 277-292.10.1017/S0008423900018849 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Milner Helen V. et Robert O. Keohane (dir.), 1996, Internationalization and Domestic Politics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511664168.011 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Olson Mancur, 1971, Logique de l’action collective, Paris, Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Percy Michael et Christian G. Yoder, 1987, The Softwood Lumber Dispute and the Canada-us Trade in Natural Resources, Halifax, ns, Institut de recherche en politiques publiques.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Petniunas Susan, 2007, Entrevue téléphonique, 27 novembre.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Reed L., 2001, « Two Centuries of the Softwood Lumber War between Canada and the United States », Conseil du libre-échange pour le bois d’œuvre, Montréal, qc. Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Rugman Alan M. et Samuel D. Porteous, 1989, « Canadian and us Unfair Trade Law. A Comparison of Their Legal and Administrative Structures », Canadian Business Law Journal, vol. 16, no 1 : 1-20.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Schattschneider E.E., 1935, Politics, Pressure, and the Tariff, New York, ny, Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Skogstad Grace, 1988, « The Application of Canadian and us Trade Remedy Laws: Irreconcilable Expectations ? », Administration publique du Canada, vol. 31, no 4, hiver : 539-565. 10.1111/j.1754-7121.1988.tb01333.x Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Tobin Glenn, 1987, us-Canada Free Trade Negotiations. Gaining Approval to Proceed, Étude de cas no C16-87-785, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Tollison Robert D., 1988, « Public Choice and Legislation », Virginia Law Review, vol. 74, mars : 339-371.10.2307/1073146 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Tyakoff Sharn, 1988, The Canada-us Softwood Lumber Dispute. An Interdependence Approach, Mémoire de maîtrise, Faculty of Business Administration, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
us Department of Commerce, 1983, Final Negative Countervailing Duty Determination. Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada, Registre fédéral 48 : 24159-24183.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
us Department of Commerce, 1986, Carbon Black from Mexico. Preliminary Results of Administrative Review, Registre fédéral 51 : 13269-13272.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Vancouver Sun, 1987, « Kempf Reveals Secret us Talks », 2 avril.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
-
Vancouver Sun, 1987, « Premier Probes Kempf’s Secrets Lumber Talks », 3 avril.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Zhang Daowei, 2007, The Softwood Lumber War. Politics, Economics, and the Long us-Canadian Trade Dispute, Washington, dc, Resources for the Future.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Zhang Daowei et David Laband, 2005, « From Senators to the President. Solve the Lumber Problem or Else », Public Choice, vol. 123, no 3, juin : 393-410.10.1007/s11127-005-7168-z Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
