useful information for decision makers. In specific
situations, alternative analytical frameworks may be
more useful to those concerned with the direction
and timing of changes which affect their ability to
compete. This is particularly relevant for commodity
analysis on a state or regional basis. In economic
theory, custom union literature documents the im-
portance of dynamic effects associated with trading
block formation.
NATIONAL ORIENTATION
Burfisher, House, and Langley focus on U.S. agri-
culture; specifically, the U.S. grain and livestock
sectors. While these commodities may have applica-
tion to parts of Kentucky and Missouri, and perhaps
even Oklahoma and Texas, the bulk of the Southern
region could have benefitted from analyses of poten-
tial impacts on commodities both specific to and
important to southern states. What happened to pea-
nuts, cotton, and tobacco; peaches, pecans, and
grapefruit; winter vegetables, orange juice, and
sugar? At best, some of these were superficially
introduced or included as an afterthought.
The authors begin with good intentions by stating
that “we...assume that a U.S.-Mexico FTA leads to
removal of tariffs and quotas, and we analyze the
effects of such an FTA on southern U.S. agriculture.”
In spite of their stated intentions, the authors fail to
deliver on this promise. To be fair, once the authors
chose to review models biased toward nationally
important crop and livestock enterprises, the focus
and results of their paper became predictable. Thus,
my comments should be interpreted as being critical
of the models selected and not the authors.
The authors’ hearts are in the right place in recog-
nizing that it would be nice to discuss southern
agriculture. When the authors finally turn their atten-
tion from the major U.S. crop and livestock enter-
prises to southern agriculture, they utilize a regional
math programming model to disaggregate trade im-
pacts from three national models. Again, due to the
national models selected, the analytical framework
is devoted to major U.S. field crop and livestock
enterprises with little consideration for southern
commodities. Some crops of importance to the south
are included in this model (rice and cotton) but then
lumped together in an eight-crop catch-all category.
No fruits or vegetables are included.
The issue seems to be that of major U.S. crops
versus minor U.S. crops which are major crops in the
southern region or in selected states in the region. Is
the lack of analytical attention due to the major
crop∕minor crop dichotomy, a lack of data, or a
regional bias? Why has a horticultural model not
been developed? Why have southern-based com-
modities not been analyzed in an equitable manner?
I think we understand the priorities involved. I do not
blame the authors, but rather the system in which
they work.
Admittedly, some attempt was made by the authors
to note the existence of fruit and vegetable produc-
tion in the southern region. However, the treatment
of fruits and vegetables departed sharply from the
quantification of impacts and the careful research
citations found in the crop and livestock sections of
the paper. In fact, the complete lack of specific
citations in this section is particularly curious. Hav-
ing been involved in the fruit and vegetable compo-
nent of the American Farm Bureau Research
Foundation project detailing the effects on agricul-
ture of a North American FTA (Cook et al.; Spreen,
Muraro, and Fairchild), I recognize and agree with
many of the observations offered in the fruit and
vegetable section. I am puzzled, however, at the
authors’ failure to even mention orange juice in this
section, while indicating the existence of direct com-
petition between Mexico and Florida in fresh citrus.
In fact, fresh citrus is of relatively minor concern to
Florida compared to the competitive interface in
orange juice (Spreen, Muraro, and Fairchild; Behr
and Bedigian).
OTHER OBSERVATIONS
I would be remiss if I overlooked the statement
“Florida opposes an FTA which they think would not
yield ‘fair trade’ or a ‘level playing field’.” This is
rhetoric more associated with commodity lobbyists
than Florida-based agricultural economists (Taylor;
Spreen, Muraro, and Fairchild). A small, but signifi-
cant, point! However, the issue of government-im-
posed costs on the agricultural sector does focus
attention on problems associated with free trade
agreements between developed and less-developed
economies.
The section on income effects correctly notes that
“Mexican economic growth under an FTA could be
a key element in determining the impact of an FTA
on U.S. agriculture.” The study highlighted in this
section assumed a $25 billion (7 percent) increase in
Mexican capital stock. Why not $50 billion or $100
billion? The importance of investment in Mexico to
Mexican income growth and commodity supply re-
sponse begs further treatment and discussion.
My favorite phrase in the paper is “in the real
world.” “In the real world these results (higher grain
prices) suggest that rising feed costs may place pres-
sure on certain (southern) livestock producers....”
Somehow, I never thought of cow∕calf enterprises,
which dominate the southern livestock industry, as
utilizing grain as a major input. Venturing into the
80