Fairchild and Aubin
351
|
Table 2: Extent to Which NAFTA Has Generally Benefitted Agriculture | ||||
|
Country |
Canada ^st 2nd |
United States ∙jst 2πd %______ |
Mexico |
Total ^st 2nd %________ |
|
Large Benefit |
53 20 |
30 56 |
75 33 |
44 38 |
|
Small Benefit |
47 80 |
60 38 |
25 67 |
51 59 |
|
No Change |
— — |
5 — |
— — |
2 — |
|
Small Deficit |
— — |
— — |
— — |
— — |
|
Large Deficit |
— — |
— — |
— — |
— — |
|
Don’t Know |
— — |
5 6_________ |
— — |
2 3_____________ |
Source: Compiled from response data.
The learning which apparently took place during the workshop was
both substantial and contradictory, based on a comparison between responses
to the first and second report card. While the all-country average response
remained relatively stable, respondents from both Canada and Mexico tended
to shift from a majority belief that other countries had received a large benefit
from NAFTA, 53 percent and 75 percent, respectively, to a position in which a
majority believed that only a small benefit had been received by others, 80
percent and 67 percent, respectively.
Responses from U.S. participants shifted in the opposite direction be-
tween the first and second report cards. The percent of Americans believing
others received a large benefit increased from an initial 30 percent to 56 per-
cent in the second report card, while the percent believing NAFTA to have been
a small benefit to others declined from 60 percent to 38 percent. Overall, the
percent of all respondents believing the agriculture in other counties received a
large benefit declined slightly form 44 percent to 38 percent from the first to
the second report card, while those thinking it had a small benefit to others
increased form 51 percent to 59 percent. Again, small overall changes tend to
mask significant changes within countries.
Benefit to the Primary Agricultural Sector of Own Country
Workshop participants were asked whether or not NAFTA had ben-
efitted the primary agriculture sector of their country. As illustrated in Table 3,
based on the all-country average, the majority (66 percent) initially believed
More intriguing information
1. The name is absent2. The name is absent
3. The Veblen-Gerschenkron Effect of FDI in Mezzogiorno and East Germany
4. Om Økonomi, matematik og videnskabelighed - et bud på provokation
5. The name is absent
6. On s-additive robust representation of convex risk measures for unbounded financial positions in the presence of uncertainty about the market model
7. Testing Gribat´s Law Across Regions. Evidence from Spain.
8. The fundamental determinants of financial integration in the European Union
9. Consciousness, cognition, and the hierarchy of context: extending the global neuronal workspace model
10. TLRP: academic challenges for moral purposes