Fairchild and Aubin
353
|
Table 4: |
Benefit to Food Processing Sub-Sector of Own Country Country and Total.___________________________ | |||
|
Country |
Canada |
United States ^st £nd %______ |
Mexico |
Total ^st 2∏d %________ |
|
Large Gain |
71 87 |
30 25 |
100100 |
54 59 |
|
Small Gain |
24 13 |
60 75 |
— — |
39 41 |
|
No Change |
— — |
5 — |
— — |
2 — |
|
Small Loss |
— — |
— — |
— — |
— — |
|
Large Loss |
— — |
— — |
— — |
— — |
|
Don’t Know |
6 — |
5 —_____ |
— — |
5 —________ |
Source: Compiled from response data.
tion of which country(s) has a competitive advantage or disadvantage in par-
ticular sub-sectors.
Benefits to the Food Processing Sub-sector
In the first report card, respondents from both Canada and Mexico in-
dicated that their food processing sub-sector had benefitted from NAFTA with
71 percent of Canadians and 100 Percent of Mexicans indicating a large gain
(Table 4). Twenty-four percent of Canadians felt there had been a small ben-
efit. Respondents from the U.S. also believed that their food processing sub-
sector had benefitted, but only 30 percent thought there had been a large gain
compared to 60 percent who indicated a small gain. Overall, 95 percent of
those participating in the first report card thought NAFTA had been a large (54
percent) or small (39 percent) benefit to their food processing sub-sector.
The second report card did not result in any significant changes in the
all-country responses, however, there were changes in both Canada and the
United States (Table 4). Canadian respondents indicating a large gain to the
food processing sub-sector increased from 71 to 87 percent, while Americans
shifted some from the large-gain, no-change, and don’t know categories to the
small-gain category. Mexicans remained steadfast in their belief that NAFTA
had been a large benefit to their food processing sub-sector. Several factors
may lie behind these responses. Canada and Mexico may have competitive
advantages in food processing or at least they may focus on the food processing