CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,071Global trade and economicsCanadian Policy and GovernanceLabor market dynamics and wage inequality

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Long and Short of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

Trefler, Daniel·2004·American Economic Review
DOI 10.1257/0002828042002633
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement provides a unique window onto the effects of a reciprocal trade agreement on an industrialized economy (Canada). For industries that experienced the deepest Canadian tariff cuts, the contraction of low-productivity plants reduced employment by 12 percent while raising industry-level labor productivity by 15 percent. For industries that experienced the largest U.S. tariff cuts, plant-level labor productivity soared by 14 percent. These results highlight the conflict between those who bore the short-run adjustment costs (displaced workers and struggling plants) and those who are garnering the long-run gains (consumers and efficient plants).

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1257/0002828042002633

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Finger J., 1982, American Economic Review, 72, 452
  2. 39(1-2), pp. 1-25. "The Labour Market Consequences of
  3. 1997, 30(1), pp. 18 - 41.
  4. ics, April 1999b, 47(2), pp. 295-320. "Increasing Returns versus National
  5. Economic Review, September 2001, 91(4),
  6. pp. 858 -76.
  7. Huber J. Richard, 1971, May-, 79, 614
  8. Krueger Anne O, 1997, American Economic Review, 87, 391
  9. pp. 321- 44.
  10. U.S. Free Trade Agreement." National Bureau of Economic Research (Cambridge, MA) Working Paper No. 8293, May 2001.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 1,071

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Trefler, D.
Affiliations
Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CA)
Corresponding author
Trefler, Daniel
ORCID
Trefler, Daniel
Venue
American Economic Review
Publisher
American Economic Association
Published
2004-09-01
Volume
94
Issue
4
Pages
870-895
ISSN
0002-8282 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1257/0002828042002633
OpenAlex
W3023641402
Cited by
1,071
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 39 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 52 · 2022: 72 · 2021: 58 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 60 · 2018: 48 · 2017: 54 · 2016: 55 · 2015: 62 · 2014: 61 · 2013: 50 · 2012: 58
FWCI
57.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Economic Review (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › General Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Global trade and economics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Canadian Policy and Governance
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Labor market dynamics and wage inequality
Keywords
Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, reciprocal trade agreements, tariff reduction, employment effects, industrial restructuring, displaced workers, adjustment costs, deindustrialization

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review