2017年-PIIE彼得森国际经济研究所_Agriculture_in_the_NAFTA_Renegotiation_10页_255kb

Summary of "17-24 Agriculture in the NAFTA Renegotiation"

Core Content

This Policy Brief analyzes the role of agriculture in the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) under the Trump administration, emphasizing the sector's political and economic significance despite its relatively small contribution to GDP and trade volumes. It highlights the potential for agricultural issues to become a major sticking point in negotiations due to the sector's strong political influence and its integration into cross-border supply chains.

Main Points

1. Agriculture is a Thorny Issue in NAFTA Renegotiation

• Despite its modest contribution to GDP and employment in NAFTA countries, agriculture is a politically sensitive and contentious issue.
• The sector has historically been a focal point in trade negotiations due to its deep ties to rural communities and the specific nature of its production factors.
• NAFTA has created complex cross-border supply chains that are difficult to dismantle without significant economic consequences.

2. US and Canadian Agricultural Producers Favor NAFTA

• US agricultural producers, particularly in states like Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas, benefit significantly from NAFTA and are unlikely to support its termination.
• Canadian farmers in competitive sectors also support NAFTA, while dairy and beef producers in protected sectors have concerns.
• Mexican agricultural interests are more ambivalent, with support concentrated in the northern regions and opposition in the south due to fears of losing traditional livelihoods and facing increased competition.

3. Agricultural Supply Chains are Integrated Across NAFTA

• NAFTA has fostered significant regional integration in agricultural trade and investment, especially in sectors like pork, grains, and livestock.
• These supply chains involve cross-border inputs and outputs, such as Canadian feeder pigs being finished in the US and then re-exported to Mexico and Canada.
• Only sugar and sweeteners remain largely protected due to the influence of powerful lobbies in the US and other trade restrictions.

4. Disruption of Agricultural Trade Would Impact Trump Supporters

• Disruptions to agricultural trade would disproportionately affect states that strongly supported Donald Trump, such as Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska.
• These states are more reliant on agricultural exports and intra-NAFTA trade, making them vulnerable to trade policy changes.
• The political alignment of agricultural states with the Republican Party means that any renegotiation that harms these sectors risks losing Senate support.

Key Information

• Agricultural Trade Shares (2016):

  • Agriculture accounted for 7% of US trade with Canada and Mexico.
  • US agricultural exports to Mexico grew by 329.8% between 1991–93 and 2010–12.
  • Mexico received 28% of the US maize crop, and Canada and Mexico account for nearly a third of US beef exports.

• Political Influence:

  • Agricultural interests have significant political clout in the US, Canada, and Mexico.
  • The US Senate's apportionment system overrepresents rural states, giving agricultural interests disproportionate influence.
  • In the US House of Representatives, 72% of Republicans supported the Agricultural Act of 2014, while only 28% of Democrats did.

• Potential Renegotiation Outcomes:

  • A productive renegotiation would likely mirror the agricultural and SPS provisions of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which the Trump administration withdrew from.
  • It would aim to reduce nontariff barriers, maintain commitments to eliminate export subsidies, and ensure science-based SPS measures.
  • However, major concessions on protected markets like Canadian dairy are unlikely due to political resistance.

• Unproductive Renegotiation:

  • An unproductive outcome would either weaken agricultural protections or increase market access for products from more competitive states, potentially harming GOP-aligned agricultural interests.
  • This could lead to political backlash and difficulty in securing Senate approval.

Conclusion

The renegotiation of NAFTA must consider the political and economic importance of agriculture, especially in rural, GOP-leaning states. While the Trump administration's focus on market access and border policies may overshadow agricultural concerns, the sector's role in trade and its strong political influence suggest that any meaningful renegotiation must balance these interests to avoid significant disruption and loss of support.