No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Canadian-American Reciprocity: A Reply
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 February 2011
Extract
In his comment “Canadian-American Reciprocity,” R. E. Ankli raises a number of conceptual, methodological, statistical, and interpretive issues about our article, “The Canadian-American Reciprocity Treaty of 1855 to 1866.” Although some points are well raised, the majority appear to stem from a misunderstanding of our work. Nevertheless, it should be stated at the outset that despite his criticisms, Ankli does not quarrel with our conclusions that (1) Reciprocity cannot conclusively be said to have benefited Canada; (2) Reciprocity alone did not appreciably increase Canadian trade; and (3) Reciprocity was not necessarily beneficial from a welfare standpoint. In fact, Ankli seems concerned that others may have hinted at these conclusions previously. While we feel our conclusions do differ essentially from the traditionally-stated views, our purpose was not to quibble over who first said what, but rather to introduce more meaningful and comprehensive data and to analyze the question in the context of modern trade theory.
- Type
- Notes
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Economic History Association 1970
References
1 Ankli, R. E., “Canadian-American Reciprocity: A Comment,” The Journal of Economic History, XXX (June 1970), 427–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 Officer, L. H. and Smith, L. B., “The Canadian-American Reciprocity Treaty of 1855 to 1866,” The Journal of Economic History, XXVIII (Dec. 1968), 598–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 Ibid., p. 599.
4 For example, J. N. Larned declares: “An extraordinary impulse of advancement was given to the provinces, particularly Ontario, by the operation of this treaty” (J. N. Larned, U.S. Congress, House, Report on the State of Trade Between the United States and British North American Provinces, Doc. 94, 41st Cong., 3d. Sess., p. 6). D. C. Masters states: “A period of great prosperity in the colonies followed the negotiation of the treaty; trade between the British North American colonies and the United States showed a considerable increase…. Undoubtedly the treaty imparted an appreciable impulse to trade between the United States and the colonies…. [O]ther forces, which combined to produce the prosperity of the period… were, to some extent, created by the impetus which the treaty had imparted to trade” (Masters, D. C., Reciprocity 1846–1911 [Ottawa: Canadian Historical Association, 1961], pp. 7–8Google Scholar; The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854 [Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, Ltd., 1963], p. 107)Google Scholar. See also statements in Saunders, S. A., “Reciprocity Treaty of 1854: A Regional Study,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, II (Feb. 1936), 42–44Google Scholar; and Mackintosh, W. A., Economic Background to Dominion Provincial Relations, A Study for the Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations (Ottawa, 1939), p. 13Google Scholar,
5 Officer and Smith, “Canadian-American Reciprocity,” p. 600.
6 Ankli, “A Comment,” p. 428 and n. 6.
7 Officer and Smith, “Canadian-American Reciprocity,” p. 614.
8 Mitchell, H., “Notes on Agricultural Commodities in the U.S. and Canada, 1850–1934,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, I (May 1935), 269–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 Officer and Smith, “Canadian-American Reciprocity,” p. 606.
10 Ankli, “A Comment,” n. 11.
11 Total Canadian trade would most likely have increased even in the absence of Reciprocity, since it had more than doubled in the five years immediately prior to Reciprocity, and since trade in non-reciprocity articles rose by 19 percent between 1850–54 and 1855–59.