IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/buspol/v19y2017i01p1-40_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Firm Heterogeneity and Trade-Policy Stances Evidence from a Survey of Japanese Producers â€

Author

Listed:
  • Plouffe, Michael

Abstract

Recent research in international political economy has begun to explore the implications of producer heterogeneity for trade politics. Variations in productivity and size lead to systematic variations in market behaviors, especially with respect to firms’ abilities to engage foreign markets. This heterogeneity similarly leads to systematic variations in policy stances: Highly productive firms are more likely to favor trade liberalization than their less productive counterparts. I test the role of firm heterogeneity on trade-policy stances using original and representative survey data of Japanese manufacturers. I find that highly productive firms are more likely to favor liberalization than others, while a large portion of producers is indifferent to trade-policy reform. Other producers do not know how they would be impacted by liberalization; these tend to be smaller than their counterparts. The relationship between productivity and pro-trade attitudes is robust, even when controlling for a wide range of internationalization modes.

Suggested Citation

  • Plouffe, Michael, 2017. "Firm Heterogeneity and Trade-Policy Stances Evidence from a Survey of Japanese Producers â€," Business and Politics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(1), pages 1-40, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:buspol:v:19:y:2017:i:01:p:1-40_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1469356916000069/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ka Zeng & Yue Lu & Ya‐wei Li, 2021. "Trade agreements and Global Value Chain (GVC) participation: Evidence from Chinese industries," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(3), pages 533-582, November.
    2. Nilanjan Banik & Misu Kim, 2022. "India–Republic of Korea CEPA: Assessment and Future Path," Economies, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-23, April.
    3. Ari Van Assche & Byron Gangnes, . "Global value chains and the fragmentation of trade policy coalitions," UNCTAD Transnational Corporations Journal, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    4. Patrick Wagner & Michael Plouffe, 2019. "Electoral systems and trade-policy outcomes: the effects of personal-vote incentives on barriers to international trade," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 180(3), pages 333-352, September.
    5. Iain Osgood & Yilang Feng, 2018. "Intellectual property provisions and support for US trade agreements," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 421-455, September.
    6. Leonardo Baccini & Iain Osgood & Stephen Weymouth, 2019. "The service economy: U.S. trade coalitions in an era of deindustrialization," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 261-296, June.
    7. Harish, Nikki & Plouffe, Michael, 2018. "The Political Economy of Foreign Direct Investment to Developing Countries," OSF Preprints chzpq, Center for Open Science.
    8. Alexander Alexeev & Mikhail Sokolov, 2011. "A Note on Indices of Return," EUSP Department of Economics Working Paper Series Ec-02/11, European University at St. Petersburg, Department of Economics, revised 21 Feb 2011.
    9. Gabriele Spilker & Thomas Bernauer & In Song Kim & Helen Milner & Iain Osgood & Dustin Tingley, 2018. "Trade at the margin: Estimating the economic implications of preferential trade agreements," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 189-242, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:buspol:v:19:y:2017:i:01:p:1-40_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/bap .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.