IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/wotrrv/v6y2007i01p25-44_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Psychology and opposition to free trade

Author

Listed:
  • KEMP, SIMON

Abstract

This paper reviews psychological reasons why the enthusiasm of the general public for free international trade might be less than that of the economist. Six specific reasons are advanced: (1) lay views of utility emphasize employment over consumption; (2) status quo bias results from loss aversion; (3) people think altruistically but parochially; (4) people often consider fairness in bargaining situations; (5) people may hold inappropriate fixed pie beliefs; and (6) people may misunderstand Ricardo's principle of comparative advantage. The reasons vary in their apparent rationality and appear to operate in concert rather than independently.

Suggested Citation

  • Kemp, Simon, 2007. "Psychology and opposition to free trade," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 25-44, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:wotrrv:v:6:y:2007:i:01:p:25-44_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1474745606003089/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. Christopher Hartwell, 2022. "Institutions and trade‐related inequality," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(3), pages 3246-3264, July.
    2. Simon Kemp, 2008. "Lay attitudes to trade with low-wage countries," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3, pages 335-343, April.
    3. Robert Lepenies, 2014. "Economists as political philosophers : a critique of normative trade theory," RSCAS Working Papers 2014/11, European University Institute.
    4. Dominik H. Enste & Alexandra Haferkamp & Detlef Fetchenhauer, 2009. "Unterschiede im Denken zwischen Ökonomen und Laien – Erklärungsansätze zur Verbesserung der wirtschaftspolitischen Beratung," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 10(1), pages 60-78, February.
    5. Johnson, Samuel G. B., 2019. "Toward a cognitive science of markets: Economic agents as sense-makers," Economics Discussion Papers 2019-10, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    6. Barbara Dluhosch & Daniel Horgos, 2013. "Trading Up the Happiness Ladder," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 113(3), pages 973-990, September.
    7. Lotz, Sebastian & Fix, Andrea R., 2013. "Not all financial speculation is treated equally: Laypeople’s moral judgments about speculative short selling," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 34-41.
    8. Zahrnt, Valentin, 2008. "Domestic constituents and the formulation of WTO negotiating positions: what the delegates say," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(2), pages 393-421, April.
    9. Johnson, Samuel G. B., 2019. "Toward a cognitive science of markets: Economic agents as sense-makers," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 13, pages 1-29.
    10. Haferkamp, Alexandra & Fetchenhauer, Detlef & Belschak, Frank & Enste, Dominik, 2009. "Efficiency versus fairness: The evaluation of labor market policies by economists and laypeople," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 527-539, August.
    11. Godoy, Ricardo & Zeinalova, Elizabeth & Reyes-García, Victoria & Huanca, Tomás & Kosiewicz, Holly & Leonard, William R. & Tanner, Susan, 2010. "Does civilization cause discontentment among indigenous Amazonians? Test of empirical data from the Tsimane' of Bolivia," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 587-598, August.
    12. Nguyen, Quynh, 2015. "“Mind the Gap”: Inequality Aversion and Mass Support for Protectionism," Papers 838, World Trade Institute.
    13. Jacob, Robert & Christandl, Fabian & Fetchenhauer, Detlef, 2011. "Economic experts or laypeople? How teachers and journalists judge trade and immigration policies," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 662-671.
    14. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i::p:335-343 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Jäkel, Ina C. & Smolka, Marcel, 2017. "Trade policy preferences and factor abundance," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-19.

    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:wotrrv:v:6:y:2007:i:01:p:25-44_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/wtr .

    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.