IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v180y2019i3d10.1007_s11127-019-00640-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Electoral systems and trade-policy outcomes: the effects of personal-vote incentives on barriers to international trade

Author

Listed:
  • Patrick Wagner

    (World Trade Institute)

  • Michael Plouffe

    (University College London)

Abstract

Despite established benefits in free trade, protectionism persists to varying degrees across the world. Why is that? Political institutions govern the ways in which competing trade-policy preferences are aggregated, shaping policy outcomes. The ubiquitous binary PR/plurality indicator in the trade-politics literature is divorced from comparative institutional research. We build on the latter body of research to generate a new 13-point index that captures the extent to which electoral systems incentivize personal-vote cultivation, based on a combination of established theoretical and new empirical evidence on candidate incentives. We argue that institutional incentives to pursue a personal vote are positively linked to the provision of particularistic policies, including trade protectionism. We find strong empirical support for the hypothesized relationship, and our results highlight the importance of applying parsimonious approaches to studying domestic institutions when analyzing their impact on foreign economic policy.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:180:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s11127-019-00640-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11127-019-00640-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11127-019-00640-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11127-019-00640-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hatfield, John William & Hauk, William R., 2014. "Electoral regime and trade policy," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 518-534.
    2. Andrew B. Bernard & J. Bradford Jensen & Stephen J. Redding & Peter K. Schott, 2007. "Firms in International Trade," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(3), pages 105-130, Summer.
    3. Keesing, Donald B & Sherk, Donald R, 1971. "Population Density in Patterns of Trade and Development," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 61(5), pages 956-961, December.
    4. Ehrlich, Sean D., 2007. "Access to Protection: Domestic Institutions and Trade Policy in Democracies," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 61(3), pages 571-605, July.
    5. Gene M. Grossman & Elhanan Helpman, 2005. "A Protectionist Bias in Majoritarian Politics," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 120(4), pages 1239-1282.
    6. Lorenz Blume & Jens Müller & Stefan Voigt & Carsten Wolf, 2009. "The economic effects of constitutions: replicating—and extending—Persson and Tabellini," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 139(1), pages 197-225, April.
    7. La Porta, Rafael & Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes & Andrei Shleifer & Robert W. Vishny, 1997. "Legal Determinants of External Finance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(3), pages 1131-1150, July.
    8. Carolyn L. Evans, 2009. "A Protectionist Bias In Majoritarian Politics: An Empirical Investigation," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(2), pages 278-307, July.
    9. Grossman, Gene M & Helpman, Elhanan, 1994. "Protection for Sale," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(4), pages 833-850, September.
    10. Hiau Looi Kee & Cristina Neagu & Alessandro Nicita, 2013. "Is Protectionism on the Rise? Assessing National Trade Policies during the Crisis of 2008," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(1), pages 342-346, March.
    11. Rogowski, Ronald, 1987. "Trade and the variety of democratic institutions," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(2), pages 203-223, April.
    12. Richard E. Baldwin & Frédéric Robert-Nicoud, 2007. "Entry and Asymmetric Lobbying: Why Governments Pick Losers," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 5(5), pages 1064-1093, September.
    13. Jong Hee Park & Nathan Jensen, 2007. "Electoral Competition and Agricultural Support in OECD Countries," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(2), pages 314-329, April.
    14. James Honaker & Gary King, 2010. "What to Do about Missing Values in Time‐Series Cross‐Section Data," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(2), pages 561-581, April.
    15. Chang, Eric C. C. & Kayser, Mark Andreas & Rogowski, Ronald, 2008. "Electoral Systems and Real Prices: Panel Evidence for the OECD Countries, 1970–2000," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 38(4), pages 739-751, October.
    16. Bell, Andrew & Jones, Kelvyn, 2015. "Explaining Fixed Effects: Random Effects Modeling of Time-Series Cross-Sectional and Panel Data," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(1), pages 133-153, January.
    17. Mundlak, Yair, 1978. "On the Pooling of Time Series and Cross Section Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(1), pages 69-85, January.
    18. Ehrlich, Sean D., 2011. "Access Points: An Institutional Theory of Policy Bias and Policy Complexity," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199737543.
    19. Banri Ito, 2015. "Does electoral competition affect politicians’ trade policy preferences? Evidence from Japan," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 165(3), pages 239-261, December.
    20. Andy Baker, 2005. "Who Wants to Globalize? Consumer Tastes and Labor Markets in a Theory of Trade Policy Beliefs," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(4), pages 924-938, October.
    21. 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.
    22. Rickard, Stephanie J., 2012. "Electoral Systems, Voters’ Interests and Geographic Dispersion," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(4), pages 855-877, October.
    23. Mansfield, Edward D. & Busch, Marc L., 1995. "The political economy of nontariff barriers: a cross-national analysis," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 723-749, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Sebastian Krapohl & Václav Ocelík & Dawid M. Walentek, 2021. "The instability of globalization: applying evolutionary game theory to global trade cooperation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 188(1), pages 31-51, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hatfield, John William & Hauk, William R., 2014. "Electoral regime and trade policy," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 518-534.
    2. Garance Genicot & Laurent Bouton & Micael Castanheira, 2021. "Electoral Systems and Inequalities in Government Interventions [“Distributive Politics and Electoral Incentives: Evidence from Seven US State Legislatures.”]," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 19(6), pages 3154-3206.
    3. Kagitani, Koichi & Harimaya, Kozo, 2019. "Electoral rules and free trade agreements as a campaign issue: The case of political disputes over the Trans-Pacific Partnership in Japan," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 126-137.
    4. Koichi Kagitani & Kozo Harimaya, 2020. "Constituency systems, election proximity, special interests and a free trade agreement: the case of the Trans-Pacific Partnership in Japan," International Economics and Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 897-922, October.
    5. Sakuyama, T., 2018. "Electoral rules and agricultural protectionism: The case of Japan s participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277151, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Kagitani, Koichi & Harimaya, Kozo, 2017. "Electoral motives, constituency systems, ideologies, and a free trade agreement: The case of Japan joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 51-66.
    7. Christian Walter Martin & Nils D. Steiner, 2016. "Economic globalization and the change of electoral rules," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 355-376, December.
    8. Gawande, Kishore & Krishna, Pravin & Olarreaga, Marcelo, 2009. "What Governments Maximize and Why: The View from Trade," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 63(3), pages 491-532, July.
    9. Olper, Alessandro & Raimondi, Valentina, 2013. "Electoral rules, forms of government and redistributive policy: Evidence from agriculture and food policies," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 141-158.
    10. Weinberg, Joe, 2018. "Where’s the Pork?: The Political Economy of the US Farm Bill," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 273867, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Natália Barbosa & Maria Helena Guimarães & Ana Paula Faria, 2017. "Single Market Non-Compliance: How Relevant Is The Institutional Setting?," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 62(05), pages 1115-1135, December.
    12. Marco Schito, 2021. "A Sectoral Approach to the Politics of State Aid in the European Union: an Analysis of the European Automotive Industry," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 1-31, March.
    13. Yeung, Timothy Yu-Cheong & Zuazu Bermejo, Izaskun, 2016. "Do Mayoritarian Electoral Rules Favour Larger Industries in the Economy," IKERLANAK 19433, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Fundamentos del Análisis Económico I.
    14. James Lake & Maia Linask, 2016. "Domestic political competition and pro-cyclical import protection," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(3), pages 564-591, August.
    15. Galasso, Vincenzo & Nunnari, Salvatore, 2019. "The Economic Effects of Electoral Rules: Evidence from Unemployment Benefits," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 14(3), pages 259-291, July.
    16. Banri Ito, 2021. "Trade exposure and electoral protectionism: evidence from Japanese politician-level data," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 157(1), pages 181-205, February.
    17. Arnaud Costinot, 2009. "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs: A "New" Perspective on Protectionism," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 7(5), pages 1011-1041, September.
    18. Matthias Dahm & Robert Dur & Amihai Glazer, 2014. "How a firm can induce legislators to adopt a bad policy," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 63-82, April.
    19. Per G. Fredriksson & Xenia Matschke & Jenny Minier, 2011. "Trade policy in majoritarian systems: the case of the U.S," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 44(2), pages 607-626, May.
    20. Xiaobo Lü & Kenneth F. Scheve & Matthew J. Slaughter, 2010. "Envy, Altruism, and the International Distribution of Trade Protection," NBER Working Papers 15700, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    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:kap:pubcho:v:180:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s11127-019-00640-4. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.