IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ecopol/v16y2004i2p163-187.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Four Simple Tests of Campaign Contributions and Trade Policy Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Eugene Beaulieu
  • Christopher Magee

Abstract

This paper uses campaign contribution data to examine trade policy preferences among political action committees. With perfect factor mobility, as the Heckscher-Ohlin (HO) model assumes, interest group trade positions should depend on their factor of production but not on their industry. We show, consistent with the 2 × 2 HO model, that capital groups consistently back representatives supporting trade liberalization while labor groups favor protectionists. Unlike previous work, we also measure the variation in trade policy preferences within capital and labor groups. We find evidence that the industry net export position significantly affects labor unions' trade policy preferences. Industry characteristics have no impact on capital group lobbying. The former result suggests that empirical analyses of labor PAC contributions that exclude industry characteristics may be misspecified. Copyright Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004.

Suggested Citation

  • Eugene Beaulieu & Christopher Magee, 2004. "Four Simple Tests of Campaign Contributions and Trade Policy Preferences," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(2), pages 163-187, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:ecopol:v:16:y:2004:i:2:p:163-187
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/servlet/useragent?func=synergy&synergyAction=showTOC&journalCode=ecpo&volume=16&issue=2&year=2004&part=null
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    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. Grossman, Gene M & Helpman, Elhanan, 1994. "Protection for Sale," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(4), pages 833-850, September.
    2. Moore, Michael O. & Suranovic, Steven M., 1993. "Lobbying and Cournot-Nash competition : Implications for strategic trade policy," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3-4), pages 367-376, November.
    3. Ngo, Van Long & Soubeyran, Antoine, 1997. "Cost heterogeneity, industry concentration and strategic trade policies," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1-2), pages 207-220, August.
    4. Levy, Philip I, 1997. "A Political-Economic Analysis of Free-Trade Agreements," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(4), pages 506-519, September.
    5. Brander, James A. & Spencer, Barbara J., 1985. "Export subsidies and international market share rivalry," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, pages 83-100.
    6. Theodore C. Bergstrom & Hal R. Varian, 1985. "When Are Nash Equilibria Independent of the Distribution of Agents' Characteristics?," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 52(4), pages 715-718.
    7. Rodrik, Dani, 1995. "Political economy of trade policy," Handbook of International Economics,in: G. M. Grossman & K. Rogoff (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 28, pages 1457-1494 Elsevier.
    8. Panagariya, Arvind & Rodrik, Dani, 1993. "Political-Economy Arguments for a Uniform Tariff," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 34(3), pages 685-703, August.
    9. Long, Ngo Van & Soubeyran, Antoine, 1996. "Lobbying for protection by heterogeneous firms," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 19-32, April.
    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. Malcolm, Michael, 2017. "Do local exports impact congressional voting on free trade agreements?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 31-34.
    2. Im Hyejoon & Sung Hankyoung, 2011. "Empirical Analyses of U.S. Congressional Voting on Recent FTA," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 1-37, December.
    3. Marco Pinto & Jochen Michaelis, 2016. "The labor market effects of trade unions in an open economy: Layard meets Melitz," International Economics and Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 223-232, April.
    4. Blanchard, Emily & Willmann, Gerald, 2011. "Escaping a protectionist rut: Policy mechanisms for trade reform in a democracy," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 72-85, September.
    5. Chapda Nana, Guy & Larue, Bruno & Gervais, Jean-Philippe, 2012. "Regional integration and dynamic adjustments: Evidence from gross national product functions for Canada and the United States," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 246-264.
    6. Jochen Michaelis & Marco de Pinto, 2014. "The labor market effects of trade unions - Layard meets Melitz," IAAEU Discussion Papers 201406, Institute of Labour Law and Industrial Relations in the European Union (IAAEU).
    7. Hyejoon Im & Hankyoung Sun, 2008. "Empirical Analyses of U.S. Congressional Voting on Recent FTA Bills," Governance Working Papers 22992, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    8. Swati Dhingra, 2014. "Reconciling Observed Tariffs and the Median Voter Model," CEP Discussion Papers dp1285, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    9. Dhingra, Swati, 2014. "Reconciling observed tariffs and the median voter model," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 59227, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Dhingra, Swati, 2014. "Reconciling observed tariffs and the median voter model," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 60354, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    11. Dhingra, Swati, 2006. "Re-examination of the Mayer Median Voter Model of Trade Policy," MPRA Paper 892, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 14 Nov 2006.

    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:bla:ecopol:v:16:y:2004:i:2:p:163-187. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0954-1985 .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.