IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/buspol/v12y2010i1n3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who Supports Compensation? Individual Preferences for Trade-Related Unemployment Insurance

Author

Listed:
  • Ehrlich Sean D

    (Florida State University)

Abstract

The political economy of trade literature argues that the policy of compensating those who lose from trade is an important component of maintaining public support for free-trade, a linkage known as the compensation hypothesis or embedded liberalism thesis. This article tests the causal mechanisms underlying the compensation hypothesis by examining support for trade-related compensation using survey data from the United States. Expectations about the effects of trade strongly predict support for trade-related unemployment insurance, with those who expect to lose more likely to support and those who expect to gain more like to oppose, but has no influence on support for general unemployment insurance despite previous research suggesting it should.

Suggested Citation

  • Ehrlich Sean D, 2010. "Who Supports Compensation? Individual Preferences for Trade-Related Unemployment Insurance," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-24, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:buspol:v:12:y:2010:i:1:n:3
    DOI: 10.2202/1469-3569.1289
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2202/1469-3569.1289
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2202/1469-3569.1289?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. Balcells Ventura Laia, 2006. "Trade Openness and Preferences for Redistribution: A Cross-National Assessment of the Compensation Hypothesis," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 8(2), pages 1-52, August.
    2. Anna Maria Mayda & Kevin H. O'Rourke, 2007. "Risk, Government andd Globalization: International Survey Evidence," The Institute for International Integration Studies Discussion Paper Series iiisdp218, IIIS.
    3. Hainmueller, Jens & Hiscox, Michael J., 2006. "Learning to Love Globalization: Education and Individual Attitudes Toward International Trade," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 60(2), pages 469-498, April.
    4. Moene, Karl Ove & Wallerstein, Michael, 2001. "Inequality, Social Insurance, and Redistribution," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(4), pages 859-874, December.
    5. Crepaz, Markus M. L., 2002. "Duane Swank, Global Capital, Political Institutions, and Policy Change in Developed Welfare States. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(01), pages 101-106, January.
    6. Kono, Daniel Y., 2008. "Does Public Opinion Affect Trade Policy?," Business and Politics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 1-19, August.
    7. Scheve, Kenneth & Stasavage, David, 2006. "Religion and Preferences for Social Insurance," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 1(3), pages 255-286, July.
    8. I. M. Destler, 2005. "American Trade Politics 4th Edition," Peterson Institute Press: All Books, Peterson Institute for International Economics, number 3829, October.
    9. Dani Rodrik, 1998. "Has Globalization Gone Too Far?," Challenge, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(2), pages 81-94, March.
    10. Adserà , Alícia & Boix, Carles, 2002. "Trade, Democracy, and the Size of the Public Sector: The Political Underpinnings of Openness," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 56(2), pages 229-262, April.
    11. Ruggie, John Gerard, 1982. "International regimes, transactions, and change: embedded liberalism in the postwar economic order," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(2), pages 379-415, April.
    12. Swank,Duane, 2002. "Global Capital, Political Institutions, and Policy Change in Developed Welfare States," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521806688.
    13. Mayda, Anna Maria & Rodrik, Dani, 2005. "Why are some people (and countries) more protectionist than others?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 1393-1430, August.
    14. Balcells Ventura, Laia, 2006. "Trade Openness and Preferences for Redistribution: A Cross-National Assessment of the Compensation Hypothesis," Business and Politics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 1-50, August.
    15. Kono Daniel Y, 2008. "Does Public Opinion Affect Trade Policy?," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 10(2), pages 1-21, September.
    16. Dani Rodrik, 1998. "Why Do More Open Economies Have Bigger Governments?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 106(5), pages 997-1032, October.
    17. Kenneth F. Scheve & Matthew J. Slaughter, 2001. "Globalization and the Perceptions of American Workers," Peterson Institute Press: All Books, Peterson Institute for International Economics, number 109, October.
    18. 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.
    19. Iversen, Torben & Soskice, David, 2001. "An Asset Theory of Social Policy Preferences," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(4), pages 875-893, December.
    20. Cameron, David R., 1978. "The Expansion of the Public Economy: A Comparative Analysis," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 72(4), pages 1243-1261, December.
    21. Swank,Duane, 2002. "Global Capital, Political Institutions, and Policy Change in Developed Welfare States," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521001441.
    22. Mansfield, Edward D. & Mutz, Diana C., 2009. "Support for Free Trade: Self-Interest, Sociotropic Politics, and Out-Group Anxiety," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 63(3), pages 425-457, July.
    23. Down, Ian, 2007. "Trade Openness, Country Size and Economic Volatility: The Compensation Hypothesis Revisited," Business and Politics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 1-20, August.
    24. Rudra, Nita, 2002. "Globalization and the Decline of the Welfare State in Less-Developed Countries," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 56(2), pages 411-445, April.
    25. Down Ian, 2007. "Trade Openness, Country Size and Economic Volatility: The Compensation Hypothesis Revisited," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 9(2), pages 1-22, September.
    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. Rickard, Stephanie J., 2015. "Compensating the losers: an examination of Congressional votes on trade adjustment assistance," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 88051, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. David H. Bearce & Brendan J. Connell, 2023. "Government compensation and citizen support for immigration openness," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(1), pages 5-27, March.
    3. Stephanie J. Rickard, 2015. "Compensating the Losers: An Examination of Congressional Votes on Trade Adjustment Assistance," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(1), pages 46-60, January.

    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. Schaffer, Lena Maria & Spilker, Gabriele, 2013. "Adding Another Level: Individual Responses to Globalization and Government Welfare Policies," Papers 551, World Trade Institute.
    2. Vikas Dixit, 2014. "Relation between Trade Openness, Capital Openness and Government Size in India," Foreign Trade Review, , vol. 49(1), pages 1-29, February.
    3. Kosack, Stephen & Tobin, Jennifer L., 2015. "Which Countries’ Citizens Are Better Off With Trade?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 95-113.
    4. Federico Podestà, 2016. "Do Big Governments Promote Trade Liberalization? A Long-Term Analysis of 18 OECD Countries, 1975-2000," FBK-IRVAPP Working Papers 2016-02, Research Institute for the Evaluation of Public Policies (IRVAPP), Bruno Kessler Foundation.
    5. Wibbels, Erik, 2006. "Dependency Revisited: International Markets, Business Cycles, and Social Spending in the Developing World," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 60(2), pages 433-468, April.
    6. Rommel, Tobias & Walter, Stefanie, 2016. "The Electoral Consequences of Offshoring," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 286, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    7. Erkam Sari & Hakan Hotunluoglu, 2021. "Government Size and Openness: Insights Basedon Country Classifications," World Journal of Applied Economics, WERI-World Economic Research Institute, vol. 7(1), pages 1-16, June.
    8. Stephanie J. Rickard, 2006. "The Costs of Risk: Examining the Missing Link between Globalization and Social Spending," The Institute for International Integration Studies Discussion Paper Series iiisdp185, IIIS.
    9. Schulze-Cleven, Tobias, 2006. "The Politics of an Experimental Society: Creating Labor Market Flexibility in Europe," Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Working Paper Series qt92x040tt, Institute of Industrial Relations, UC Berkeley.
    10. Duane Swank, 2015. "The Political Foundations of Redistribution in Post-industrial Democracies," LIS Working papers 653, LIS Cross-National Data Center in Luxembourg.
    11. Marques II, Israel, 2018. "Firms and social policy preferences under weak institutions : Evidence from Russia," BOFIT Discussion Papers 7/2018, Bank of Finland, Institute for Economies in Transition.
    12. Xiao Tan, 2017. "Explaining provincial government health expenditures in China: evidence from panel data 2007–2013," China Finance and Economic Review, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 1-21, December.
    13. repec:zbw:bofitp:2018_007 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Antonio Sciala' & Paolo Liberati, 2008. "The impact of economic openness on the vertical structure of the public sector," "Marco Fanno" Working Papers 0085, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche "Marco Fanno".
    15. Brady, David & Beckfield, Jason & Seeleib-Kaiser, Martin, 2004. "Economic Globalization and the Welfare State in Affluent Democracies, 1975-1998," Working papers of the ZeS 12/2004, University of Bremen, Centre for Social Policy Research (ZeS).
    16. Israel Marques, 2014. "Firms And Social Policy In The Post-Communist Bloc: Evidence From Russia," HSE Working papers WP BRP 87/EC/2014, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    17. Marques II, Israel, 2018. "Firms and social policy preferences under weak institutions: Evidence from Russia," BOFIT Discussion Papers 7/2018, Bank of Finland Institute for Emerging Economies (BOFIT).
    18. Yu Jin Woo & Ikuo Kume, 2021. "Taking Gains from Trade Seriously: The Effects of Consumer Perspective on Free Trade," Working Papers 2020, Waseda University, Faculty of Political Science and Economics.
    19. Sijeong Lim & Brian Burgoon, 2017. "Globalization and Support for Unemployment Spending in Asia," Working Papers hal-01670983, HAL.
    20. Sarah Hakeem & Saghir Pervaiz Ghauri & Rizwan Raheem Ahmed & Dalia Streimikiene & Justas Streimikis, 2023. "Development of Social Welfare Policies in the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Countries: Globalization and Democracy," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 167(1), pages 91-134, June.
    21. Paolo Liberati & Antonio Sciala, 2011. "How economic integration affects the vertical structure of the public sector," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 385-402, December.

    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:bpj:buspol:v:12:y:2010:i:1:n:3. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.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.