Who Supports Compensation? Individual Preferences for Trade-Related Unemployment Insurance
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.
Volume (Year): 12 (2010)
Issue (Month): 1 (April)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: https://www.degruyter.com|
|Order Information:||Web: https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/bap|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Rudra, Nita, 2002. "Globalization and the Decline of the Welfare State in Less-Developed Countries," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 56(02), pages 411-445, March.
- 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.
- Rodrik, Dani, 1996.
"Why do More Open Economies Have Bigger Governments?,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
1388, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- 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.
- Dani Rodrik, 1996. "Why Do More Open Economies Have Bigger Governments?," NBER Working Papers 5537, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Kono Daniel Y, 2008. "Does Public Opinion Affect Trade Policy?," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 10(2), pages 1-21, September.
- 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(03), pages 425-457, July.
- Ruggie, John Gerard, 1982. "International regimes, transactions, and change: embedded liberalism in the postwar economic order," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(02), pages 379-415, March.
- I. M. Destler, 2005. "American Trade Politics 4th Edition," Peterson Institute Press: All Books, Peterson Institute for International Economics, number 3829, 03.
- Dani Rodrik, 1997. "Has Globalization Gone Too Far?," Peterson Institute Press: All Books, Peterson Institute for International Economics, number 57, 03.
- 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, 03.
- 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(02), pages 229-262, March.
- 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.
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.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Peter Golla)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.