IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jjieco/v51y2019icp99-109.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Trade policy preferences and cross-regional differences: Evidence from individual-level data of Japan

Author

Listed:
  • Ito, Banri
  • Mukunoki, Hiroshi
  • Tomiura, Eiichi
  • Wakasugi, Ryuhei

Abstract

This study examines the determinants of trade policy preferences, using individual-level data of Japan. We focus on the role of regional factors, considering the fact that there is a significant difference in preferences among regions. The results reveal that people residing in a region with a high share of agricultural workers are likely to support import restrictions even if they do not engage in agriculture, which is the most protected sector in Japan. It is also found that the effect of agricultural workers share is significant for some people not considering migration, suggesting that inter-regional immobility affects their trade policy preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Ito, Banri & Mukunoki, Hiroshi & Tomiura, Eiichi & Wakasugi, Ryuhei, 2019. "Trade policy preferences and cross-regional differences: Evidence from individual-level data of Japan," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 99-109.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jjieco:v:51:y:2019:i:c:p:99-109
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jjie.2018.12.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0889158318301618
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jjie.2018.12.003?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eugene Beaulieu, 2002. "Factor or Industry Cleavages in Trade Policy? An Empirical Analysis of the Stolper–Samuelson Theorem," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(2), pages 99-131, July.
    2. 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.
    3. William H. Kaempfer & Stephen V. Marks, 1993. "The Expected Effects of Trade Liberalisation: Evidence from US Congressional Action on Fast-Track Authority," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(6), pages 725-740, November.
    4. Edward C. Norton & Hua Wang & Chunrong Ai, 2004. "Computing interaction effects and standard errors in logit and probit models," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 4(2), pages 154-167, June.
    5. David H. Autor & David Dorn & Gordon H. Hanson, 2013. "The China Syndrome: Local Labor Market Effects of Import Competition in the United States," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(6), pages 2121-2168, October.
    6. Rosen, Sherwin, 2007. "Studies in Labor Markets," National Bureau of Economic Research Books, University of Chicago Press, number 9780226726304, December.
    7. Scheve, Kenneth F. & Slaughter, Matthew J., 2001. "What determines individual trade-policy preferences?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 267-292, August.
    8. Bruce A. Blonigen & Jacob McGrew, 2014. "Task Routineness and Trade Policy Preferences," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(3), pages 505-518, November.
    9. Ai, Chunrong & Norton, Edward C., 2003. "Interaction terms in logit and probit models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 123-129, July.
    10. Beaulieu, Eugene, 2002. "The Stolper-Samuelson Theorem Faces Congress," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(2), pages 343-360, May.
    11. Erhan Artuç & Shubham Chaudhuri & John McLaren, 2010. "Trade Shocks and Labor Adjustment: A Structural Empirical Approach," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(3), pages 1008-1045, June.
    12. Baldwin, Robert E & Magee, Christopher S, 2000. "Is Trade Policy for Sale? Congressional Voting on Recent Trade Bills," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 105(1-2), pages 79-101, October.
    13. Davis, Christina L., 2004. "International Institutions and Issue Linkage: Building Support for Agricultural Trade Liberalization," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 98(1), pages 153-169, February.
    14. TOMIURA Eiichi & ITO Banri & MUKUNOKI Hiroshi & WAKASUGI Ryuhei, 2014. "Reciprocal Versus Unilateral Trade Liberalization: Comparing individual characteristics of supporters," Discussion papers 14067, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    15. Bruce A., Blonigen, 2011. "Revisiting the evidence on trade policy preferences," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 129-135, September.
    16. Eiichi Tomiura & Banri Ito & Hiroshi Mukunoki & Ryuhei Wakasugi, 2016. "Individual Characteristics, Behavioral Biases, and Trade Policy Preferences: Evidence from a Survey in Japan," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(5), pages 1081-1095, November.
    17. Jäkel, Ina C. & Smolka, Marcel, 2017. "Trade policy preferences and factor abundance," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-19.
    18. James J. Heckman, 1981. "Heterogeneity and State Dependence," NBER Chapters, in: Studies in Labor Markets, pages 91-140, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Hosoe, Nobuhiro & Akune, Yuko, 2020. "Can the Japanese agri-food producers survive under freer trade? A general equilibrium analysis with farm heterogeneity and product differentiation," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    2. 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.
    3. Tomiura, Eiichi & Ito, Banri & Mukunoki, Hiroshi & Wakasugi, Ryuhei, 2021. "Individual characteristics and the demand for reciprocity in trade liberalization: Evidence from a survey in Japan," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    4. Leonid Aleksandrovich Bragin & Svetlana Viktoronva Panasenko & Alexander Fedorovich Nikishin & Svetlana Borisovna Aleksina & Anastasiya Vladimirovna Boykova, 2019. "Regional aspects of the development of the cheese market in terms of the trend of healthy nutrition," Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, VsI Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, vol. 7(1), pages 626-636, September.
    5. Ito, Banri & Tanaka, Ayumu & Jinji, Naoto, 2023. "Why do people oppose foreign acquisitions? Evidence from Japanese individual-level data," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    6. Gabriel Felbermayr & Toshihiro Okubo, 2022. "Individual preferences on trade liberalization: evidence from a Japanese household survey," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 158(1), pages 305-330, February.
    7. Wickes, Ron, 2021. "Trade deficits and trade conflict: The United States and Japan," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    8. Okubo, Toshihiro, 2021. "Public preferences on immigration in Japan," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    9. 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.
    10. Ito, Banri, 2015. "Does electoral strength affect politician's trade policy preferences? Evidence from Japan," MPRA Paper 62525, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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. Eiji Yamamura & Yoshiro Tsutsui, 2017. "Trade policy preference, childhood sporting experience, and informal school curriculum: Examination from the viewpoint of behavioral economics," Discussion Papers in Economics and Business 17-25, Osaka University, Graduate School of Economics.
    2. 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.
    3. Tomiura, Eiichi & Ito, Banri & Mukunoki, Hiroshi & Wakasugi, Ryuhei, 2021. "Individual characteristics and the demand for reciprocity in trade liberalization: Evidence from a survey in Japan," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    4. Rodríguez Chatruc, Marisol & Stein, Ernesto H. & Vlaicu, Razvan, 2019. "Trade Attitudes in Latin America: Evidence from a Multi-Country Survey Experiment," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 9603, Inter-American Development Bank.
    5. Ito, Banri & Tanaka, Ayumu & Jinji, Naoto, 2023. "Why do people oppose foreign acquisitions? Evidence from Japanese individual-level data," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    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. Rodríguez Chatruc, Marisol & Stein, Ernesto & Vlaicu, Razvan, 2021. "How issue framing shapes trade attitudes: Evidence from a multi-country survey experiment," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    8. Bruce A., Blonigen, 2011. "Revisiting the evidence on trade policy preferences," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 129-135, September.
    9. Philipp Harms & Nils D. Steiner, 2023. "Attitudes towards Globalization: A Survey," Working Papers 2305, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    10. Ito, Banri, 2015. "Does electoral strength affect politician's trade policy preferences? Evidence from Japan," MPRA Paper 62525, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Gabriel Felbermayr & Toshihiro Okubo, 2022. "Individual preferences on trade liberalization: evidence from a Japanese household survey," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 158(1), pages 305-330, February.
    12. Aleksandra Sojka & Jorge Diaz-Lanchas & Federico Steinberg, 2019. "The Politicization of Transatlantic Trade in Europe: Explaining Inconsistent Preferences Regarding Free Trade and the TTIP," JRC Working Papers on Territorial Modelling and Analysis 2019-09, Joint Research Centre.
    13. Chun-Fang Chiang & Jin-Tan Liu & Tsai-Wei Wen, 2013. "Individual Preferences for Trade Partners in Taiwan," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(1), pages 91-109, March.
    14. Rafael Di Tella & Dani Rodrik, 2020. "Labour Market Shocks and the Demand for Trade Protection: Evidence from Online Surveys," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(628), pages 1008-1030.
    15. Rickard, Stephanie, 2022. "Economic geography, politics, and the world trade regime," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 113857, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    16. Bruce Blonigen, 2008. "New Evidence on the Formation of Trade Policy Preferences," NBER Working Papers 14627, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Eiichi Tomiura & Banri Ito & Hiroshi Mukunoki & Ryuhei Wakasugi, 2016. "Individual Characteristics, Behavioral Biases, and Trade Policy Preferences: Evidence from a Survey in Japan," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(5), pages 1081-1095, November.
    18. Wolfgang Lechthaler & Mariya Mileva, 2021. "The Dynamic And Distributional Aspects Of Import Tariffs," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 62(1), pages 199-241, February.
    19. Barbara Dluhosch, 2018. "Trade, Inequality, and Subjective Well-Being: Getting at the Roots of the Backlash Against Globalization," LIS Working papers 741, LIS Cross-National Data Center in Luxembourg.
    20. Cevat G. Aksoy & Sergei Guriev & Daniel S. Treisman, 2018. "Globalization, Government Popularity, and the Great Skill Divide," NBER Working Papers 25062, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Policy preferences; Protectionism; Agriculture; Regional economy;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • Q17 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agriculture in International Trade
    • R10 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - General

    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:eee:jjieco:v:51:y:2019:i:c:p:99-109. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622903 .

    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.