IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/revint/v15y2020i4d10.1007_s11558-019-09356-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social standards in trade agreements and free trade preferences: An empirical investigation

Author

Listed:
  • Ida Bastiaens

    (Fordham University)

  • Evgeny Postnikov

    (University of Melbourne)

Abstract

Free trade generates macroeconomic gains but also creates winners and losers. Historically, to reconcile this tension, governments compensated globalization losers with social spending in exchange for support for free trade, known as the embedded liberalism compromise. In the neoliberal era, what other policies can governments pursue to strengthen support for globalization? We assess the effect of social standards in preferential trade agreements (PTAs) on individual preferences for free trade. We analyze data from an original survey experiment and find that respondents in advanced industrialized countries have greater support for free trade when PTAs include social standards. Differences do exist in how these social standards are perceived: while we do find evidence of an embedded liberalism compromise recast, fair trade norms have the most salience. An external validity check using the PEW global attitudes survey confirms the hypothesis. Our analysis has serious implications for the legitimacy of the global trading system suffering from neo-mercantilist creep.

Suggested Citation

  • Ida Bastiaens & Evgeny Postnikov, 2020. "Social standards in trade agreements and free trade preferences: An empirical investigation," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 793-816, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:revint:v:15:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s11558-019-09356-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s11558-019-09356-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11558-019-09356-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11558-019-09356-y?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. Timothy W. Taylor, 2015. "The Electoral Salience of Trade Policy: Experimental Evidence on the Effects of Welfare and Complexity," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(1), pages 84-109, January.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Lo, Alex Y., 2014. "Negative income effect on perception of long-term environmental risk," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 51-58.
    5. World Bank, 2015. "World Development Indicators 2015," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 21634, December.
    6. Rudra,Nita, 2008. "Globalization and the Race to the Bottom in Developing Countries," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521886987.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Evgeny Postnikov, 2019. "Unravelling the Puzzle of Social Standards’ Design in EU and US Trade Agreements," New Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(2), pages 181-196, March.
    10. Manger,Mark S., 2009. "Investing in Protection," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521765046.
    11. Aaronson,Susan Ariel & Zimmerman,Jamie M., 2007. "Trade Imbalance," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521694209.
    12. 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.
    13. Walter, Stefanie, 2017. "Globalization and the Demand-Side of Politics: How Globalization Shapes Labor Market Risk Perceptions and Policy Preferences," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 55-80, January.
    14. Rudra,Nita, 2008. "Globalization and the Race to the Bottom in Developing Countries," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521715034.
    15. Axel Dreher & Jan-Egbert Sturm & Heinrich Ursprung, 2008. "The impact of globalization on the composition of government expenditures: Evidence from panel data," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 134(3), pages 263-292, March.
    16. 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.
    17. Wolfgang F. Stolper & Paul A. Samuelson, 1941. "Protection and Real Wages," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 58-73.
    18. Steve Charnovitz, 1992. "Environmental and Labour Standards in Trade," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 335-356, May.
    19. World Bank, 2014. "World Development Indicators 2014," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 18237, December.
    20. Jagdish Bhagwati, 1995. "Trade Liberalisation and ‘Fair Trade’ Demands: Addressing the Environmental and Labour Standards Issues," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(6), pages 745-759, November.
    21. Ina Jäkel & Marcel Smolka, 2013. "Individual Attitudes Towards Trade: Stolper-Samuelson Revisited," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 731-761, September.
    22. Hiscox, Michael J., 2002. "Commerce, Coalitions, and Factor Mobility: Evidence from Congressional Votes on Trade Legislation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 96(3), pages 593-608, September.
    23. Alasdair R. Young, 2016. "Not your parents' trade politics: the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations," Review of International Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 345-378, May.
    24. Jeffrey Kucik, 2012. "The Domestic Politics of Institutional Design: Producer Preferences over Trade Agreement Rules," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(2), pages 95-118, July.
    25. Lisa Lechner, 2016. "The domestic battle over the design of non-trade issues in preferential trade agreements," Review of International Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(5), pages 840-871, September.
    26. Andreas Dür & Leonardo Baccini & Manfred Elsig, 2014. "The design of international trade agreements: Introducing a new dataset," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 353-375, September.
    27. Morin, Jean-Frédéric & Rochette, Myriam, 2017. "Transatlantic convergence of preferential trade agreements environmental clauses," Business and Politics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(4), pages 621-658, December.
    28. Lisa Lechner, 2018. "Good for some, bad for others: US investors and non-trade issues in preferential trade agreements," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 163-187, June.
    29. Damian Raess & Andreas Dür & Dora Sari, 2018. "Protecting labor rights in preferential trade agreements: The role of trade unions, left governments, and skilled labor," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 143-162, June.
    30. Dür, Andreas & Baccini, Leonardo & Elsig, Manfred, 2014. "The design of international trade agreements: introducing a new dataset," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 59179, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    31. Hays, Jude C. & Ehrlich, Sean D. & Peinhardt, Clint, 2005. "Government Spending and Public Support for Trade in the OECD: An Empirical Test of the Embedded Liberalism Thesis," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 59(2), pages 473-494, April.
    32. Sikina Jinnah & Abby Lindsay, 2016. "Diffusion Through Issue Linkage: Environmental Norms in US Trade Agreements," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 16(3), pages 41-61, August.
    33. Thomas Bernauer & Quynh Nguyen, 2015. "Free Trade and/or Environmental Protection?," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 15(4), pages 105-129, November.
    34. Guisinger, Alexandra, 2009. "Determining Trade Policy: Do Voters Hold Politicians Accountable?," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 63(3), pages 533-557, July.
    35. Juan D�ez Medrano & Michael Braun, 2012. "Uninformed citizens and support for free trade," Review of International Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(3), pages 448-476, August.
    36. Manger,Mark S., 2009. "Investing in Protection," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521748704.
    37. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    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. Kevin Kolben & Michèle Rioux, 2023. "Re‐Embedding Trade in the Shadow of Populism," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 11(1), pages 177-180.
    2. Céline Carrère & Marcelo Olarreaga & Damian Raess, 2022. "Labor clauses in trade agreements: Hidden protectionism?," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 453-483, 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. Damian Raess & Andreas Dür & Dora Sari, 2018. "Protecting labor rights in preferential trade agreements: The role of trade unions, left governments, and skilled labor," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 143-162, June.
    2. Philipp Harms & Nils D. Steiner, 2023. "Attitudes towards Globalization: A Survey," Working Papers 2305, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    3. Schaffer, Lena Maria & Spilker, Gabriele, 2013. "Adding Another Level: Individual Responses to Globalization and Government Welfare Policies," Papers 551, World Trade Institute.
    4. Brandi, Clara & Schwab, Jakob & Berger, Axel & Morin, Jean-Frédéric, 2020. "Do environmental provisions in trade agreements make exports from developing countries greener?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    5. Céline Carrère & Marcelo Olarreaga & Damian Raess, 2022. "Labor clauses in trade agreements: Hidden protectionism?," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 453-483, July.
    6. Noémie Laurens & Jean-Frédéric Morin, 2019. "Negotiating environmental protection in trade agreements: A regime shift or a tactical linkage?," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(6), pages 533-556, December.
    7. Harms, Philipp & Steiner, Nils, 2019. "The China Shock and the Nationalist Backlash against Globalization: Attitudinal Evidence from the British Household Panel Survey," VfS Annual Conference 2019 (Leipzig): 30 Years after the Fall of the Berlin Wall - Democracy and Market Economy 203506, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    8. Schaffer, Lena Maria & Spilker, Gabriele, 2013. "Ego- vs. Sociotropic: Using Survey Experiments to Understand Individuals’ Trade Preferences," Papers 620, World Trade Institute.
    9. Nils D. Steiner & Philipp Harms, 2020. "Local Trade Shocks and the Nationalist Backlash in Political Attitudes: Panel Data Evidence from Great Britain," Working Papers 2014, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    10. Nils D Steiner, 2018. "Attitudes towards the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership in the European Union: The treaty partner heuristic and issue attention," European Union Politics, , vol. 19(2), pages 255-277, June.
    11. Kolcava, Dennis & Nguyen, Quynh & Bernauer, Thomas, 2019. "Does trade liberalization lead to environmental burden shifting in the global economy?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 98-112.
    12. 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.
    13. Soo Yeon Kim, 2021. "Investment commitments in PTAs and MNCS in partner countries," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(3), pages 415-442, November.
    14. Raj M. Desai & Nita Rudra, 2016. "Trade, poverty, and social protection in developing countries," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2016-139, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    15. Di Ubaldo, Mattia & Gasiorek, Michael, 2022. "Non-trade provisions in trade agreements and FDI," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    16. 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 (Seville site).
    17. Aksoy, Cevat Giray & Guriev, Sergei & Treisman, Daniel, 2020. "Globalization, Government Popularity, and the Great Skill Divide," IZA Discussion Papers 13026, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. 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).
    19. Ina Jäkel & Marcel Smolka, 2013. "Individual Attitudes Towards Trade: Stolper-Samuelson Revisited," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 731-761, September.
    20. Bernauer, Thomas & Schaffer, Lena Maria & Spilker, Gabriele, 2013. "Does social capital increase public support for economic globalisation?," Papers 552, World Trade Institute.

    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:spr:revint:v:15:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s11558-019-09356-y. 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.