IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/halshs-00104875.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economie politique de la politique d'ouverture commerciale mixte : interactions entre les groupes sociaux et l'Etat

Author

Listed:
  • Pierre-Olivier Peytral

    (LEPII - Laboratoire d'Economie de la Production et de l'Intégration Internationale - UPMF - Université Pierre Mendès France - Grenoble 2 - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

L'analyse de la politique commerciale dans le modèle Hecksher-Ohlin-Samuelson (HOS) conclut à la supériorité du libre-échange sur la protection compte tenu de ses effets sur l'économie nationale. Cette contribution propose de donner une explication au paradoxe auquel fait face cette conclusion théorique : la permanence historique des mesures simultanées de libre-échange et de protection sélective. Ce paradoxe constitue le sujet d'analyse d'un courant théorique d'économie politique : l'économie politique de la politique d'ouverture commerciale. L'objet est d'expliciter les différents déterminants endogènes de cette politique (groupes sociaux, gouvernement et bureaucratie), politique qualifiée de politique d'ouverture commerciale mixte. Les approches expliquant les différents déterminants endogènes sont présentées successivement pour aboutir à la conclusion que ce sont les interactions entre les groupes sociaux, la bureaucratie et le gouvernement qui permettent de comprendre les choix effectifs de politique.

Suggested Citation

  • Pierre-Olivier Peytral, 2004. "Economie politique de la politique d'ouverture commerciale mixte : interactions entre les groupes sociaux et l'Etat," Post-Print halshs-00104875, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-00104875
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00104875v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00104875v1/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edward D. Mansfield & Helen V. Milner & B. Peter Rosendorff, 2015. "Free to Trade: Democracies, Autocracies, and International Trade," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Edward D Mansfield (ed.), THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE, chapter 7, pages 127-143, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    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. Grossman, Gene M & Helpman, Elhanan, 1994. "Protection for Sale," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(4), pages 833-850, September.
    4. Milner, Helen V. & Yoffie, David B., 1989. "Between free trade and protectionism: strategic trade policy and a theory of corporate trade demands," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 239-272, April.
    5. G. M. Grossman & K. Rogoff (ed.), 1995. "Handbook of International Economics," Handbook of International Economics, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 3, number 3.
    6. Frieden, Jeff, 1988. "Sectoral conflict and foreign economic policy, 1914–1940," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(1), pages 59-90, January.
    7. Krueger, Anne O, 1974. "The Political Economy of the Rent-Seeking Society," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 64(3), pages 291-303, June.
    8. Wolfgang F. Stolper & Paul A. Samuelson, 1941. "Protection and Real Wages," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 9(1), pages 58-73.
    9. Hansen, Wendy L., 1990. "The International Trade Commission and the Politics of Protectionism," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 84(1), pages 21-46, March.
    10. Pugel, Thomas A & Walter, Ingo, 1985. "U.S. Corporate Interests and the Political Economy of Trade Policy," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 67(3), pages 465-473, August.
    11. Alt, James E. & Carlsen, Fredrik & Heum, Per & Johansen, Kåre, 1999. "Asset Specificity and the Political Behavior of Firms: Lobbying for Subsidies in Norway," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(1), pages 99-116, January.
    12. Strange, Susan, 1987. "The Persistent myth of lost hegemony," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(4), pages 551-574, October.
    13. Friman, H. Richard, 1988. "Rocks, hard places, and the new protectionism: textile trade policy choices in the United States and Japan," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(4), pages 689-723, October.
    14. Gourevitch, Peter, 1978. "The second image reversed: the international sources of domestic politics," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(4), pages 881-912, October.
    15. Milner, Helen, 1987. "Resisting the protectionist temptation: industry and the making of trade policy in France and the United States during the 1970s," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(4), pages 639-665, October.
    16. Goldstein, Judith, 1986. "The Political Economy of Trade: Institutions of Protection," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 80(1), pages 161-184, March.
    17. Katzenstein, Peter J., 1976. "International relations and domestic structures: Foreign economic policies of advanced industrial states," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(1), pages 1-45, January.
    18. Hiscox, Michael J., 1999. "The Magic Bullet? The RTAA, Institutional Reform, and Trade Liberalization," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(4), pages 669-698, October.
    19. Haggard, Stephan, 1988. "The institutional foundations of hegemony: explaining the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(1), pages 91-119, January.
    20. Baldwin, Robert E., 1988. "Trade Policy in a Changing World Economy," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226036113.
    21. Irwin, Douglas A. & Kroszner, Randall S., 1996. "Log-rolling and economic interests in the passage of the Smoot-Hawley tariff," Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 173-200, December.
    22. Hathaway, Oona A., 1998. "Positive Feedback: The Impact of Trade Liberalization on Industry Demands for Protection," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(3), pages 575-612, July.
    23. Midford, Paul, 1993. "International trade and domestic politics: improving on Rogowski's model of political alignments," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 47(4), pages 535-564, October.
    24. Mansfield, Edward D. & Busch, Marc L., 1995. "The political economy of nontariff barriers: a cross-national analysis," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 723-749, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. kishore gawande & pravin krishna, 2005. "The Political Economy of Trade Policy: Empirical Approaches," International Trade 0503003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Timini, Jacopo, 2020. "Staying dry on Spanish wine: The rejection of the 1905 Spanish-Italian trade agreement," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    3. Xiaobo Lü & Kenneth F. Scheve & Matthew J. Slaughter, 2010. "Envy, Altruism, and the International Distribution of Trade Protection," NBER Working Papers 15700, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Richard Damania & Per Fredriksson & Thomas Osang, 2004. "Collusion, Collective Action and Protection: Theory and Evidence," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 121(3), pages 279-308, February.
    5. Jeffry A. Frieden & David A. Lake, 2005. "International Relations as a Social Science: Rigor and Relevance," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 600(1), pages 136-156, July.
    6. David Lake, 2009. "Open economy politics: A critical review," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 219-244, September.
    7. Conconi, Paola & Facchini, Giovanni & Zanardi, Maurizio, 2014. "Policymakers' horizon and trade reforms: The protectionist effect of elections," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(1), pages 102-118.
    8. Weinberg, Joe, 2018. "Where’s the Pork?: The Political Economy of the US Farm Bill," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 273867, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Regina M. Abrami & Yu Zheng, 2010. "The New Face of Chinese Industrial Policy: Making Sense of Anti-Dumping Cases in the Petrochemical and Steel Industries," Harvard Business School Working Papers 11-042, Harvard Business School.
    10. David Greenaway & Douglas Nelson, 2010. "The Politics of (Anti-)Globalization: What do we Learn from Simple Models?," Chapters, in: Noel Gaston & Ahmed M. Khalid (ed.), Globalization and Economic Integration, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Zanardi, Maurizio & Facchini, Giovanni & Conconi, Paola, 2011. "Policymakers? Horizon and Trade Reforms," CEPR Discussion Papers 8251, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    12. Sebastian Galiani & Norman Schofield & Gustavo Torrens, 2014. "Factor Endowments, Democracy, and Trade Policy Divergence," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 16(1), pages 119-156, February.
    13. 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.
    14. Pinelopi K. Goldberg & Nina Pavcnik, 2016. "The Effects of Trade Policy," NBER Working Papers 21957, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Jason S. Davis, 2022. "Screening for losers: Trade institutions and information," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 1-37, January.
    18. Arnaud Costinot, 2009. "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs: A "New" Perspective on Protectionism," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 7(5), pages 1011-1041, September.
    19. Chung, Jae W., 1999. "Insights Into Trade Protection under U.S. Trade Remedy Laws," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 375-387, May.
    20. Tobias Bünder, 2018. "How Common Is the East African Community’s Common External Tariff Really? The Influence of Interest Groups on the EAC’s Tariff Negotiations," SAGE Open, , vol. 8(1), pages 21582440177, January.

    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:hal:journl:halshs-00104875. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.