IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/14627.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

New Evidence on the Formation of Trade Policy Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Bruce Blonigen

Abstract

This paper revisits the issue of people's preferences for international trade protection examining survey data from the American National Election Studies. I first show that both an individual's skills and the international trade characteristics of their employment industry affects their trade policy preferences, in contrast to previous analysis using these data. Second, I document that many people do not feel informed enough to state a preference on trade protection, which is inconsistent with assumptions of standard political economy models. I examine the factors that correlate with being uninformed, and show that inferences from actual trade policy outcomes can be incorrect if one does not account for this uninformed group. Finally, I examine and find that individuals' retirement decisions have systematic effects on both their choice to be informed and their trade policy preferences. This highlights that there are significant life-cycle implications to trade policy preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Bruce Blonigen, 2008. "New Evidence on the Formation of Trade Policy Preferences," NBER Working Papers 14627, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:14627
    Note: ITI
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w14627.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Valentino Larcinese, 2009. "Information Acquisition, Ideology and Turnout: Theory and Evidence From Britain," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 21(2), pages 237-276, April.
    2. Robert C. Feenstra & Gene M. Grossman & Douglas A. Irwin (ed.), 1996. "The Political Economy of Trade Policy: Papers in Honor of Jagdish Bhagwati," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262061864, December.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Edward J. Balistreri, 1997. "The Performance of the Heckscher-Ohlin-Vanek Model in Predicting Endogenous Policy Forces at the Individual Level," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 30(1), pages 1-17, February.
    7. Timothy Besley & Andrea Prat, 2006. "Handcuffs for the Grabbing Hand? Media Capture and Government Accountability," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(3), pages 720-736, June.
    8. Arnaud Costinot & Jonathan Vogel, 2010. "Matching and Inequality in the World Economy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 118(4), pages 747-786, August.
    9. 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.
    10. Beaulieu, Eugene, 2002. "The Stolper-Samuelson Theorem Faces Congress," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(2), pages 343-360, May.
    11. Timothy Besley & Robin Burgess, 2002. "The Political Economy of Government Responsiveness: Theory and Evidence from India," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(4), pages 1415-1451.
    12. Valentino Larcinese, 2003. "The Instrumental Voter Goes to the News-Agent: Demand for Information, Election Closeness, and the Media," UFAE and IAE Working Papers 579.03, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC).
    13. Feddersen, Timothy J & Pesendorfer, Wolfgang, 1996. "The Swing Voter's Curse," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 408-424, June.
    14. Douglas A. Irwin, 1995. "Industry or Class Cleavages over Trade Policy? Evidence from the BritishGeneral Election of 1923," NBER Working Papers 5170, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Rodrik, Dani, 1995. "Political economy of trade policy," Handbook of International Economics, in: G. M. Grossman & K. Rogoff (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 28, pages 1457-1494, Elsevier.
    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. Noland, Marcus, 2009. "United States Economic Policy Toward Asia," MPRA Paper 15572, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Bernauer, Thomas & Spilker, Gabriele & Umaña, Víctor, 2014. "Different countries same partners: Experimental Evidence on PTA Partner Country Choice from Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Vietnam," Papers 739, World Trade Institute.
    3. Husam Rjoub & Mehmet Aga & Ahmad Abu Alrub & Murad Bein, 2017. "Financial Reforms and Determinants of FDI: Evidence from Landlocked Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa," Economies, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-12, January.
    4. Marcus NOLAND, 2009. "American Economic Relations with Asia," Asian Economic Policy Review, Japan Center for Economic Research, vol. 4(2), pages 181-199, December.
    5. Bruce A., Blonigen, 2011. "Revisiting the evidence on trade policy preferences," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 129-135, September.

    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. Bruce A., Blonigen, 2011. "Revisiting the evidence on trade policy preferences," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 129-135, September.
    2. 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.
    3. K. H. O'Rourke & R. Sinnott, 2001. "The Determinants of Individual Trade Policy Preferences: International Survey Evidence," Trinity Economics Papers 200110, Trinity College Dublin, Department of Economics.
    4. Magee, Christopher S.P. & Davidson, Carl & Matusz, Steven J., 2005. "Trade, turnover, and tithing," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 157-176, May.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    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. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Teng, Faxin, 2008. "Warum sind manche Individuen und Länder protektionistischer als andere? [Why Are Some People and Countries More Protectionist than Others?]," MPRA Paper 31958, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    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. Ina Jäkel & Marcel Smolka, 2013. "Individual Attitudes Towards Trade: Stolper-Samuelson Revisited," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 731-761, September.
    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. Eugene Beaulieu & Ravindra A. Yatawara & Wei Guo Wang, 2005. "Who Supports Free Trade in Latin America?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(7), pages 941-958, July.
    17. Karakas, Leyla D. & Kim, Nam Seok & Mitra, Devashish, 2021. "Attitudes towards globalization barriers and implications for voting: Evidence from Sweden," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 851-877.
    18. 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).
    19. Eugene Beaulieu & Christopher Magee, 2004. "Four Simple Tests of Campaign Contributions and Trade Policy Preferences," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(2), pages 163-187, July.
    20. Irineu De Carvalho Filho & Marcos Chamon, 2008. "A Micro-Empirical Foundation for the Political Economy of Exchange Rate Populism," IMF Staff Papers, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 55(3), pages 481-510, July.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • F16 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade and Labor Market Interactions

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:nbr:nberwo:14627. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    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.