IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/28073.html

Did U.S. Politicians Expect the China Shock?

Author

Listed:
  • Matilde Bombardini
  • Bingjing Li
  • Francesco Trebbi

Abstract

In the two decades straddling China's WTO accession, the China Shock, i.e. the rapid trade integration of China in the early 2000's, has had a profound economic impact across U.S. regions. It is now both an internationally litigated issue and the casus belli for a global trade war. Were its consequences unexpected? Did U.S. politicians have imperfect information about the extent of China Shock's repercussions in their district at the time when they voted on China's Normal Trade Relations status? Or did they have accurate expectations, yet placed a relatively low weight on the subconstituencies that ended up being adversely affected? Information sets, expectations, and preferences of politicians are fundamental, but unobserved determinants of their policy choices. We apply a moment inequality approach designed to deliver unbiased estimates under weak informational assumptions on the information sets of members of Congress. This methodology offers a robust way to test hypotheses about the expectations of politicians at the time of their vote. Employing repeated roll call votes in the U.S. House of Representatives on China's Normal Trade Relations status, we formally test what information politicians had at the time of their decision and consistently estimate the weights that constituent interests, ideology, and other factors had in congressional votes. We show how assuming perfect foresight of the shocks biases the role of constituent interests and how standard proxies to modeling politician's expectations bias the estimation. We cannot reject that politicians could predict the initial China Shock in the early 1990's, but not around 2000, when China started entering new sectors, and find a moderate role of constituent interests, compared to ideology. Overall, U.S. legislators appear to have had accurate information on the China Shock, but did not place substantial weight on its adverse consequences.

Suggested Citation

  • Matilde Bombardini & Bingjing Li & Francesco Trebbi, 2020. "Did U.S. Politicians Expect the China Shock?," NBER Working Papers 28073, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:28073
    Note: ITI POL
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w28073.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Muller, Seán M., 2021. "The dangers of performative scientism as the alternative to anti-scientific policymaking: A critical, preliminary assessment of South Africa’s Covid-19 response and its consequences," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    2. Geng, Yini & Zheng, Zhiqiang & Yuan, Xuemei & Jiménez-Zarco, Ana Isabel, 2025. "ESG performance and total factor productivity of enterprises: the role of digitization," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 77(PA).
    3. Che, Yi & Lin, Donglin & Zhang, Yan, 2025. "Pains or gains: Trade war, trade deficit, and tariff evasion," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    4. Wei Luo & Xianqiang Zou, 2024. "Demographic impacts of China’s trade liberalization: marriage, spousal quality, and fertility," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 37(3), pages 1-31, September.
    5. Greenland, Andrew & Ion, Mihai & Lopresti, John & Schott, Peter K., 2024. "Using equity market reactions to infer exposure to trade liberalization," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    6. Brey, Björn, 2024. "The effect of recent technological change on US immigration policy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • P16 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Capitalist Economies - - - Capitalist Institutions; Welfare State

    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:28073. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.