Determinants of Individual Trade Policy Preference in the Philippines
In a democratic country, economic policies succeed or fail depending on its political support. Open trade policies that were initiated and accepted years ago, in particular, can be reversed, within the limits of the country’s international commitments, depending on the government’s conviction as well as popular pressure. If trade policy were to be subject to a national vote, doubtless, many would show inclination towards greater protectionism. Using ISSP survey data for the Philippines, the paper examines factors that affect individual preferences towards more protectionism as well as towards greater trade liberalization. It finds, surprisingly, that years of education, economic class, employment in public sector, and urban population negatively correlate with pro-trade attitude. In the case of the negative relation of years of education with pro-trade preference, the authors argue that this has its justification in the Hecksher-Ohlin-Samuelson model of trade and factor returns.
|Date of creation:||2004|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: NEDA sa Makati Building, 106 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village, Makati City,|
Web page: http://www.pids.gov.ph/
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- 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.
- Cororaton, Caesar B., 2003. "Analyzing the Impact of Trade Reforms on Welfare and Income Distribution Using CGE Framework: The Case of the Philippines," Discussion Papers DP 2003-01, Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
- 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.
- K. H. O'Rourke & R. Sinnott, 2001. "The Determinants of Individual Trade Policy Preferences: International Survey Evidence," CEG Working Papers 20016, Trinity College Dublin, Department of Economics.
- Jones, Ronald W. & Peter Neary, J., 1984. "The positive theory of international trade," Handbook of International Economics, in: R. W. Jones & P. B. Kenen (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 1, pages 1-62 Elsevier.
- 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.
- O'Rourke, Kevin Hjortshøj, 2003.
"Heckscher-Ohlin Theory and Individual Attitudes Towards Globalization,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
4018, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Kevin O'Rourke, 2003. "Heckscher-Ohlin Theory and Individual Attitudes Towards Globalization," NBER Working Papers 9872, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Kevin H. O'Rourke, 2003. "Heckscher-Ohlin Theory and Individual Attitudes Towards Globalization," The Institute for International Integration Studies Discussion Paper Series iiisdp07, IIIS.
- Donald R. Davis, 1996.
"Trade Liberalization and Income Distribution,"
Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers
1769, Harvard - Institute of Economic Research.
- Edward E. Leamer & James Levinsohn, 1994.
"International Trade Theory: The Evidence,"
NBER Working Papers
4940, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- repec:rus:hseeco:121615 is not listed on IDEAS
- Orbeta, Aniceto Jr. C., 2002. "Globalization and Employment: The Impact of Trade on Employment Level and Structure in the Philippines," Discussion Papers DP 2002-04, Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
- 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.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:phd:dpaper:dp_2004-16. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Aniceto Orbeta)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.