IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/tuewef/11.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Individual attitudes towards trade: Stolper-Samuelson revisited

Author

Listed:
  • Jäkel, Ina C.
  • Smolka, Marcel

Abstract

This paper studies to what extent individuals form their preferences towards trade policies along the lines of the Stolper-Samuelson logic. We employ a novel international survey data set with an extensive coverage of high-, middle-, and low-income countries, address a subtle methodological shortcoming in previous studies and condition on aspects of individualenlightenment. We find statistically significant and economically large Stolper-Samuelson effects. In the United States, being high-skilled increases an individual's probability of favoring free trade by up to twelve percentage points, other things equal. In Ethiopia, the effect amounts to eight percentage points, but in exactly the opposite direction.

Suggested Citation

  • Jäkel, Ina C. & Smolka, Marcel, 2011. "Individual attitudes towards trade: Stolper-Samuelson revisited," University of Tuebingen Working Papers in Economics and Finance 11, University of Tuebingen, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:tuewef:11
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/45796/1/661578054.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kevin O'Rourke, 2003. "Heckscher-Ohlin Theory and Individual Attitudes Towards Globalization," NBER Working Papers 9872, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Anna Maria Mayda & Kevin H. O'Rourke, 2007. "Risk, Government andd Globalization: International Survey Evidence," The Institute for International Integration Studies Discussion Paper Series iiisdp218, IIIS.
    3. Hainmueller, Jens & Hiscox, Michael J., 2006. "Learning to Love Globalization: Education and Individual Attitudes Toward International Trade," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 60(02), pages 469-498, April.
    4. 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.
    5. White, Halbert, 1980. "A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(4), pages 817-838, May.
    6. Ehrlich, Sean D., 2007. "Access to Protection: Domestic Institutions and Trade Policy in Democracies," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 61(03), pages 571-605, July.
    7. Lloyd A. Metzler, 1949. "Tariffs, the Terms of Trade, and the Distribution of National Income," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57, pages 1-1.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Ai, Chunrong & Norton, Edward C., 2003. "Interaction terms in logit and probit models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 123-129, July.
    11. 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.
    12. Bruce A., Blonigen, 2011. "Revisiting the evidence on trade policy preferences," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 129-135, September.
    13. Joshua J. Lewer & Hendrik Van den Berg, 2007. "Religion and International Trade," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(4), pages 765-794, October.
    14. Paul R. Krugman, 2008. "Trade and Wages, Reconsidered," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 39(1 (Spring), pages 103-154.
    15. Eugene Beaulieu & Michael Benarroch & James D. Gaisford, 2011. "Intra‐industry Trade Liberalization: Why Skilled Workers are More Likely to Support Free Trade," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(3), pages 579-594, August.
    16. 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.
    17. 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(03), pages 425-457, 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. Pinheiro, Diogo & Chwieroth, Jeffrey & Hicks, Alexander, 2015. "Do international non-governmental organizations inhibit globalization? the case of capital account liberalization in developing countries," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 63669, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Unjung Whang, 2016. "Skilled-Labor Intensity Differences Across Firms, Endogenous Product Quality, and Wage Inequality," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 251-292, April.
    3. repec:bpj:pewipo:v:18:y:2017:i:1:p:32-55:n:2 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. repec:eee:inecon:v:106:y:2017:i:c:p:1-19 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Trade policy; Voter preferences; Political economy;

    JEL classification:

    • F11 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Neoclassical Models of Trade
    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations

    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:zbw:tuewef:11. 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: (ZBW - German National Library of Economics). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/wftuede.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.