Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T01:11:16.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Indirect Pathways of Self-Interest and the TPP

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 October 2018

Kim-Lee Tuxhorn
Kim-Lee Tuxhorn*
Affiliation:
University of Calgary, Department of Political Science, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary AB, T2N 1N4
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: kimlee.tuxhorn@ucalgary.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Do consumer and producer considerations influence support for future trade agreements and, if so, how? Prior research has pitted self-interest-based explanations of trade preferences against perception-based explanations, finding limited empirical support for the self-interest hypothesis. Instead of treating perceptions and self-interest as competing explanations, we construct a theoretical model with perceptions of trade as a mediating factor linking self-interest and support for prospective free trade agreements (FTAs). Using new survey data collected by the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada, we examine how two distinct forms of self-interest (consumer and producer considerations) can indirectly shape attitudes toward the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). We find that the impact of respondents' income level (proxying producer considerations) and their recognition of the price-lowering effect of international trade (proxying consumer considerations) on support for the TPP are largely mediated by perceptions of trade. Together the findings suggest a middle ground between the two sides of the self-interest debate.

Résumé

Les considérations des consommateurs et des producteurs exercent-elles une influence sur l'appui aux futurs accords commerciaux et, dans l'affirmative, de quelle façon ? La recherche a mis en opposition les explications des préférences commerciales fondées sur l'intérêt personnel et les explications fondées sur les attitudes perceptives, trouvant un appui empirique limité pour l'hypothèse de l'intérêt personnel. Au lieu de traiter les perceptions et l'intérêt personnel comme des explications concurrentes, nous construisons un modèle théorique dans lequel les perceptions du commerce constituent un facteur de médiation reliant l'intérêt personnel et le soutien aux futurs ALE. À l'aide de nouvelles données recueillies par la Fondation Asie Pacifique du Canada, nous examinons comment deux formes distinctes d'intérêt personnel (considérations des consommateurs et des producteurs) peuvent indirectement façonner les attitudes à l'égard du Partenariat transpacifique (PTP). Nous constatons que l'incidence du niveau de revenu des répondants (remplaçant les considérations des producteurs) et leur reconnaissance de l'effet de baisse des prix du commerce international (remplaçant les considérations des consommateurs) sur le soutien au PTP est largement médiée par les perceptions du commerce. Ensemble, les conclusions suggèrent un juste milieu entre les deux côtés du débat autour de l'intérêt personnel.

Type
Research Article/Étude originale
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , June 2019 , pp. 267 - 283
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

The author is a department colleague of the English-language editorial team. To maintain objectivity, the preceding editorial team provided oversight over both the review process and editorial decisions for this submission.

References

Baker, Andy. 2003. “Why Is Trade Reform so Popular in Latin America? A Consumption-Based Theory of Trade Policy Preferences.” World Politics 55 (3): 423–55.Google Scholar
Baron, Reuben M. and Kenny, David A.. 1986. “The Moderator–Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (6): 1173–82.Google Scholar
Beaulieu, Eugene. 2002. “Factor or Industry Cleavages in Trade Policy? An Empirical Analysis of the Stolper–Samuelson Theorem.” Economics & Politics 14 (2): 99–131.Google Scholar
Bennett, Scott. 2004. “American and Canadian Assessments of NAFTA: Opinion on Continental Policy and Its Drivers.” American Behavioral Scientist 47 (10): 1285–1318.Google Scholar
Breau, Sébastien and Brown, Mark. 2011. “Exporting, Foreign Direct Investment, and Wages: Evidence from the Canadian Manufacturing Sector.” Growth and Change 42 (3): 261–86.Google Scholar
Dasko, Donna. 1986. “‘Canadian Public Opinion: Sources of Support and Dissent.’” In The Free Trade Papers, ed. Cameron, Duncan. Toronto: James Lorimer.Google Scholar
Fordham, Benjamin O. and Kleinberg, Katja B.. 2012. “How Can Economic Interests Affect Support for Free Trade?” International Organization 66 (2): 311–28.Google Scholar
Gidengil, Elisabeth. 1995. “Economic Man–Social Woman? The Case of the Gender Gap in Support for the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement.” Comparative Political Studies 28 (3): 384–408.Google Scholar
Gravelle, Timothy B. 2014. “Partisanship, Border Proximity, and Canadian Attitudes Toward North American Integration.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 26 (4): 453–74.Google Scholar
Guisinger, Alexandra. 2016. “Information, Gender, and Differences in Individual Preferences for Trade.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 37 (4): 538–61.Google Scholar
Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., Haggard, Stephan, Lake, David A. and Victor, David G.. 2017. “The Behavioral Revolution and International Relations.” International Organization 71 (S1): S1–S31.Google Scholar
Hainmueller, Jens, and Hiscox, Michael J.. 2006. “Learning to Love Globalization: Education and Individual Attitudes Toward International Trade.” International Organization 60 (2): 469–98.Google Scholar
Kaltenthaler, Karl C., Gelleny, Ronald D., and Ceccoli, Stephen J.. 2004. “Explaining Citizen Support for Trade Liberalization.” International Studies Quarterly 48 (4): 829–51.Google Scholar
Kline, Rex B. 2015. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 4th ed. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Krugman, Paul R. 1981. “Intraindustry Specialization and the Gains from Trade.” The Journal of Political Economy 89 (5): 959–73.Google Scholar
Malhotra, Neil and Krosnick, Jon A. 2007. “Retrospective and Prospective Performance Assessments During the 2004 Election Campaign: Tests of Mediation and News Media Priming.” Political Behavior 29 (2): 249–78.Google Scholar
Mansfield, Edward D. and Mutz, Diana C.. 2009. “Support for Free Trade: Self-Interest, Sociotropic Politics, and Out-Group Anxiety.” International Organization 63 (3): 425–57.Google Scholar
Mansfield, Edward D., Mutz, Diana C. and Silver, Laura R.. 2015. “Men, Women, Trade, and Free Markets.” International Studies Quarterly 59 (2): 303–15.Google Scholar
Martin, Pierre. 1995. “When Nationalism Meets Continentalism: The Politics of Free Trade in Quebec.” Regional & Federal Studies 5 (1): 1–27.Google Scholar
Mayda, Anna Maria and Rodrik, Dani. 2005. “Why Are Some People (and Countries) More Protectionist Than Others?” European Economic Review 49 (6): 1393–1430.Google Scholar
Mendelsohn, Matthew, Wolfe, Robert and Parkin, Andrew. 2002. “Globalization, Trade Policy and the Permissive Consensus in Canada.” Canadian Public Policy/Analyse de Politiques 28 (3): 351–71.Google Scholar
Mutz, Diana C. 1992. “Mass Media and the Depoliticization of Personal Experience.” American Journal of Political Science 36 (2): 483–508.Google Scholar
Naoi, Megumi and Kume, Ikuo. 2015. “Workers or Consumers? A Survey Experiment on the Duality of Citizens’ Interests in the Politics of Trade.” Comparative Political Studies 48 (10): 1293–1317.Google Scholar
O'Rourke, Kevin H. and Sinnott, Richard. 2001. “The Determinants of Individual Trade Policy Preferences: International Survey Evidence.” In Brookings Trade Forum 2001, ed. Rodrik, Dani and M, Susan. Collins. Washington DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Rankin, David M. 2004. “Borderline Interest or Identity? American and Canadian Opinion on the North American Free Trade Agreement.” Comparative Politics 36 (3): 331–51.Google Scholar
Rho, Sungmin and Tomz, Michael. 2017. “Why Don't Trade Preferences Reflect Economic Self-Interest?” International Organization 71 (S1): S85–S108.Google Scholar
Rogowski, Ronald. 1987. “Political Cleavages and Changing Exposure to Trade.” The American Political Science Review 81 (4): 1121–37.Google Scholar
Scheve, Kenneth F. and Slaughter, Matthew J.. 2001. “What Determines Individual Trade-Policy Preferences?” Journal of International Economics 54 (2): 267–92.Google Scholar
Sears, David O, and Funk, Carolyn L.. 1991. “The Role of Self-Interest in Social and Political Attitudes.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 24 (1): 1–91.Google Scholar
Trudeau, Justin. 2017. “Address by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to the European Parliament.” European Parliament Debates. February 16, Strasbourg, France.Google Scholar
Uslaner, Eric M. 1998. “Trade Winds: NAFTA and the Rational Public.” Political Behavior 20 (4): 341–60.Google Scholar
Wolfe, Robert and Mendelsohn, Matthew. 2005. “Values and Interests in Attitudes toward Trade and Globalization: The Continuing Compromise of Embedded Liberalism.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 38 (1): 45–68.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Tuxhorn supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Tuxhorn supplementary material(File)
File 14.4 KB