Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T13:04:45.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explaining Mass Support for Agricultural Protectionism: Evidence from a Survey Experiment During the Global Recession

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 October 2011

Megumi Naoi  and
Ikuo Kume
Megumi Naoi
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego. E-mail: megumi.naoi@gmail.com
Ikuo Kume
Affiliation:
Waseda University, Tokyo. E-mail: kume@waseda.jp
Get access

Abstract

Why are citizens in advanced industrialized countries willing to accept high prices for agricultural products? Conventional wisdom suggests that agricultural interests secure government protection because producers are concentrated and better politically organized than diffused consumers. Due to its focus on producer capacity for collective action, however, the literature fails to account for the high levels of mass support for agricultural protectionism in advanced industrialized nations. This article presents new evidence from a survey experiment in Japan conducted during the recent global recession (December 2008) that accounts for this puzzle. Using randomly assigned visual stimuli, the experiment activates respondents' identification with either producer or consumer interests and proceeds to ask attitudinal questions regarding food imports. The results suggest that consumer priming has no reductive or additive effects on the respondents' support for liberalizing food imports. Surprisingly, producer priming increases respondents' opposition to food import, particularly among those who fear future job insecurity. We further disentangle the puzzling finding that consumers think like producers on the issue of food import along two mechanisms: “sympathy” for farmers and “projection” of their own job insecurity. The results lend strong support to the projection hypothesis.

Type
Research Notes
Information
International Organization , Volume 65 , Issue 4 , October 2011 , pp. 771 - 795
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 2011

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Alesina, Alberto, Baqir, Reza, and Easterly, William. 1999. Public Goods and Ethnic Divisions. Quarterly Journal of Economics 114 (4):1243–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ames, Daniel R. 2004a. Inside the Mind Reader's Tool Kit: Projection and Stereotyping in Mental State Inference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87 (3):340–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ames, Daniel R. 2004b. Strategies for Social Inference: A Similarity Contingency Model of Projection and Stereotyping in Attribute Prevalence Estimates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87 (5):573–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baker, Andy. 2005. Who Wants to Globalize? Consumer Tastes and Labor Markets in a Theory of Trade Policy Beliefs. American Journal of Political Science 49 (4):924–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Andy. 2009. The Market and the Masses in Latin America: Policy Reform and Consumption in Liberalizing Economies. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broda, Christian, and Weinstein, David E.. 2004. Variety Growth and World Welfare. American Economic Review 94 (2):139–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calder, Kent E. 1988. Crisis and Compensation: Public Policy and Political Stability in Japan, 1949–1986. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, Christina L. 2003. Food Fights over Free Trade: How International Institutions Promote Agricultural Trade Liberalization. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, Christina L., and Oh, Jennifer. 2007. Repeal of the Rice Laws in Japan: The Role of International Pressure to Overcome Vested Interests. Comparative Politics 40 (1):21–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunning, Thad, and Harrison, Lauren. 2010. Cross-Cutting Cleavages and Ethnic Voting: An Experimental Study of Cousinage in Mali. American Political Science Review 104 (1):21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlich, Sean D. 2010. The Fair Trade Challenge to Embedded Liberalism. International Studies Quarterly 54 (4):1013–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission. 2008. Europeans, Agriculture, and the Common Agricultural Policy. Special Eurobarometer 294, wave 68.2. Available at ⟨http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_294_en.pdf⟩. Accessed 28 April 2011.Google Scholar
Gawande, Kishore, and Hoekman, Bernard. 2006. Lobbying and Agricultural Trade Policy in the United States. International Organization 60 (3):527–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godo, Yoshihisa. 2006. Nihon No Soku to Nou: Kiki No Honshitsu. Tokyo: NTT Shuppan.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Judith, Margalit, Yotam, and Rivers, Douglas. 2008. Producer, Consumer, Family Member: The Relationship Between Trade Attitudes and Family Status. Paper presented at the Princeton Conference on Domestic Preferences and Foreign Economic Policy, April, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
Gourevitch, Peter. 1986. Politics in Hard Times: Comparative Responses to International Economic Crises. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Grossman, Gene M., and Helpman, Elhanan. 1994. Protection for Sale. American Economic Review 84 (4):833–50.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hara, Junnosuke, ed. 1999. Shakai Kaiso: Yutakasa No Naka No Fubyodo [Social Stratification: Inequality in the Wealthy Society]. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.Google Scholar
Harris-Lacewell, Melissa, Imai, Kosuke, and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2009. Racial Gaps in the Responses to Hurricane Katrina: An Experimental Study. Unpublished manuscript, Princeton University, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
Hiscox, Michael J. 2002. International Trade and Political Conflict: Commerce, Coalitions, and Mobility. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiscox, Michael J. 2006. Through a Glass and Darkly: Attitudes Toward International Trade and the Curious Effects of Issue Framing. International Organization 60 (3):755–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiscox, Michael J., and Smyth, Nick. 2008. Is There Consumer Demand for Improved Labor Standards? Evidence from Field Experiments in Social Product Labeling. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. Available at ⟨http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~hiscox/SocialLabeling.pdf⟩. Accessed 5 April 2011.Google Scholar
Horiuchi, Yusaku, Imai, Kosuke, and Taniguchi, Naoko. 2007. Designing and Analyzing Randomized Experiments: Application to a Japanese Election Survey Experiment. American Journal of Political Science 51 (3):669–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imai, Kosuke, Keele, Luke, and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2010. Identification, Inference, and Sensitivity Analysis for Causal Mediation Effects. Statistical Science 25 (1):51–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, and Kinder, Donald R.. 1987. News That Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Japanese Statistics Office. 2008. Nougyo Kouzou Doutai Chosa Houkokusho [Report on the Survey of Structural Dynamics of Agriculture]. Available at ⟨http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?lid=000001058425⟩. Accessed 13 April 2011.Google Scholar
Kabashima, Ikuo. 1984. Supportive Participation with Economic Growth: The Case of Japan. World Politics 36 (3):309–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary, Murray, Christopher J. L., Salomon, Joshua A., and Tandon, Ajay. 2004. Enhancing the Validity and Cross-Cultural Comparability of Measurement in Survey Research. American Political Science Review 98 (1):191–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kono, Daniel Y. 2006. Optimal Obfuscation: Democracy and Trade Policy Transparency. American Political Science Review 100 (3):369–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krugman, Paul. 1980. Scale Economies, Product Differentiation, and the Pattern of Trade. American Economic Review 70 (5):950–59.Google Scholar
Lu, Xiaobo, Scheve, Kenneth F., and Slaughter, Matthew J.. 2010. Envy, Altruism, and the International Distribution of Trade Protection. Working Paper 15700. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maclachlan, Patricia L. 2002. Consumer Politics in Postwar Japan: The Institutional Boundaries of Citizen Activism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Magee, Stephen P., Brock, William A., and Young, Leslie. 1989. Black Hole Tariffs and Endogenous Policy Theory: Political Economy in General Equilibrium. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishery (MAFF). Various years. Nouka Keizai Chosa [Household Surveys of Farmers]. Tokyo: MAFF.Google Scholar
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication (MIAC). Various years. Kakei Chosa [Household Surveys]. Tokyo: MIAC.Google Scholar
Naoi, Atsushi. 1979. Shokugyoteki Chiishakudo No Kosei [The Construction of the Occupational Status Scale]. In Nihon No Kaiso Kozo, edited by Tominaga, Ken'ichi, 434–72. Tokyo: Tokyodaigaku Shuppankai.Google Scholar
Naoi, Megumi, and Kume, Ikuo. 2010. Resisting Protectionism (Take 2): A Survey Experiment on Mass Support for the Open Economy During the Recession. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, San Diego, and Waseda University, Tokyo.Google Scholar
Naoi, Megumi, and Kume, Ikuo. n.d. Coalition of Losers: Why Agricultural Protectionism Has Survived During the Great Recession. In Politics in New Hard Times, edited by Kahler, Miles and Lake, David. Under Review.Google Scholar
Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2009. Agricultural Policies in OECD Countries 2009: Monitoring and Evaluation. Geneva: OECD.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, edited by Rodrik, Dani and Collins, Susan M., 157–206. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Park, Jong Hee, and Jensen, Nathan. 2007. Electoral Competition and Agricultural Support in OECD Countries. American Journal of Political Science 51 (2):314–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pew Research Center. 2009. March 2009 Political Survey. Available at ⟨http://people-press.org/report/498/obama-approval-slips⟩. Accessed 13 April 2011.Google Scholar
Rogowski, Ronald. 1989. Commerce and Coalitions: How Trade Affects Domestic Political Alignments. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rogowski, Ronald, and Kayser, Mark Andreas. 2002. Majoritarian Electoral Systems and Consumer Power: Price-Level Evidence from the OECD Countries. American Journal of Political Science 46 (3):526–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. 1971. Ohlin Was Right. Swedish Journal of Economics 73 (4):365–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheufele, Dietram A. 2000. Agenda-Setting, Priming, and Framing Revisited: Another Look at Cognitive Effects of Political Communication. Mass Communication and Society 3 (2):297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheve, Kenneth F., and Slaughter, Matthew J.. 2001. Globalization and the Perceptions of American Workers. Washington, D.C.: Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
Stolper, Wolfgang F., and Samuelson, Paul A.. 1941. Protection and Real Wages. Review of Economic Studies 9 (1):58–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogel, Steven K. 1999. When Interests Are Not Preferences: The Cautionary Tale of Japanese Consumers. Comparative Politics 31 (2):187–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar