Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T10:01:58.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Support for Free Trade: Self-Interest, Sociotropic Politics, and Out-Group Anxiety

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 July 2009

Edward D. Mansfield  and
Diana C. Mutz
Edward D. Mansfield
Affiliation:
Christopher H. Browne Center for International Politics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. E-mail: emansfie@sas.upenn.edu
Diana C. Mutz
Affiliation:
Institute for the Study of Citizens and Politics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. E-mail: mutz@sas.upenn.edu
Get access

Abstract

Although it is widely acknowledged that an understanding of mass attitudes about trade is crucial to the political economy of foreign commerce, only a handful of studies have addressed this topic. These studies have focused largely on testing two models, both of which emphasize that trade preferences are shaped by how trade affects an individual's income. The factor endowments or Heckscher-Ohlin model posits that these preferences are affected primarily by a person's skills. The specific factors or Ricardo-Viner model posits that trade preferences depend on the industry in which a person works. We find little support for either of these models using two representative national surveys of Americans. The only potential exception involves the effects of education. Initial tests indicate that educational attainment and support for open trade are directly related, which is often interpreted as support for the Heckscher-Ohlin model. However, further analysis reveals that education's effects are less representative of skill than of individuals' anxieties about involvement with out-groups in their own country and beyond. Furthermore, we find strong evidence that trade attitudes are guided less by material self-interest than by perceptions of how the U.S. economy as a whole is affected by trade.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Organization , Volume 63 , Issue 3 , July 2009 , pp. 425 - 457
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 2009

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

Adoni, Hannah, and Cohen, Akiba A.. 1978. Television Economic News and the Social Construction of Economic Reality. Journal of Communication 28 (4):61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alston, Richard M., Kearl, J. R., and Vaughan, Michael B.. 1992. Is There a Consensus Among Economists in the 1990's? American Economic Review 82 (2):203–9.Google Scholar
Attewell, Paul. 1990. What Is Skill? Work and Occupations 17 (4):422–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Balistreri, Edward J. 1997. The Performance of the Heckscher-Ohlin-Vanek Model in Predicting Endogenous Policy Forces at the Individual Level. Canadian Journal of Economics 30 (1):1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Raymond A., Pool, Ithiel de Sola, and Dexter, Lewis Anthony. 1963. American Business and Public Policy: The Politics of Foreign Trade. New York: Atherton.Google Scholar
Beaulieu, Eugene, Benarroch, Michael, and Gaisford, James Donald. 2004. Intra-Industry Trade Liberalization, Wage Inequality and Trade Policy Preferences. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Economics, University of Calgary, Canada.Google Scholar
Beaulieu, Eugene, Yatawara, Ravindra A., and Wang, Wei Guo. 2005. Who Supports Free Trade in Latin America? World Economy 28 (7):941–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behr, Roy L., and Iyengar, Shanto. 1985. Television News, Real World Cues, and Changes in the Public Agenda. Public Opinion Quarterly 49 (1):38–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brody, Richard A., and Sniderman, Paul M.. 1977. From Life Space to Polling Place: The Relevance of Personal Concerns for Voting Behavior. British Journal of Political Science 7 (3):337–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgoon, Brian A., and Hiscox, Michael J.. 2004. The Mysterious Case of Female Protectionism: Gender Bias in Attitudes Toward International Trade. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Busch, Marc L., and Reinhardt, Eric. 2000. Geography, International Trade, and Political Mobilization in U.S. Industries. American Journal of Political Science 44 (4):703–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conover, Pamela Johnston, Feldman, Stanley, and Knight, Kathleen. 1986. Judging Inflation and Unemployment: The Origins of Retrospective Evaluations. Journal of Politics 48 (3):565–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erbring, Lutz, Goldenberg, Edie N., and Miller, Arthur H.. 1980. Front-Page News and Real-World Cues: A New Look at Agenda-Setting by the Media. American Journal of Political Science 24 (1):16–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., and Tedin, Kent L.. 2005. American Public Opinion: Its Origin, Content and Impact. 7th ed.New York: Pearson-Longman.Google Scholar
Fordham, Benjamin O. 2008. Economic Interests and Public Support for American Global Activism. International Organization 62 (1):163–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fordham, Benjamin O., and McKeown, Timothy J.. 2003. Selection and Influence: Interest Groups and Congressional Voting on Trade Policy. International Organization 57 (3):519–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabel, Matthew J. 1998. Interests and Information: Market Liberalization, Public Opinion, and European Union. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Donald P., and Gerken, Ann E.. 1989. Self-Interest and Public Opinion toward Smoking Restrictions and Cigarette Taxes. Public Opinion Quarterly 53 (1):1–16.CrossRefGoogle 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
Hays, Jude C., Ehrlich, Sean D., and Peinhardt, Clint. 2005. Government Spending and Public Support for Trade in the OECD: Am Empirical Test of the Embedded Liberalism Thesis. International Organization 59 (2):473–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrmann, Richard K., Tetlock, Philip E., and Diascro, Matthew N.. 2001. How Americans Think About Trade: Reconciling Conflicts Among Money, Power, and Principles. International Studies Quarterly 45 (2):191–218.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
Kaltenthaler, Karl C., Gelleny, Ronald D., and Ceccoli, Stephen J.. 2004. Explaining Citizen Support for Trade Liberalization. International Studies Quarterly 48 (4):829–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kam, Cindy, and Kinder, Donald R.. 2007. Terror and Ethnocentrism: Foundations of American Support for the War on Terrorism. Journal of Politics 69 (2):320–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiewiet, D. Roderick. 1983. Macroeconomics and Micropolitics: The Electoral Effects of Economic Issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kinder, Donald R., and Kiewiet, D. Roderick. 1981. Sociotropic Politics: The American Case. British Journal of Political Science 11 (2):129–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kocher, Matthew A., and Minushkin, Susan. 2006. Trade and Investment Policy Preferences and Public Opinion in Mexico. Paper presented at the 47th Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, March, San Diego, Calif.Google Scholar
Kono, Daniel Y. 2008. Does Public Opinion Affect Trade Policy? Business and Politics 10 (2): Article 2. Available at ⟨http://www.bepress.com/bap/vol10/iss2/art2⟩. Accessed 31 March 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leamer, Edward E. 1984. Sources of International Comparative Advantage. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Daniel J. 1949. An Approach to the Theory and Measurement of Ethnocentric Ideology. Journal of Psychology 28 (1):19–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, J. Scott, and Freese, Jeremy. 2005. Regression Models for Categorical Outcomes Using Stata. 2d ed.College Station, Tex: Stata Press.Google Scholar
MacKuen, Michael Bruce, and Coombs, Stephen Lane. 1981. More Than News: Media Power in Public Affairs. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Maggiotto, Michael A., and Wittkopf, Eugene R.. 1981. American Public Attitudes toward Foreign Policy. International Studies Quarterly 25 (4):601–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansfield, Edward D., and Mutz, Diana C.. 2006. What Determines Perceptions of Trade's Influence on the US Economy? Paper presented at the 102d Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, August-September, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Mayda, Anna-Maria, and Rodrik, Dani. 2005. Why Are Some People (and Countries) More Protectionist Than Others? European Economic Review 49 (6):1393–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, Diana C. 1992. Mass Media and the Depoliticization of Personal Experience. American Journal of Political Science 36 (2):483–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, Diana C. 1994. Contextualizing Personal Experience: The Role of Mass Media. Journal of Politics 56 (4):689–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, Diana C. 1998. Impersonal Influence: How Perceptions of Mass Collectives Affect Political Attitudes. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nie, Norman H., Junn, Jane, and Stehlik-Barry, Kenneth. 1996. Education and Democratic Citizenship in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
O'Rourke, Kevin H., and Sinnott, Richard. 2002. The Determinants of Individual Trade Policy Preferences: International Survey Evidence. In Brookings Trade Forum, 2002, edited by Collins, Susan M. and Rodrik, Dani, 157–206. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Prior, Markus. 2007. Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rankin, David M. 2001. Identities, Interests, and Imports. Political Behavior 23 (4):351–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodrik, Dani. 1995. Political Economy of Trade Policy. In Handbook of International Economics. Vol. 3, edited by Grossman, Gene M. and Rogoff, Kenneth, 1457–94. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Scheve, Kenneth F., and Slaughter, Matthew J.. 2001. What Determines Individual Trade-Policy Preferences? Journal of International Economics 54 (2):267–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sears, David O., and Funk, Carolyn L.. 1990. Self-Interest in Americans' Political Opinions. In Beyond Self-Interest, edited by Mansbridge, Jane J., 147–70. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Spenner, Kenneth I. 1990. Skill: Meanings, Methods, and Measures. Work and Occupations 17 (4):399–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stolper, Wolfgang Friedrich, and Samuelson, Paul A.. 1941. Protection and Real Wages. Review of Economic Studies 9:58–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, Tom R. 1980. Impact of Directly and Indirectly Experienced Events: The Origins of Crime-Related Judgments and Behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39 (1):13–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, Tom R. 1984. Assessing the Risk of Crime Victimization: The Integration of Personal Victimization Experience and Socially Transmitted Information. Journal of Social Issues 40 (1):27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, Tom R., and Cook, Fay L.. 1984. The Mass Media and Judgments of Risk: Distinguishing Impact on Personal and Societal Level Judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47 (4):693–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Census Bureau. 2008a. North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). Available at ⟨http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/naics.html⟩. Accessed 31 March 2009.Google Scholar
U.S. Census Bureau. 2008b. DP-3, Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics: 2000. Available at ⟨http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP3&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-_lang=en&-_caller=geoselect&-state=qt&-format=⟩. Accessed 30 April 2009.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. 2008. Industry Economic Accounts. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Available at ⟨http://www.bea.gov/industry/gdpbyind_data.htm⟩. Accessed 30 April 2009.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Labor. 2008a. Standard Occupational Classification. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Available at ⟨http://www.bls.gov/soc/⟩. Accessed 30 April 2009.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Labor. 2008b. Occupational Employment Statistics. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Available at ⟨http://www.bls.gov/oes/oes_dl.htm⟩. Accessed 30 April 2009.Google Scholar
U.S. International Trade Commission. 2008. USITC Interactive Tariff and Trade DataWeb. Available at ⟨http://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/user_set.asp⟩. Accessed 30 April 2009.Google Scholar
Wittkopf, Eugene R., and Maggiotto, Michael A.. 1983. Elites and Masses: A Comparative Analysis of Attitudes Toward America's World Role. Journal of Politics 45 (2):303–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Worldviews. 2002. American Public Opinion and Foreign Policy. Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. Available at ⟨http://www.worldviews.org/detailreports/usreport.pdf⟩. Accessed 30 April 2009.Google Scholar