Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T18:51:35.399Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - The Elephant in the Negotiation Room

PTAs through the Eyes of Citizens

from Part I - New and Old Challenges

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2019

By
Quynh Nguyen  and
Gabriele Spilker
Edited by
Manfred Elsig ,
Michael Hahn  and
Gabriele Spilker
Manfred Elsig
Affiliation:
Universität Bern, Switzerland
Michael Hahn
Affiliation:
Universität Bern, Switzerland
Gabriele Spilker
Affiliation:
Universität Salzburg
Get access

Summary

In recent years, the negotiation of various trade agreements, such as the TPP, TTIP and CETA, has been accompanied by a large public backlash. Are we observing a paradigm shift in public perception of world trade or just temporary shifts in public support for the global economic order that oscillate around a more or less steady level? This chapter provides an overview of the major determinants of support for or opposition against PTAs and discusses how much room to maneuver policy makers have in designing such agreements. Furthermore, we discuss what policy makers can do to increase support for such agreements. We thereby focus on framing strategies and provide an analysis of which types of arguments are conducive to increase support for PTAs and how individuals process such information. This allows us to construct different future scenarios for policy makers to better align the negotiation and design of future trade agreements with the demand of their constituencies.

Keywords

preferential trade agreementssupportcontestationcitizen
Type
Chapter
Information
The Shifting Landscape of Global Trade Governance
World Trade Forum
 , pp. 17 - 47
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

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

Baker, A. 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
Baker, A. 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, A. 2009. The Market and the Masses in Latin America: Policy Reform and Consumption in Liberalizing Economies. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaulieu, E., and Napier, M., 2008. “Why Are Women More Protectionist than Men?” Working Paper, www.researchgate.net/publication/228803622_Why_Are_Women_More_Protectionist_Than_Men, accessed on 25 September 2017.Google Scholar
Bechtel, M., Bernauer, T, and Meyer, R. 2012. “Green Determinants of Protectionism: How Environmental Attitudes Shape Different Facets of Trade Policy Preferences,” Review of International Political Economy 19(5):837–66.Google Scholar
Bernauer, T., and Nguyen, Q. 2015. “Free Trade and/or Environmental Protection?” Global Environmental Politics 15(4):105–29.Google Scholar
Bertelsmann Stiftung. 2016. “Attitudes to Global Trade and TTIP in Germany and the United States,” Bertelsmann Foundation, www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/en/publications/publication/did/attitudes-to-global-trade-and-ttip-in-germany-and-the-united-states/, accessed on 29 January 2018.Google Scholar
Burgoon, B., and Hiscox, M. 2004. “The Mysterious Case of Female Protectionism: Gender Bias in Attitudes toward International Trade.” Working Paper: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Burgoon, B., and Hiscox, M. J.. 2008. The Gender Divide over International Trade: Why Do Men and Women Have Different Views about Openness to the World Economy? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
CBS News/ New York Times Poll (CBS/NYT). 2016. “Before the Conventions: Insights into Trump and Clinton Voters,” (survey dates 22–24 February), www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/CBS_NYT_July_2016.pdf, accessed on 15 February 2017.Google Scholar
Cline, W. R. 1999. “Trade and Income Distribution: The Debate and New Evidence,” Working Paper 99-7, Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
CNN. 2016. “Edison Research National Exit Poll (Edison),” 23 November (survey date November 8), www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls, accessed on 15 February 2017.Google Scholar
Dollar, D., and Kraay, A.. 2002. “Spreading the Wealth,” Foreign Affairs 81(1): 120–33.Google Scholar
Dür, A., Baccini, L., and Elsig, M.. 2014. “The Design of International Trade Agreements: Introducing a New Dataset,” The Review of International Organizations 9(3):53–375.Google Scholar
Dür, A., and Elsig, M.. 2015. Trade Cooperation. The Purpose, Design and Effects of Preferential Trade Agreements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, S. D., Maestas, C., Hearn, E., and Urbanski, P.. 2010. “Trade Policy Preferences and Concern About Your Job,” Paper presented at 2010 MPSA Annual Meeting, http://myweb.fsu.edu/eoh08/EMHU2010.html, accessed on 18 September 2011.Google Scholar
Fordham, B. O., and Kleinberg, K. B.. 2012. “How Can Economic Interests Influence Support for Free Trade?” International Organization 66(2):311–28.Google Scholar
Galbraith, J. K. 2002. “A Perfect Crime: Global Inequality,” Daedalus 131(1):11–25.Google Scholar
Guisinger, A. 2009. “Determining Trade Policy: Do Voters Hold Politicians Accountable?” International Organization 63(3):533–57.Google Scholar
Guisinger, A. 2016. “Information, Gender, and Differences in Individual Preferences for Trade,” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 37(4):538–61.Google Scholar
Hainmueller, J., and Hiscox, M. J.. 2006. “Learning to Love Globalization: Education and Individual Attitudes toward International Trade,” International Organization 60(2):469–98.Google Scholar
Hays, J. C., Ehrlich, S. D., and Peinhardt, C.. 2005. “Government Spending and Public Support for Trade in the OECD: An Empirical Test of the Embedded Liberalism Thesis,” International Organization 59(2):473–94.Google Scholar
Hays, J. C. 2009. Globalization and the New Politics of Embedded Liberalism. Oxford: Oxford University.Google Scholar
Hicks, R., Milner, H. V., and Tingley, D.. 2014. “Trade Policy, Economic Interests and Party Politics in a Developing Country: The Political Economy of CAFTA,” International Studies Quarterly 58:106–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiscox, M. J. 2006. “Through a Glass and Darkly: Attitudes Toward International Trade and the Curious Effects of Issue Framing,” International Organization 60(3):755–80.Google Scholar
Inglehart, R., Haerpfer, C., Moreno, A., Welzel, C., Kizilova, K., Diez-Medrano, J., Lagos, M., Norris, P., Ponarin, E., and Puranen, B. et al. (eds.) 2014. World Values Survey: Round Three - Country-Pooled Datafile Version. Madrid: JD Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Inglehart, R. 1997. Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Inglehart, R., and Flanagan, S. C.. 1987. “Value Change in Industrial Societies,” American Political Science Review 81(4):1289–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irwin, D. A. 1994. “The Political Economy of Free Trade,” Journal of Law and Economics 37: 75–108.Google Scholar
ISSP Research Group. 1998. “International Social Survey Programme: National Identity I – ISSP 1995,” Cologne: GESIS Data Archive.Google Scholar
ISSP Research Group. 2012. “International Social Survey Programme: National Identity II – ISSP 2003,” Cologne: GESIS Data Archive.Google Scholar
ISSP Research Group. 2015. “International Social Survey Programme: National Identity III – ISSP 2013,” Cologne: GESIS Data Archive.Google Scholar
Jesuit, D., and Smeeding, T.. 2002. “Poverty and Income Distribution,” Working Paper No. 293, Luxembourg Income Study, www.lisproject.org/publications/liswps/293.pdf, accessed on 15 November 2017.Google Scholar
Jones, B. 2016. “Support for Free Trade Agreements Rebounds Modestly, But Wide Partisan Differences Remain,” Pew Research Center. www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/25/support-for-free-trade-agreements-rebounds-modestly-but-wide-partisan-differences-remain/, accessed on 15 January 2018.Google Scholar
Jones, B. 2017. Support for Trade Agreements Rebounds Modestly, but Wide Partisan Differences Remain. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/25/support-for-free-trade-agreements-rebounds-modestly-but-wide-partisan-differences-remain/.Google Scholar
Kaltenthaler, K., Geleeny, R. D., and Ceccoli, S. J.. 2004. “Explaining Citizen Support for Trade Liberalization,” International Studies Quarterly 48(4):829–51.Google Scholar
Kaltenthaler, K., and Miller, W.. 2013. “Social Psychology and Public Support for Trade Liberalization,” International Studies Quarterly 57(4):784–90.Google Scholar
Kocher, M. A., and Minushkin, S.. 2007. “Trade and Investment Policy Preferences and Public Opinion in Mexico,” Office of International Academic Affairs (CIDE), Nr. 134, http://cide.edu/publicaciones/status/dts/DTEI%20134.pdf, accessed on 18 September 2011.Google Scholar
Leamer, E. 1984. Sources of International Comparative Advantage. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lupia, A., and McCubbins, M. D.. 1998. The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mansfield, E. D., and Mutz, D. C.. 2009. “Support for Free Trade: Self-Interest, Sociotropic Politics, and Out-Group Anxiety,” International Organization 63(3):425–57.Google Scholar
Mansfield, E. D., Mutz, D. C., and Silver, L. R.. 2015. “Men, Women, Trade, and Free Markets,” International Studies Quarterly 59(2):303–15.Google Scholar
Margalit, Y. 2011. “Costly Jobs: Trade-related Layoffs, Government Compensation, and Voting in US Elections,” American Political Science Review 105(1):166–88.Google Scholar
Margalit, Y. 2012. “Lost in Globalization: International Economic Integration and the Sources of Popular Discontent,” International Studies Quarterly 56(3):484–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayda, A. M., and Rodrik, D.. 2005. “Why Are Some People (and Countries) More Protectionist than Others?” European Economic Review 49(6):1393–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, D., and Kim, E.. 2017. “The Impact of In-group Favoritism on Trade Preferences,” International Organization 71(4):827–50.Google Scholar
Nguyen, Q. 2017. “Mind the Gap: Rising Income Inequality and Individual Trade Policy Preferences,” European Journal of Political Economy 50:92–105.Google Scholar
Nguyen, Q. 2018. “Taking a Step Back: Economic Performance and Salience of International Trade Issues,” International Journal of Public Opinion. DOI: 10.1093/ijpor/edx024.Google Scholar
Nguyen, Q., and Bernauer, T.. 2018. “Does Social Trust Affect Public Support for International Trade? Insights from an Experiment in Vietnam,” Political Studies. DOI: 10.1177/0032321718773560.Google Scholar
O’Rourke, K., and Sinnott, R.. 2001. “The Determinants of Individual Trade Policy Preferences: International Survey Evidence,” Paper presented at the Brookings Trade Policy Forum, www.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/2/2306/papers/o’rourke.pdf, accessed on 17 July 2017.Google Scholar
Pew Research Center. 2006. “Free Trade Agreements Get a Mixed Review,” Pew Research Center Poll, 19 December. (survey dates December 6–10), www.people-press.org/2006/12/19/free-trade-agreements-get-a-mixed-review/, accessed on 15 February 2017.Google Scholar
Rho, S., and Tomz, M.. 2017. “Why Don’t Trade Preferences Reflect Economic Self-Interest?” International Organization 71(S1):85–108.Google Scholar
Rickard, S. J. 2015. “Compensating the Losers: An Examination of Congressional Votes on Trade Adjustment Assistance,” International Interactions 41(1):46–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodrik, D. 1998. “Has Globalization Gone Too Far?” Challenge 41(2):81–94.Google Scholar
Rodrik, D. 2011. The Globalization Paradox: Why Global Markets, States, and Democracy Can’t Coexist. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Saval, N. 2017. “Globalisation: The Rise and Fall of an Idea that Swept the World,” The Guardian. www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/14/globalisation-the-rise-and-fall-of-an-idea-that-swept-the-world, accessed on 15 September 2017.Google Scholar
Schaffer, L., and Spilker, G.. 2014. “Ego- vs. Sociotropic: Using Survey Experiments to Understand Individuals’ Trade Preferences,” NCCR Trade Working Paper No.2013/08.Google Scholar
Schaffer, L., and Spilker, G.. 2016. “Adding Another Level Individual Responses to Globalization and Government Welfare Policies,” Political Science Research and Methods 4(2):399–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheve, K. F., and Slaughter, M. J.. 2001. “What Determines Individual Trade Policy Preferences?” Journal of International Economics 54(2):267–92.Google Scholar
Singh, J. P. 2017. Sweet Talk: Paternalism and Collective Action in North-South Trade Relations. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Sirota, D. 2006. “Caught on Tape: Tom Friedman’s Shocking Admission,” Huffington Post, 25 July, www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/caught-on-tape-tom-friedm_b_25789.html, accessed on 29 January 2018.Google Scholar
Spilker, G., Schaffer, L., and Bernauer, T.. 2012. “Does Social Capital Increase Public Support for Economic Globalisation?” European Journal of Political Research 51(6):756–84.Google Scholar
Spilker, G., Bernauer, T., and Umaña, V.. 2016a. “Selecting Partner Countries for Preferential Trade Agreements: Experimental Evidence from Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Vietnam,” International Studies Quarterly 60(4):706–18.Google Scholar
Spilker, G., Nguyen, Q., and Bernauer, T.. 2016b. “The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership in the Public Spotlight,” Paper presented at 6th Annual General Conference of the European Political Science Association (EPSA), 23–25 June 2016, Brussels.Google Scholar
Spilker, G., Bernauer, T., and Umaña, V.. 2018. “What Kind of Trade Liberalization Agreements Do People in Developing Countries Want?” International Interactions 44(3):510–36.Google Scholar
Stolper, W. F., and Samuelson, P. A.. 1941. “Protection and Real Wages,” Review of Economic Studies 9(2):58–73.Google Scholar
Taylor, T. W. 2015. “The Electoral Salience of Trade Policy: Experimental Evidence on the Effects of Welfare and Complexity,” International Interactions 41(4):84–109.Google Scholar
Uslaner, E. M. 2003. “Trust as an Alternative to Risk,” Paper presented at the Conference on Trust and the Management of Technological Risk: Implications for Business and Society, University of Zurich, Zurich. 17–20 September.Google Scholar
Weck-Hannemann, H. 1990. “Protectionism in Direct Democracy,” Journal of International Theoretical Economics 146(3):389–418.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×