Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T05:57:53.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Determining Trade Policy: Do Voters Hold Politicians Accountable?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 July 2009

Alexandra Guisinger
Alexandra Guisinger
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Notre Dame du Lac. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Models of trade policy often depend on the efficient aggregation of individual preferences. While much of the recent empirical work on trade focuses on whether domestic coalitions form along class or sectoral lines, the process of preference aggregation itself remains understudied. In democratic countries, voting is typically assumed to be an unproblematic mechanism for aggregating preferences, but such an assumption may be misleading when the salience of trade policy is low or heterogeneous throughout the electorate. Using data from a survey of 36,501 potential voters in the 2006 U.S. midterm congressional elections, this article explores the salience of trade policy for voters as a whole and for populations predicted to be most affected by changing trade patterns. The article offers an estimation of trade policy salience based on the degree to which voters held Senate incumbents accountable for their 2005 vote on the Central American Free Trade Agreement, relative to roll call votes on other issues of the day. The article finds trade policy salience to be relatively low in terms of stated importance, in voters' knowledge of their representatives' policy positions, and in its effect on voters' propensity to vote for the incumbent. The low salience of trade policy, particularly among highly affected groups, calls into question voter-driven models of trade policy.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Organization , Volume 63 , Issue 3 , July 2009 , pp. 533 - 557
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

Alt, James E., and Gilligan, Michael. 1994. The Political Economy of Trading States: Factor Specificity, Collective Action Problems, and Domestic Political Institutions. Journal of Political Philosophy 2 (2):165–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen. 2007. Cooperative Congressional Election Study, 2006: Common Content Page. Release 2. 14 November 2007. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Available at ⟨http://web.mit.edu/polisci/portl/cces/commoncontent.html⟩. Accessed 17 March 2009.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen. 2008. Guide to the 2006 Cooperative Congressional Election Survey. Data Release No. 2. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Bailey, Michael. 2001. Quiet Influence: The Representation of Diffuse Interests on Trade Policy, 1983–1994. Legislative Studies Quarterly 26 (1):45–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Michael, Goldstein, Judith, and Weingast, Barry R.. 1997. The Institutional Roots of American Trade Policy: Politics, Coalitions, and International Trade. World Politics 49 (3):309–38.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
Baldwin, Robert E. 1989. The Political Economy of Trade Policy. Journal of Economic Perspectives 3 (4):119–35.CrossRefGoogle 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
Berelson, Bernard R., Lazarsfeld, Paul F., and McPhee, William N.. 1954. Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Busch, Marc L., and Reinhardt, Eric. 1999. Industrial Location and Protection: The Political and Economic Geography of U.S. Nontariff Barriers. American Journal of Political Science 43 (4):1028–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, David. 2007. Cooperative Congressional Election Study, 2006: University of Notre Dame Content. Release 2. 28 December 2007. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar
Canes-Wrone, Brandice, Brady, David W., and Cogan, John F.. 2002. Out of Step, Out of Office: Electoral Accountability and House Members' Voting. American Political Science Review 96:127–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caves, Richard E. 1976. Economic Models of Political Choice: Canada's Tariff Structure. Canadian Journal of Economics 9 (2):278–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S. 1971. The Electoral Impact of Congressional Roll Call Voting. American Political Science Review 65 (4):1018–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., and Wright, Gerald C. Jr. 1980. Policy Representation of Constituency Interests. Journal of Political Behavior 2 (1):91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilligan, Michael J. 1997. Empowering Exporters: Delegation, Reciprocity and Collective Action in Twentieth Century American Trade Policy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, Gene M., and Helpman, Elhanan. 1994. Protection for Sale. American Economic Review 84 (4):833–50.Google Scholar
Grossman, Gene M., and Helpman, Elhanan. 2001. Special Interest Politics. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grossman, Gene M., and Helpman, Elhanan. 2002. Interest Groups and Trade Policy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillman, Arye L. 1982. Declining Industries and Political-Support Protectionist Motives. The American Economic Review 72 (5):1180–1187.Google Scholar
Hiscox, Michael. 2001. Class Versus Industry Cleavages: Inter-Industry Factor Mobility and the Politics of Trade. International Organization 55 (1):1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, and Tversky, Amos. 1979. Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica 47 (2):263–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, and Tversky, Amos. 1984. Choices, Values, and Frames. American Psychologist 37 (4):341–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaltenthaler, Karl C., Gelleny, Ronald D., and Ceccoli, Stephen J.. 2004. Explaining Citizen Support for Trade Liberalization. International Studies Quarterly 48 (4):829–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary, Tomz, Michael, and Wittenberg, Jason. 2000. Making the Most of Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Presentation. American Journal of Political Science 44 (2):347–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lake, Celinda, Conway, Kellyanne, and Whitney, Catherine. 2005. What Women Really Want: How American Women Are Quietly Erasing Political, Racial, Class, and Religious Lines to Change the Way We Live. Washington, D.C.: Free Press.Google Scholar
Lublin, David. 1997. The Election of African Americans and Latinos to the U.S. House of Representatives, 1972–1994. American Politics Research 25 (3):269–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayda, Anna Maria, O'Rourke, Kevin H., and Sinnott, Richard. 2006. Risk, Government and Globalization: International Survey Evidence. Unpublished manuscript, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., and Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.CrossRefGoogle 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
Mayer, Wolfgang. 1984. Endogenous Tariff Formation. American Economic Review 74 (5):970–85.Google Scholar
McGillivray, Fiona. 2004. Privileging Industry: The Comparative Politics of Trade and Industrial Policy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1963. Constituency Influence in Congress. American Political Science Review 57 (1):45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milner, Helen V., and Kubota, Keiko. 2005. Why the Move to Free Trade? Democracy and Trade Policy in the Developing Countries. International Organization 59 (1):107–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Rourke, Kevin H., and Sinnott, Richard. 2001. The Determinants of Individual Trade Policy Preferences: International Survey Evidence. Brookings Trade Forum 2001:157–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Rourke, Kevin H., and Taylor, Alan M.. 2006. Democracy and Protectionism. CEPR Discussion Paper No. 5698. London: Center for Economic Policy Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivers, Douglas. 2006. Sample Matching: Representative Sampling from Internet Panels. Palo Alto, Calif.: Polimetrix White Paper Series.Google Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. 1971. Ohlin Was Right. Swedish Journal of Economics 73 (4):365–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schattschneider, Elmer Eric. 1935. Politics, Pressures and the Tariff: A Study of Free Private Enterprise in Pressure Politics, as Shown in the 1929–1930 Revision of the Tariff. New York: Prentice-Hall.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
Southwell, Priscilla L., and Waguespack, David. 1997. Support for Term Limits and Voting Behavior in Congressional Elections. Social Science Journal 34 (1):81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stimson, James A., Mackuen, Michael B., and Erikson, Robert S.. 1995. Dynamic Representation. American Political Science Review 89 (3):543–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokes, Donald E., and Miller, Warren E.. 1962. Party Government and the Saliency of Congress. Public Opinion Quarterly 26 (4):531–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomz, Michael, Wittenberg, Jason, and King, Gary. 2001. CLARIFY: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results. Version 2.0. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University. Available at ⟨http://gking.harvard.edu/clarify/clarify.pdf⟩. Accessed 17 March 2009.Google Scholar
U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. 2002 Economic Census. Available at ⟨http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/⟩. Accessed 17 March 2009.Google Scholar
United States International Trade Commission (USITC). 2004. U.S.-Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement: Potential Economywide and Selected Sectoral Effects. Investigation No. TA-2104-13. USITC Publication 3717. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Wlezien, Christoper. 2005. On the Salience of Political Issues: The Problem with ‘Most Important Problem.’ Electoral Studies 24 (4):555–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Gerald C. Jr. 1978. Candidates' Policy Positions and Voting in U.S. Congressional Elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly 3 (3):445–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar