IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/bejeap/v11y2011i1n74.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Empirical Analyses of U.S. Congressional Voting on Recent FTA

Author

Listed:
  • Im Hyejoon

    (Yeungnam University)

  • Sung Hankyoung

    (Kookmin University)

Abstract

This paper addresses the manner in which political and economic factors affect the voting behavior of House representatives on free trade agreement (FTA) implementation bills in the 108th and 109th Congresses in the U.S., using a simultaneous probit-tobit model consisting of contribution and voting equations. We find that representatives whose districts have relatively higher employment in 'trade-sensitive’ sectors are likely to oppose FTA bills. By comparing our results with the reports of the U.S. International Trade Commission, we discover that the voting behavior of representatives is more receptive to the sectors predicted to be adversely affected by an FTA than to those predicted otherwise. Another finding is that when FTA bills, for which partner countries do not share commonalities, are considered on the same day in the House, members’ voting behavior may be similar.

Suggested Citation

  • Im Hyejoon & Sung Hankyoung, 2011. "Empirical Analyses of U.S. Congressional Voting on Recent FTA," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 1-37, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:bejeap:v:11:y:2011:i:1:n:74
    DOI: 10.2202/1935-1682.2363
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2202/1935-1682.2363
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2202/1935-1682.2363?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joshua D. Angrist & Alan B. Krueger, 2001. "Instrumental Variables and the Search for Identification: From Supply and Demand to Natural Experiments," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(4), pages 69-85, Fall.
    2. Baldwin, Robert E. & Christopher S. Magee, 2000. "Congressional Trade Votes: From NAFTA Approval to Fast Track Defeat," Peterson Institute Press: All Books, Peterson Institute for International Economics, number pa59, April.
    3. Christopher Sean Patrick Magee, 2010. "Would NAFTA have been Approved by the House of Representatives under President Bush? Presidents, Parties, and Trade Policy," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(2), pages 382-395, May.
    4. Chappell, Henry W, Jr, 1982. "Campaign Contributions and Congressional Voting: A Simultaneous Probit-Tobit Model," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 64(1), pages 77-83, February.
    5. Joshua Angrist & Alan Krueger, 2001. "Instrumental Variables and the Search for Identification: From Supply and Demand to Natural Experiments," Working Papers 834, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    6. Fréchette, Guillaume R. & Kagel, John H. & Lehrer, Steven F., 2003. "Bargaining in Legislatures: An Experimental Investigation of Open versus Closed Amendment Rules," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 97(2), pages 221-232, May.
    7. Eugene Beaulieu & Christopher Magee, 2004. "Four Simple Tests of Campaign Contributions and Trade Policy Preferences," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(2), pages 163-187, July.
    8. Potters, Jan & Sloof, Randolph, 1996. "Interest groups: A survey of empirical models that try to assess their influence," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 403-442, November.
    9. Frechette, Guillaume R. & Kagel, John H. & Morelli, Massimo, 2005. "Gamson's Law versus non-cooperative bargaining theory," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 365-390, May.
    10. Frechette, Guillaume & Kagel, John H. & Morelli, Massimo, 2005. "Nominal bargaining power, selection protocol, and discounting in legislative bargaining," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(8), pages 1497-1517, August.
    11. repec:fth:prinin:455 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. James Lake & Jun Nie, 2022. "The 2020 US Presidential Election and Trump's Trade War," CESifo Working Paper Series 9669, CESifo.
    2. Lake, James, 2015. "Revisiting the link between PAC contributions and lobbying expenditures," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 86-101.
    3. Lake, James & Millimet, Daniel L., 2016. "An empirical analysis of trade-related redistribution and the political viability of free trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 156-178.
    4. Kang Yoo-Duk, 2019. "European Affiliations or National Interests? Analyses of Voting Patterns on Trade Policy in European Parliament," TalTech Journal of European Studies, Sciendo, vol. 9(4), pages 19-48, December.
    5. Lake, James & Nie, Jun, 2023. "The 2020 US Presidential election and Trump’s wars on trade and health insurance," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nunnari, Salvatore, 2021. "Dynamic legislative bargaining with veto power: Theory and experiments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 186-230.
    2. Chessa, Michela & Hanaki, Nobuyuki & Lardon, Aymeric & Yamada, Takashi, 2023. "An experiment on the Nash program: A comparison of two strategic mechanisms implementing the Shapley value," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 88-104.
    3. Miller, Luis & Montero, Maria & Vanberg, Christoph, 2018. "Legislative bargaining with heterogeneous disagreement values: Theory and experiments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 60-92.
    4. Christiansen, Nels, 2015. "Greasing the wheels: Pork and public goods contributions in a legislative bargaining experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 64-79.
    5. Merkel, Anna & Vanberg, Christoph, 2023. "Multilateral bargaining with subjective claims under majority vs. unanimity rule: An experiment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    6. Baron, David P. & Bowen, T. Renee & Nunnari, Salvatore, 2017. "Durable coalitions and communication: Public versus private negotiations," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 1-13.
    7. Hsu, Li-Chen & Yang, C.C. & Yang, Chun-Lei, 2008. "Positive- versus zero-sum majoritarian ultimatum games: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 68(3-4), pages 498-510, December.
    8. Marco Battaglini & Thomas Palfrey, 2012. "The dynamics of distributive politics," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 49(3), pages 739-777, April.
    9. Maaser, Nicola & Paetzel, Fabian & Traub, Stefan, 2019. "Power illusion in coalitional bargaining: An experimental analysis," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 433-450.
    10. Hyejoon Im & Hankyoung Sun, 2008. "Empirical Analyses of U.S. Congressional Voting on Recent FTA Bills," Governance Working Papers 22992, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    11. Fréchette, Guillaume R., 2009. "Learning in a multilateral bargaining experiment," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 153(2), pages 183-195, December.
    12. Andrzej Baranski & David J. Cooper & Guillaume Fréchette, 2024. "Introduction to the special issue in honor of John H. Kagel," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 27(1), pages 1-8, March.
    13. John Duffy & SunTak Kim, 2024. "Public good bargaining under mandatory and discretionary rules: experimental evidence," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 27(1), pages 175-214, March.
    14. Mallucci, Paola & Wu, Diana Yan & Cui, Tony Haitao, 2019. "Social motives in bilateral bargaining games: How power changes perceptions of fairness," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 138-152.
    15. Kim, Duk Gyoo, 2023. "“One Bite at the apple”: Legislative bargaining without replacement," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    16. Aaron Kamm & Harold Houba, 2019. "A bargaining experiment with asymmetric institutions and preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 52(2), pages 329-351, February.
    17. Christopher Sean Patrick Magee, 2010. "Would NAFTA have been Approved by the House of Representatives under President Bush? Presidents, Parties, and Trade Policy," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(2), pages 382-395, May.
    18. Mark Carlson & Kris James Mitchener, 2009. "Branch Banking as a Device for Discipline: Competition and Bank Survivorship during the Great Depression," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 117(2), pages 165-210, April.
    19. Ilona Babenko & Benjamin Bennett & John M Bizjak & Jeffrey L Coles & Jason J Sandvik, 2023. "Clawback Provisions and Firm Risk," The Review of Corporate Finance Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 12(2), pages 191-239.
    20. Henrekson, Magnus & Johansson, Dan, 2010. "Firm Growth, Institutions and Structural Transformation," Ratio Working Papers 150, The Ratio Institute.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:bejeap:v:11:y:2011:i:1:n:74. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.