IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/intorg/v61y2007i03p571-605_07.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Access to Protection: Domestic Institutions and Trade Policy in Democracies

Author

Listed:
  • Ehrlich, Sean D.

Abstract

Previous institutional explanations of trade policy have focused on the role of proportional representation on the promotion of free trade. This explanation generates numerous unsolved anomalies and provides limited guidance in explaining the difference between proportional representation countries and between majoritarian countries as well as within-country variation in trade policy. This article introduces a more general institutional theory that argues that the number of access points provided by institutions is the crucial institutional feature, as increasing the number of access points makes lobbying less costly, which benefits protectionists. From this, I hypothesize that the number of parties in government, the number of electoral districts, the nature of the vote, and other such institutions affect the level of protection and that, once these factors are controlled for, proportional representation has no impact on trade policy. I test this theory on tariff data in the post–World War II developed democracies and find broad support for these hypotheses.This article was previously presented at the 2004 Annual Meetings of the Midwest Political Science Association. I would like to thank Alan Deardorff, Rob Franzese, Matt Golder, Mike Hanmer, Jude Hays, Cherie Maestas, Corrine McConnaughy, Will Moore, James D. Morrow, Won-Ho Park, and Jeff Staton for advice and comments and Yoshi Ono for excellent research assistance. All errors, of course, remain my own.

Suggested Citation

  • Ehrlich, Sean D., 2007. "Access to Protection: Domestic Institutions and Trade Policy in Democracies," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 61(3), pages 571-605, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:intorg:v:61:y:2007:i:03:p:571-605_07
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0020818307070191/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Flemes, Daniel & Wehner, Leslie, 2012. "Drivers of Strategic Contestation in South America," GIGA Working Papers 207, GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies.
    2. Natália Barbosa & Maria Helena Guimarães & Ana Paula Faria, 2017. "Single Market Non-Compliance: How Relevant Is The Institutional Setting?," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 62(05), pages 1115-1135, December.
    3. Charles R. Hankla, 2013. "Fragmented Legislatures and the Budget: Analyzing Presidential Democracies," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 200-228, July.
    4. Federico Podestà, 2016. "Do Big Governments Promote Trade Liberalization? A Long-Term Analysis of 18 OECD Countries, 1975-2000," FBK-IRVAPP Working Papers 2016-02, Research Institute for the Evaluation of Public Policies (IRVAPP), Bruno Kessler Foundation.
    5. Christian Walter Martin & Nils D. Steiner, 2016. "Economic globalization and the change of electoral rules," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 355-376, December.
    6. Terrence L Chapman & Johannes Urpelainen & Scott Wolford, 2013. "International bargaining, endogenous domestic constraints, and democratic accountability," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 25(2), pages 260-283, April.
    7. Krzysztof Pelc & Johannes Urpelainen, 2015. "When do international economic agreements allow countries to pay to breach?," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 231-264, June.
    8. Jaime DE MELO & Marcelo OLARREAGA, 2017. "Trade Related Institutions and Development," Working Papers P199, FERDI.
    9. Sakuyama, T., 2018. "Electoral rules and agricultural protectionism: The case of Japan s participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277151, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Ina Jäkel & Marcel Smolka, 2013. "Individual Attitudes Towards Trade: Stolper-Samuelson Revisited," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 731-761, September.
    11. Weinberg, Joe, 2018. "Where’s the Pork?: The Political Economy of the US Farm Bill," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 273867, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Mamta Kumari & Nalin Bharti, 2021. "Linkages Between Trade Facilitation and Governance: Relevance for Post-COVID-19 Trade Strategy," Millennial Asia, , vol. 12(2), pages 162-189, August.
    13. Jeffrey Kucik, 2012. "The Domestic Politics of Institutional Design: Producer Preferences over Trade Agreement Rules," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(2), pages 95-118, July.
    14. Hatfield, John William & Hauk, William R., 2014. "Electoral regime and trade policy," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 518-534.
    15. Patrick Wagner & Michael Plouffe, 2019. "Electoral systems and trade-policy outcomes: the effects of personal-vote incentives on barriers to international trade," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 180(3), pages 333-352, September.
    16. Basedow, Robert & Hoerner, Julian, 2024. "Trading votes: what drives MEP support for trade liberalisation?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 119995, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Sean D. Ehrlich, 2009. "How Common is the Common External Tariff?," European Union Politics, , vol. 10(1), pages 115-141, March.
    18. Nikolaos Zahariadis, 2013. "Winners and Losers in EU State Aid Policy," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 143-158, March.
    19. David A. Steinberg & Karrie J. Koesel & Nicolas W. Thompson, 2015. "Political Regimes and Currency Crises," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 337-361, November.
    20. Ehrlich Sean D. & Jones Eryn, 2016. "Whom do European corporations lobby? The domestic institutional determinants of interest group activity in the European Union," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 18(4), pages 467-488, December.
    21. Marco Schito, 2021. "A Sectoral Approach to the Politics of State Aid in the European Union: an Analysis of the European Automotive Industry," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 1-31, March.
    22. Kim, JunYun & Magee, Stephen & Lee, Hongshik, 2023. "Capitalization of the economy and labor return: How does lobbying affect resource allocation?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    23. Baccini, Leonardo & Kim, Soo Yeon, 2012. "Preventing protectionism: international institutions and trade policy," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 45573, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    24. Leonardo Baccini & Soo Kim, 2012. "Preventing protectionism: International institutions and trade policy," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 7(4), pages 369-398, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:cup:intorg:v:61:y:2007:i:03:p:571-605_07. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ino .

    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.