IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/eeupol/v19y2018i2p255-277.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Attitudes towards the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership in the European Union: The treaty partner heuristic and issue attention

Author

Listed:
  • Nils D Steiner

Abstract

Why has the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partisanship met with strong public resistance among some Europeans and in some European Union member states, but not in others? This article argues that one important perspective to explain the pattern of support for TTIP is the role of heuristic opinion formation and issue attention. Analysing multiple waves of Eurobarometer data, I find that views of the two treaty partners, the US and the European Union, shape attitudes towards TTIP and that the largely post-materialist concerns over TTIP resonated specifically in those European countries whose citizens’ attention was less focused on economic issues. In showing how opinions towards concrete real-world trade policy proposals are shaped by the political context, these findings complement previous research on citizens’ general stances towards trade.

Suggested Citation

  • Nils D Steiner, 2018. "Attitudes towards the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership in the European Union: The treaty partner heuristic and issue attention," European Union Politics, , vol. 19(2), pages 255-277, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:eeupol:v:19:y:2018:i:2:p:255-277
    DOI: 10.1177/1465116518755953
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1465116518755953
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1465116518755953?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gabriel Felbermayr & Benedikt Heid & Mario Larch & Erdal Yalcin, 2015. "Macroeconomic potentials of transatlantic free trade: a high resolution perspective for Europe and the world," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 30(83), pages 491-537.
    2. Anna Maria Mayda & Kevin H. O'Rourke, 2007. "Risk, Government andd Globalization: International Survey Evidence," The Institute for International Integration Studies Discussion Paper Series iiisdp218, IIIS.
    3. Chase Foster & Jeffry Frieden, 2017. "Crisis of trust: Socio-economic determinants of Europeans’ confidence in government," European Union Politics, , vol. 18(4), pages 511-535, December.
    4. Hainmueller, Jens & Hiscox, Michael J., 2006. "Learning to Love Globalization: Education and Individual Attitudes Toward International Trade," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 60(2), pages 469-498, April.
    5. Peter Egger & Joseph Francois & Miriam Manchin & Douglas Nelson, 2015. "Non-tariff barriers, integration and the transatlantic economy," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 30(83), pages 539-584.
    6. Rho, Sungmin & Tomz, Michael, 2017. "Why Don't Trade Preferences Reflect Economic Self-Interest?," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 71(S1), pages 85-108, April.
    7. Bullock, John G., 2011. "Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 105(3), pages 496-515, August.
    8. Mayda, Anna Maria & Rodrik, Dani, 2005. "Why are some people (and countries) more protectionist than others?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 1393-1430, August.
    9. Michael M. Bechtel & Jens Hainmueller & Yotam Margalit, 2014. "Preferences for International Redistribution: The Divide over the Eurozone Bailouts," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(4), pages 835-856, October.
    10. Andreas Jungherr & Matthias Mader & Harald Schoen & Alexander Wuttke, 2018. "Context-driven attitude formation: the difference between supporting free trade in the abstract and supporting specific trade agreements," Review of International Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(2), pages 215-242, March.
    11. Hays, Jude C. & Ehrlich, Sean D. & Peinhardt, Clint, 2005. "Government Spending and Public Support for Trade in the OECD: An Empirical Test of the Embedded Liberalism Thesis," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 59(2), pages 473-494, April.
    12. Mansfield, Edward D. & Mutz, Diana C., 2009. "Support for Free Trade: Self-Interest, Sociotropic Politics, and Out-Group Anxiety," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 63(3), pages 425-457, July.
    13. Urbatsch, Robert, 2013. "A Referendum on Trade Theory: Voting on Free Trade in Costa Rica," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 67(1), pages 197-214, January.
    14. Nathan M. Jensen & Mi Jeong Shin, 2014. "Globalization and Domestic Trade Policy Preferences: Foreign Frames and Mass Support for Agriculture Subsidies," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(3), pages 305-324, May.
    15. Marc J. Melitz, 2003. "The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(6), pages 1695-1725, November.
    16. Scheve, Kenneth F. & Slaughter, Matthew J., 2001. "What determines individual trade-policy preferences?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 267-292, August.
    17. Druckman, James N., 2004. "Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and the (Ir)relevance of Framing Effects," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 98(4), pages 671-686, November.
    18. Curtis, K. Amber & Jupille, Joseph & Leblang, David, 2014. "Iceland on the Rocks: The Mass Political Economy of Sovereign Debt Resettlement," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 68(3), pages 721-740, July.
    19. Rahel Aichele & Gabriel Felbermayr & Inga Heiland & Gabriel J. Felbermayr, 2014. "Going Deep: The Trade and Welfare Effects of TTIP," CESifo Working Paper Series 5150, CESifo.
    20. K. H. O'Rourke & R. Sinnott, 2001. "The Determinants of Individual Trade Policy Preferences: International Survey Evidence," CEG Working Papers 20016, Trinity College Dublin, Department of Economics.
    21. Ardanaz, Martin & Murillo, M. Victoria & Pinto, Pablo M., 2013. "Sensitivity to Issue Framing on Trade Policy Preferences: Evidence from a Survey Experiment," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 67(2), pages 411-437, April.
    22. Xiaobo Lü & Kenneth Scheve & Matthew J. Slaughter, 2012. "Inequity Aversion and the International Distribution of Trade Protection," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 56(3), pages 638-654, July.
    23. Megumi Naoi & Shujiro Urata, 2013. "Free Trade Agreements and Domestic Politics: The Case of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement," Asian Economic Policy Review, Japan Center for Economic Research, vol. 8(2), pages 326-349, December.
    24. Juan D�ez Medrano & Michael Braun, 2012. "Uninformed citizens and support for free trade," Review of International Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(3), pages 448-476, August.
    25. Michael Bechtel & Thomas Bernauer & Reto Meyer, 2012. "The green side of protectionism: Environmental concerns and three facets of trade policy preferences," Review of International Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(5), pages 837-866.
    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. Aleksandra Sojka & Jorge Diaz-Lanchas & Federico Steinberg, 2019. "The Politicization of Transatlantic Trade in Europe: Explaining Inconsistent Preferences Regarding Free Trade and the TTIP," JRC Working Papers on Territorial Modelling and Analysis 2019-09, Joint Research Centre.
    2. Harms, Philipp & Steiner, Nils, 2019. "The China Shock and the Nationalist Backlash against Globalization: Attitudinal Evidence from the British Household Panel Survey," VfS Annual Conference 2019 (Leipzig): 30 Years after the Fall of the Berlin Wall - Democracy and Market Economy 203506, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    3. Blind, Knut & Müller, Jo-Ann, 2019. "The role of standards in the policy debate on the EU-US trade agreement," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 21-38.

    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. Philipp Harms & Nils D. Steiner, 2023. "Attitudes towards Globalization: A Survey," Working Papers 2305, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    2. Aleksandra Sojka & Jorge Diaz-Lanchas & Federico Steinberg, 2019. "The Politicization of Transatlantic Trade in Europe: Explaining Inconsistent Preferences Regarding Free Trade and the TTIP," JRC Working Papers on Territorial Modelling and Analysis 2019-09, Joint Research Centre.
    3. Rodríguez Chatruc, Marisol & Stein, Ernesto & Vlaicu, Razvan, 2021. "How issue framing shapes trade attitudes: Evidence from a multi-country survey experiment," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    4. Cevat G. Aksoy & Sergei Guriev & Daniel S. Treisman, 2018. "Globalization, Government Popularity, and the Great Skill Divide," NBER Working Papers 25062, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Ina Jäkel & Marcel Smolka, 2013. "Individual Attitudes Towards Trade: Stolper-Samuelson Revisited," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 731-761, September.
    6. Ida Bastiaens & Evgeny Postnikov, 2020. "Social standards in trade agreements and free trade preferences: An empirical investigation," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 793-816, October.
    7. Rickard, Stephanie, 2022. "Economic geography, politics, and the world trade regime," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 113857, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. Jäkel, Ina C. & Smolka, Marcel, 2017. "Trade policy preferences and factor abundance," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-19.
    9. Rodríguez Chatruc, Marisol & Stein, Ernesto H. & Vlaicu, Razvan, 2019. "Trade Attitudes in Latin America: Evidence from a Multi-Country Survey Experiment," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 9603, Inter-American Development Bank.
    10. Bernauer, Thomas & Spilker, Gabriele & Umaña, Víctor, 2014. "Different countries same partners: Experimental Evidence on PTA Partner Country Choice from Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Vietnam," Papers 739, World Trade Institute.
    11. Jeffrey Drope & Abdur Chowdhury, 2014. "Economic (In)Security and Gender Differences in Trade Policy Attitudes," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series wp1067, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    12. Nguyen, Quynh, 2015. "“Mind the Gap”: Inequality Aversion and Mass Support for Protectionism," Papers 838, World Trade Institute.
    13. Bernauer, Thomas & Schaffer, Lena Maria & Spilker, Gabriele, 2013. "Does social capital increase public support for economic globalisation?," Papers 552, World Trade Institute.
    14. Rommel, Tobias & Walter, Stefanie, 2016. "The Electoral Consequences of Offshoring," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 286, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    15. Nils D. Steiner & Philipp Harms, 2020. "Local Trade Shocks and the Nationalist Backlash in Political Attitudes: Panel Data Evidence from Great Britain," Working Papers 2014, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    16. Yu Jin Woo & Ikuo Kume, 2021. "Taking Gains from Trade Seriously: The Effects of Consumer Perspective on Free Trade," Working Papers 2020, Waseda University, Faculty of Political Science and Economics.
    17. Barbara Dluhosch, 2021. "The Gender Gap in Globalization and Well-Being," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 16(1), pages 351-378, February.
    18. Bernauer, Thomas & Nguyen, Quynh, 2015. "Environmental Concerns and Individual Trade Policy Preferences in Developing Countries," Papers 837, World Trade Institute.
    19. Tomiura, Eiichi & Ito, Banri & Mukunoki, Hiroshi & Wakasugi, Ryuhei, 2021. "Individual characteristics and the demand for reciprocity in trade liberalization: Evidence from a survey in Japan," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    20. Schaffer, Lena Maria & Spilker, Gabriele, 2013. "Adding Another Level: Individual Responses to Globalization and Government Welfare Policies," Papers 551, World Trade 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:sae:eeupol:v:19:y:2018:i:2:p:255-277. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.