IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaae18/277151.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Electoral rules and agricultural protectionism: The case of Japan s participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

Author

Listed:
  • Sakuyama, T.

Abstract

This article aims to clarify the linkage between electoral rules and politicians protectionist motives. Specifically, hypotheses on the positive impacts of the proportional representation formula and constituency size on candidates attitudes toward the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) are tested by estimating an ordered probit model using survey data on Japan s national elections in 2012, 2013, and 2016. By extending the coverage to the upper house elections, this article adds value to the previous literature. The estimation results confirm that proportional representation formula and constituency size have a positive impact on candidates support for the TPP in the lower house election in 2012, but have no influence in the upper house elections in 2013 and 2016. Moreover, constituency size is no longer significant once the sample is limited to single-member district candidates even in the 2012 lower house election. It is therefore concluded that, contrary to the previous literature, constituency size that manifests electoral incentives is not a notable cause of candidates protectionist bias. In contrast, it is found that candidates political ideology, such as their affinity for agriculture and Asia as well as antipathy to small government and immigrants, is proved to be the main drivers of candidates protectionist motives. Acknowledgement : I am grateful to the participants to the Annual Conference of the Japan Public Choice Society at Kwansei Gakuin University in 2017. This work is supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Grant Number 16K07911.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae18:277151
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.277151
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/277151/files/1121.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.277151?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. Conconi, Paola & Facchini, Giovanni & Zanardi, Maurizio, 2014. "Policymakers' horizon and trade reforms: The protectionist effect of elections," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(1), pages 102-118.
    2. Hatfield, John William & Hauk, William R., 2014. "Electoral regime and trade policy," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 518-534.
    3. 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.
    4. Adina Ardelean & Carolyn L. Evans, 2013. "Electoral systems and protectionism: an industrylevel analysis," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 46(2), pages 725-764, May.
    5. Jeroen Klomp & Jakob de Haan, 2013. "Conditional Election and Partisan Cycles in Government Support to the Agricultural Sector: An Empirical Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(4), pages 793-818.
    6. Henning, Christian H.C.A., 2008. "Determinants of Agricultural Protection in an International Perspective: The Role of Political Institutions," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 43872, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Carolyn L. Evans, 2009. "A Protectionist Bias In Majoritarian Politics: An Empirical Investigation," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(2), pages 278-307, July.
    8. Kagitani, Koichi & Harimaya, Kozo, 2017. "Electoral motives, constituency systems, ideologies, and a free trade agreement: The case of Japan joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 51-66.
    9. Banri Ito, 2015. "Does electoral competition affect politicians’ trade policy preferences? Evidence from Japan," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 165(3), pages 239-261, December.
    10. Rogowski, Ronald, 1987. "Trade and the variety of democratic institutions," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(2), pages 203-223, April.
    11. Rodrik, Dani, 1995. "Political economy of trade policy," Handbook of International Economics, in: G. M. Grossman & K. Rogoff (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 28, pages 1457-1494, Elsevier.
    12. Olper, Alessandro & Raimondi, Valentina, 2013. "Electoral rules, forms of government and redistributive policy: Evidence from agriculture and food policies," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 141-158.
    13. Cameron G. Thies, 2015. "The declining exceptionalism of agriculture: identifying the domestic politics and foreign policy of agricultural trade protectionism," Review of International Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(2), pages 339-359, April.
    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. Koichi Kagitani & Kozo Harimaya, 2020. "Constituency systems, election proximity, special interests and a free trade agreement: the case of the Trans-Pacific Partnership in Japan," International Economics and Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 897-922, October.

    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. Kagitani, Koichi & Harimaya, Kozo, 2019. "Electoral rules and free trade agreements as a campaign issue: The case of political disputes over the Trans-Pacific Partnership in Japan," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 126-137.
    2. Koichi Kagitani & Kozo Harimaya, 2020. "Constituency systems, election proximity, special interests and a free trade agreement: the case of the Trans-Pacific Partnership in Japan," International Economics and Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 897-922, October.
    3. 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.
    4. Banri Ito, 2021. "Trade exposure and electoral protectionism: evidence from Japanese politician-level data," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 157(1), pages 181-205, February.
    5. Kagitani, Koichi & Harimaya, Kozo, 2017. "Electoral motives, constituency systems, ideologies, and a free trade agreement: The case of Japan joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 51-66.
    6. Garance Genicot & Laurent Bouton & Micael Castanheira, 2021. "Electoral Systems and Inequalities in Government Interventions [“Distributive Politics and Electoral Incentives: Evidence from Seven US State Legislatures.”]," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 19(6), pages 3154-3206.
    7. Hatfield, John William & Hauk, William R., 2014. "Electoral regime and trade policy," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 518-534.
    8. Klomp, Jeroen & Hoogezand, Barry, 2018. "Natural disasters and agricultural protection: A panel data analysis," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 404-417.
    9. Klomp, Jeroen, 2014. "The political economy of agricultural liberalization in Central and Eastern Europe: An empirical analysis," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 332-346.
    10. 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.
    11. Andrew Stravers, 2021. "Pork, parties, and priorities: Partisan politics and overseas military deployments," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 38(2), pages 156-177, March.
    12. Puślecki Zdzisław, 2023. "The new protectionism between the USA and China and international trade policy amid worldwide geopolitical turbulence," Ekonomista, Polskie Towarzystwo Ekonomiczne, issue 2, pages 125-151.
    13. 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.
    14. Galasso, Vincenzo & Nunnari, Salvatore, 2019. "The Economic Effects of Electoral Rules: Evidence from Unemployment Benefits," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 14(3), pages 259-291, July.
    15. 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.
    16. J. Lawrence Broz & Maya J. Duru & Jeffry A. Frieden, 2016. "Policy Responses to Balance-of-Payments Crises: The Role of Elections," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 207-227, April.
    17. Kagitani, Koichi & Harimaya, Kozo, 2020. "Does international trade competition influence candidates and voters? The case of Japanese Lower House elections," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    18. Ina Jäkel & Marcel Smolka, 2013. "Individual Attitudes Towards Trade: Stolper-Samuelson Revisited," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 731-761, September.
    19. Olper, Alessandro, 2017. "The political economy of trade-related regulatory policy: environment and global value chain," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 5(3), February.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    International Relations/Trade;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:iaae18:277151. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iaaeeea.html .

    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.