IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wti/papers/620.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Ego- vs. Sociotropic: Using Survey Experiments to Understand Individuals’ Trade Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Schaffer, Lena Maria
  • Spilker, Gabriele

Abstract

Economic self-interest has been central to explaining individual trade preferences. Depending on the theoretical trade model different variables should influence individuals’ attitude towards globalization. Existing research has come to different conclusions as to whether individuals’ preferences are dependent on their skills (i.e. their level of education), their income or the sector in which they are employed. Other studies depart from economic self- interest by arguing that it is not economic self-interest that motivates individuals to form their preference, but country-level economic factors (sociotropic considerations) instead (Fordham 2008, Mansfield and Mutz 2009). We argue that one needs to approach this empirical incoherence from an information-based perspective, as the predictions of the different trade models are not mutually exclusive. We pick up the informational critique most prominently portrayed in Fordham and Kleinberg (2012), namely we question whether people know that they belong to the category of winners and losers and we test experimentally how people react if they are aware that they personally or nationally will gain or lose from trade and which of the two aspects (personal vs.national gains or losses) are more important. By using survey experiments are we able to differentiate whether a person was triggered by ego- or socio- tropic benefits/costs of free trade. We accordingly conducted several online survey experiments, in which we rely on informational treatments. Overall, our results lend more support to a factor-based reasoning on trade than for the sector-based mechanism. In addition, we do not find much evidence for a sociotropic view of trade openness. These results are bad news for policy makers since their ability to increase support for further trade liberalization by telling citizens that their country will profit from this process seems to be rather limited.

Suggested Citation

  • Schaffer, Lena Maria & Spilker, Gabriele, 2013. "Ego- vs. Sociotropic: Using Survey Experiments to Understand Individuals’ Trade Preferences," Papers 620, World Trade Institute.
  • Handle: RePEc:wti:papers:620
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.wti.org/media/filer_public/49/3c/493cc6e7-4bf4-4ea7-b120-b205cf7300ba/schafferspilkersozio_nccr.pdf
    File Function: First version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Guisinger, Alexandra, 2009. "Determining Trade Policy: Do Voters Hold Politicians Accountable?," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 63(3), pages 533-557, July.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Margalit, Yotam, 2011. "Costly Jobs: Trade-related Layoffs, Government Compensation, and Voting in U.S. Elections," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 105(1), pages 166-188, February.
    6. 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.
    7. Fordham, Benjamin O., 2008. "Economic Interests and Public Support for American Global Activism," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 62(1), pages 163-182, January.
    8. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    9. Fordham, Benjamin O. & Kleinberg, Katja B., 2012. "How Can Economic Interests Influence Support for Free Trade?," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 66(2), pages 311-328, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. Adam William Chalmers & Lisa Maria Dellmuth, 2015. "Fiscal redistribution and public support for European integration," European Union Politics, , vol. 16(3), pages 386-407, September.
    3. Blanchard, Emily J. & Bown, Chad P. & Chor, Davin, 2024. "Did Trump’s trade war impact the 2018 election?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(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. Bernd Schlipphak, 2015. "Measuring attitudes toward regional organizations outside Europe," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 351-375, September.
    6. Bernauer, Thomas & Schaffer, Lena Maria & Spilker, Gabriele, 2013. "Does social capital increase public support for economic globalisation?," Papers 552, World Trade Institute.
    7. Rommel, Tobias & Walter, Stefanie, 2016. "The Electoral Consequences of Offshoring," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 286, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    8. Barbara Dluhosch & Daniel Horgos, 2013. "Trading Up the Happiness Ladder," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 113(3), pages 973-990, September.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Anna Maria Mayda & Kevin H. O'Rourke & Richard Sinnott, 2007. "Risk, Government and Globalization: International Survey Evidence," NBER Working Papers 13037, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Philipp Harms & Nils D. Steiner, 2023. "Attitudes towards Globalization: A Survey," Working Papers 2305, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    13. Katja B. Kleinberg & Benjamin O. Fordham, 2010. "Trade and Foreign Policy Attitudes," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 54(5), pages 687-714, October.
    14. David H. Bearce & Brandy J. Jolliff Scott, 2019. "Popular non-support for international organizations: How extensive and what does this represent?," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 187-216, June.
    15. Schaffer, Lena Maria & Spilker, Gabriele, 2013. "Adding Another Level: Individual Responses to Globalization and Government Welfare Policies," Papers 551, World Trade Institute.
    16. 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.
    17. Nathaniel P.S. Cook & Robert L. Underwood, 2012. "Attitudes Toward Economic Globalization: Does Knowledge Matter?," Global Economy Journal (GEJ), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 12(4), pages 1-20, November.
    18. Judith L. Goldstein & Margaret E. Peters, 2014. "Nativism or Economic Threat: Attitudes Toward Immigrants During the Great Recession," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(3), pages 376-401, May.
    19. 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.
    20. Eiichi Tomiura & Banri Ito & Hiroshi Mukunoki & Ryuhei Wakasugi, 2016. "Individual Characteristics, Behavioral Biases, and Trade Policy Preferences: Evidence from a Survey in Japan," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(5), pages 1081-1095, November.

    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:wti:papers:620. 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: Morven McLean (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/wtibech.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.