Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T23:33:05.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sensitivity to Issue Framing on Trade Policy Preferences: Evidence from a Survey Experiment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2013

Martin Ardanaz ,
M. Victoria Murillo  and
Pablo M. Pinto
Martin Ardanaz
Affiliation:
Institutions for Development Department ofInter-American Development Bank (IDB), Washington, D.C. E-mail: martina@iadb.org
M. Victoria Murillo
Affiliation:
Columbia University, New York City. E-mail: mm2140@columbia.edu
Pablo M. Pinto
Affiliation:
Columbia University, New York City. E-mail: pp2162@columbia.edu
Get access

Abstract

We explore the impact of issue framing on individual attitudes toward international trade. Based on a survey experiment fielded in Argentina during 2007, which reproduces the setup of earlier studies in the United States, we show that individuals' position in the economy and their material concerns define the strength of their prior beliefs about international trade, and thereby mitigate their sensitivity to the new dimensions introduced in informational cues. Extending the analysis beyond the United States to a country with different skill endowments allows us to better explore the role of material and nonmaterial attributes on individual attitudes toward trade. We find that skill is a central predictor of support for openness. The effect is strongest for individuals in the service sector and in cities that cater to the producers of agricultural commodities. Our findings suggest that the pattern of support for economic integration reflects the predictions from recent literature in international economics that emphasizes trade's impact on the relative demand for skilled labor regardless of factor endowments. Our findings also amend recent empirical contributions that suggest socialization is the main factor explaining individual sensitivity to issue framing on trade preferences. We suggest that material conditions associated with income and price effects are crucial, both in shaping trade preferences and in affecting the malleability of attitudes to issue framing. Hence, our results provide a crucial contribution to our general understanding of the attributes shaping susceptibility to political framing in policy debates.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Organization , Volume 67 , Issue 2 , April 2013 , pp. 411 - 437
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alt, James E., and Gilligan, Michael. 1994. The Political Economy of Trading States: Factor Specificity, Collective Action Problems and Domestic Political Institutions. Journal of Political Philosophy 2 (2):165–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balistreri, Edward J. 1997. The Performance of the Heckscher-Ohlin-Vanek Model in Predicting Endogenous Policy Forces at the Individual Level. Canadian Journal of Economics 30 (1):1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Raymond A., de Sola Pool, Ithiel, and Dexter, Lewis Anthony. 1963. American Business and Public Policy: The Politics of Foreign Trade. New York: Atherton.Google Scholar
Bisang, Roberto, Anlló, Guillermo, and Campi, Mercedes. 2008. Una Revolución (no tan) Silenciosa. Claves para Repensar el Agro en Argentina. Desarrollo Económico 48 (189-190):165–207.Google Scholar
Bustos, Paula. 2011. The Impact of Trade Liberalization on Skill Upgrading: Evidence from Argentina. Unpublished manuscript, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
Chong, Dennis, and Druckman, James N.. 2007a. Framing Theory. Annual Review of Political Science 10 (1):103–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, Dennis, and Druckman, James N.. 2007b. A Theory of Framing and Opinion Formation in Competitive Elite Environments. Journal of Communication 57 (1):99–118.Google Scholar
Cohan, Luciano, and Levy-Yeyati, Eduardo. 2010. Informe Analytico: La Otra Inflacion Oficial. Analytica Consultora. Available at ⟨http://www.analyticaconsultora.com/web/uploads/informes/Informe%20Analytico%20-%20La%20otra%20inflación%20oficial.pdf⟩. Accessed 1 March 2011.Google Scholar
Davis, Donald R. 1995. Intra-Industry Trade: A Heckscher-Ohlin-Ricardo Approach. Journal of International Economics 39 (3-4):201–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dornbusch, Rudiger, Fischer, Stanley, and Samuelson, Paul A.. 1977. Comparative Advantage, Trade, and Payments in a Ricardian Model with a Continuum of Goods. American Economic Review 67 (5):823–39.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N. 2001. On the Limits of Framing Effects: Who Can Frame? Journal of Politics 63 (4):1041–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fagley, Nancy S., and Miller, Paul M.. 1997. Framing Effects and Arenas of Choice: Your Money or Your Life? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 71 (3):355–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frieden, Jeffrey. 1991. Invested Interests: The Politics of National Economic Policies in a World of Global Finance. International Organization 45 (4):425–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galiani, Sebastian, and Porto, Guido G.. 2010. Trends in Tariff Reforms and in the Structure of Wages. Review of Economics and Statistics 92 (3):482–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerchunoff, Pablo, and Torre, Juan Carlos. 1996. La Política de Liberalización Económica en la Administración de Menem. Desarrollo Económico 36 (143):733–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Pinelopi Koujianou, and Pavcnik, Nina. 2007. Distributional Effects of Globalization in Developing Countries. Journal of Economic Literature 45 (1):39–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hainmueller, Jens, and Hiscox, Michael J.. 2006. Learning to Love Globalization: Education and Individual Attitudes Toward International Trade. International Organization 60 (2):469–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helpman, Elhanan. 2006. Trade, FDI, and the Organization of Firms. Journal of Economic Literature 44 (3):589–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiscox, Michael J. 2002. International Trade and Political Conflict: Commerce, Coalitions, and Mobility. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiscox, Michael J. 2006. Through a Glass and Darkly: Attitudes Toward International Trade and the Curious Effect of Issue Framing. International Organization 60 (3):755–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Instituto Nacional de Estadisticas y Censos (INDEC). 2007a. Export Statististics (Estadisticas de Exportación). Ministerio de Economia, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Available at ⟨www.indec.mecon.ar⟩. Accessed 1 March 2011.Google Scholar
Instituto Nacional de Estadisticas y Censos (INDEC). 2007b. Permanent Survey of Households, First Quarter (Encuesta Permanente de Hogares. Indicadores Socioeconómicos–31 Aglomerados Urbanos. Resultados 1er. Trimestre). Ministerio de Economia, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Available at ⟨http://www.indec.mecon.ar⟩. Accessed 1 March 2011.Google Scholar
Jones, Ronald W. 1971. A Three-Factor Model in Theory, Trade, and History. In Trade, Balance of Payments and Growth: Papers in International Economics in Honor of Charles P. Kindleberger, edited by Bhagwati, Jagdish N., Jones, Ronald W., Mundell, Robert A., and Vanek, Jaroslav, 3–21. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland Publishing.Google Scholar
Knack. 2007. National Study of Economic Public Opinion. Buenos Aires: Knack Argentina.Google Scholar
Leamer, Edward E. 1984. Sources of International Comparative Advantage: Theory and Evidence. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Irwin P., Schneider, Sandra L., and Gaeth, Gary J.. 1998. All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 76 (2):149–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lodge, Milton, and Taber, Charles. 2000. Three Steps Toward a Theory of Motivated Political Reasoning. In Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality, edited by Lupia, Arthur, McCubbins, Mathew D., and Popkin, Samuel L., 183–213. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDougall, George D.A. 1951. British and American Exports: A Study Suggested by the Theory of Comparative Costs. The Economic Journal 61 (244):697–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansfield, Edward D., and Mutz, Diana C.. 2009. Support for Free Trade: Self-Interest, Sociotropic Politics, and Out-Group Anxiety. International Organization 63 (3):425–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayda, Anna Maria, and Rodrik, Dani. 2005. Why Are Some People (and Countries) More Protectionist Than Others? European Economic Review 49 (6):1393–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melitz, Marc J. 2003. The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity. Econometrica 71 (6):1695–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Paul M., and Fagley, Nancy S.. 1991. The Effects of Framing, Problem Variations, and Providing Rationale on Choice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 17 (5):517–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milner, Helen V. 1988. Resisting Protectionism: Global Industries and the Politics of International Trade. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mussa, Michael. 1974. Tariffs and the Distribution of Income: The Importance of Factor Specificity, Substitutability, and Intensity in the Short and Long Run. Journal of Political Economy 82 (6):1191–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Donnell, Guillermo. 1977. Estado y Alianzas en La Argentina, 1956–1976. Desarrollo Económico 16 (64):523–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Rourke, Kevin H., and Sinnott, Richard. 2001. The Determinants of Individual Trade Policy Preferences: International Survey Evidence. Brookings Trade Forum:157–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poliarquía. 2011. Inflation Perception Series, 2006–2011 (Public Opinion Survey). Buenos Aires: Poliarquía Consultores.Google Scholar
Rogowski, Ronald. 1989. Commerce and Coalitions: How Trade Affects Domestic Political Alignments. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. 1971. Ohlin Was Right. Swedish Journal of Economics 73 (4):365–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheve, Kenneth F., and Slaughter, Matthew J.. 2001. What Determines Individual Trade-Policy Preferences? Journal of International Economics 54 (2):267–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sears, David O., and Funk, Carolyn L.. 1991. The Role of Self-Interest in Social and Political Attitudes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 24:1–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sieck, Winston, and Yates, J. Frank. 1997. Exposition Effects on Decision Making: Choice and Confidence in Choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 70 (3):207–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slaughter, Matthew J. 1999. Globalization and Wages: A Tale of Two Perspectives. World Economy 22 (5):609–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, Keith E., and West, Richard F.. 1998. Individual Differences in Framing and Conjunction Effects. Thinking and Reasoning 4 (4):289–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stolper, Wolfgang Friedrich, and Samuelson, Paul A.. 1941. Protection and Real Wages. Review of Economic Studies 9 (1):58–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taber, Charles S. 2003. Information Processing and Public Opinion. In Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, edited by Sears, David O., Huddy, Leonie, and Jervis, Robert, 433–76. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tversky, Amos, and Kahneman, Daniel. 1981. The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science 211 (4481):453–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verhoogen, Eric A. 2008. Trade, Quality Upgrading, and Wage Inequality in the Mexican Manufacturing Sector. Quarterly Journal of Economics 123 (2):489–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Ardanaz et al. supplementary material

Supplementary data

Download Ardanaz et al. supplementary material(File)
File 839 Bytes