Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T07:12:49.322Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Who Settles Disputes? Treaty Design and Trade Attitudes Toward the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 September 2019

Hyeonho Hahm Open the ORCID record for Hyeonho Hahm [Opens in a new window] ,
Thomas König Open the ORCID record for Thomas König [Opens in a new window] ,
Moritz Osnabrügge  and
Elena Frech Open the ORCID record for Elena Frech [Opens in a new window]
Get access

Abstract

What type of trade agreement is the public willing to accept? Instead of focusing on individual concerns about market access and trade barriers, we argue that specific treaty design and, in particular, the characteristics of the dispute settlement mechanism, play a critical role in shaping public support for trade agreements. To examine this theoretical expectation, we conduct a conjoint experiment that varies diverse treaty-design elements and estimate preferences over multiple dimensions of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) based on a nationally representative sample in Germany. We find that compared to other alternatives, private arbitration, known as investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), generates strong opposition to the trade agreement. As the single most important factor, this effect of dispute settlement characteristic is strikingly large and consistent across individuals’ key attributes, including skill levels, information, and national sentiment, among others.

Keywords

Trade preferencespublic opiniontreaty designdispute settlement mechanismsISDStrade agreementTTIPconjoint analysis
Type
Research Note
Information
International Organization , Volume 73 , Issue 4 , Fall 2019 , pp. 881 - 900
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 2019 

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

Abbott, Kenneth W., Keohane, Robert O., Moravcsik, Andrew, Slaughter, Anne-Marie, and Snidal, Duncan. 2000. The Concept of Legalization. International Organization 54 (3):401–19.Google Scholar
Abbott, Kenneth W., and Snidal, Duncan. 2000. Hard and Soft Law in International Governance. International Organization 54 (3):421–56.Google Scholar
Allee, Todd, and Peinhardt, Clint. 2010. Delegating Differences: Bilateral Investment Treaties and Bargaining Over Dispute Resolution Provisions. International Studies Quarterly 54 (1):1–26.Google Scholar
Allee, Todd, and Peinhardt, Clint. 2014. Evaluating Three Explanations for the Design of Bilateral Investment Treaties. World Politics 66 (1):47–87.Google Scholar
Allee, Todd, and Elsig, Manfred. 2016. Why Do Some International Institutions Contain Strong Dispute Settlement Provisions? New Evidence from Preferential Trade Agreements. The Review of International Organizations 11 (1):89–120.Google Scholar
Bechtel, Michael M., Hainmueller, Jens, and Margalit, Yotam M.. 2017. Policy Design and Domestic Support for International Bailouts. European Journal of Political Research 56 (4):864–86.Google Scholar
Bechtel, Michael M., and Scheve, Kenneth. 2013. Mass Support for Global Climate Agreements Depends on Institutional Design. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110 (34):13763–68.Google Scholar
Blake, Daniel J. 2013. Thinking Ahead: Government Time Horizons and the Legalization of International Investment Agreements. International Organization 67 (4):797–827.Google Scholar
Bluth, Christian. 2016. Attitudes to Global Trade and TTIP in Germany and the United States. Global Economic Dynamics Study, Bertelsmann Stiftung. Available at <https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/en/publications/publication/did/attitudes-to-global-trade-and-ttip-in-germany-and-the-united-states/>..>Google Scholar
Büthe, Tim, and Milner, Helen V.. 2008. The Politics of Foreign Direct Investment into Developing Countries: Increasing FDI through International Trade Agreements? American Journal of Political Science 52 (4):741–62.Google Scholar
Büthe, Tim, and Milner, Helen V.. 2014. Foreign Direct Investment and Institutional Diversity in Trade Agreements: Credibility, Commitment, and Economic Flows in the Developing World, 1971–2007. World Politics 66 (1):88–122.Google Scholar
Carrubba, Clifford J. 2005. Courts and Compliance in International Regulatory Regimes. Journal of Politics 67 (3):669–89.Google Scholar
———.Carrubba, Clifford J. 2009. A Model of the Endogenous Development of Judicial Institutions in Federal and International Systems. The Journal of Politics 71 (1):55–69.Google Scholar
Chaudoin, Stephen. 2014. Audience Features and the Strategic Timing of Trade Disputes. International Organization 68 (4):877–911.Google Scholar
Dai, Xinyuan. 2005. Why Comply? The Domestic Constituency Mechanism. International Organization 59 (2):363–98.Google Scholar
Davis, Christina L. 2012. Why Adjudicate? Enforcing Trade Rules in the WTO. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Downs, George W., Rocke, David M., and Barsoom, Peter N.. 1996. Is the Good News About Compliance Good News About Cooperation? International Organization 50 (3):379–406.Google Scholar
Dür, Andreas, Baccini, Leonardo, and Elsig, Manfred. 2014. The Design of International Trade Agreements: Introducing a New Dataset. The Review of International Organizations 9 (3):353–75.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, Sean D., and Hearn, Eddie. 2014. Does Compensating the Losers Increase Support for Trade? An Experimental Test of the Embedded Liberalism Thesis. Foreign Policy Analysis 10 (2):149–64.Google Scholar
Elkins, Zachary, Guzman, Andrew T., and Simmons, Beth A.. 2006. Competing for Capital: The Diffusion of Bilateral Investment Treaties, 1960–2000. International Organization 60 (4):811–46.Google Scholar
Fang, Songying. 2008. The Informational Role of International Institutions and Domestic Politics. American Journal of Political Science 52 (2):304–21.Google Scholar
Gibson, James L., Caldeira, Gregory A., and Baird, Vanessa. 1998. On the Legitimacy of National High Courts. American Political Science Review 92 (2):343–58.Google Scholar
Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., Puig, Sergio, and Victor, David G.. 2016. Against Secrecy: The Social Cost of International Dispute Settlement. Yale Journal of International Law 42 (2):279–343.Google Scholar
Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., Steinert-Threlkeld, Zachary C., and Victor, David G.. 2016. Predictability Versus Flexibility: Secrecy in International Investment Arbitration. World Politics 68 (3):413–53.Google Scholar
Haftel, Yoram Z. 2013. Commerce and Institutions: Trade, Scope, and the Design of Regional Economic Organizations. Review of International Organizations 8 (3):389–414.Google 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.Google Scholar
Hainmueller, Jens, and Hopkins, Daniel J.. 2015. The Hidden American Immigration Consensus: A Conjoint Analysis of Attitudes Toward Immigrants. American Journal of Political Science 59 (3):529–48.Google Scholar
Hainmueller, Jens, Hopkins, Daniel J., and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2014a. Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments. Political Analysis 22 (1):1–30.Google Scholar
Hainmueller, Jens, Hopkins, Daniel J., and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2014b. cjoint: Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments. R package version: 2.1.0. Available at <https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=cjoint>..>Google Scholar
Hays, Jude C., Ehrlich, Sean D., and Peinhardt, Clint. 2005. Government Spending and Public Support for Trade in the OECD: An Empirical Test of the Embedded Liberalism Thesis. International Organization 59 (2):473–94.Google Scholar
Hicks, Raymond, Milner, Helen V., and Tingley, Dustin. 2014. Trade Policy, Economic Interests, and Party Politics in a Developing Country: The Political Economy of CAFTA-DR. International Studies Quarterly 58 (1):106–17.Google Scholar
Hiscox, Michael J. 2006. Through a Glass and Darkly: Attitudes Toward International Trade and the Curious Effects of Issue Framing. International Organization 60 (3):755–80.Google Scholar
Hug, Simon, and König, Thomas. 2002. In View of Ratification: Governmental Preferences and Domestic Constraints at the Amsterdam Intergovernmental Conference. International Organization 56 (2):447–76.Google Scholar
Johns, Leslie. 2014. Depth Versus Rigidity in the Design of International Trade Agreements. Journal of Theoretical Politics 26 (3):468–95.Google Scholar
Johns, Leslie, and Peritz, Lauren. 2015. The Design of Trade Agreements. In The Oxford Handbook of the Political Economy of International Trade, edited by Martin, Lisa L., 337–59. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kerner, Andrew. 2009. Why Should I Believe You? The Costs and Consequences of Bilateral Investment Treaties. International Studies Quarterly 53 (1):73–102.Google Scholar
Kim, Song, Milner, Helen V., Bernauer, Thomas, Spilker, Gabriele, Osgood, Iain, and Tingley, Dustin. 2019. Firms’ Preferences Over Multidimensional Trade Policies: Global Production Chains, Investment Protection and Dispute Settlement Mechanisms. International Studies Quarterly 63 (1):153–67.Google Scholar
Koremenos, Barbara, Lipson, Charles, and Snidal, Duncan. 2001. The Rational Design of International Institutions. International Organization 55 (4):761–99.Google Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A. 1999. Survey Research. Annual Review of Psychology 50 (1):537–67.Google Scholar
Kucik, Jeffrey, and Pelc, Krzysztof J.. 2016. Measuring the Cost of Privacy: A Look at the Distributional Effects of Private Bargaining. British Journal of Political Science 46 (4):861–89.Google Scholar
Kucik, Jeffrey, and Reinhardt, Eric. 2008. Does Flexibility Promote Cooperation? An Application to the Global Trade Regime. International Organization 62 (3):477–505.Google Scholar
Leeds, Brett A. 1999. Domestic Political Institutions, Credible Commitments, and International Cooperation. American Journal of Political Science 43 (4):979–1002.Google Scholar
Lupia, Arthur, and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 1998. The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mansfield, Edward D., Milner, Helen V., and Rosendorff, B. Peter. 2002. Why Democracies Cooperate More: Electoral Control and International Trade Agreements. International Organization 56 (3):477–513.Google Scholar
Mansfield, Edward D., and Mutz, Diana C.. 2009. Support for Free Trade: Politics and Out-Group Anxiety. International Organization 63 (3):425–57.Google Scholar
Mansfield, Edward D., and Pevehouse, Jon C.. 2006. Democratization and International Organizations. International Organization 60 (1):137–67.Google 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.Google Scholar
Mckibben, Heather E. 2016. To Link or Not to Link? Agenda Change in International Bargaining. British Journal of Political Science 46 (2):371–93.Google Scholar
Mutz, Diana C., and Kim, Eunji. 2017. The Impact of In-group Favoritism on Trade Preferences. International Organization 71 (4):827–50.Google Scholar
Naoi, Megumi, and Urata, Shujiro. 2013. Free Trade Agreements and Domestic Politics: The Case of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. Asian Economic Policy Review 8 (2):326–49.Google Scholar
O'Rourke, Kevin H., Sinnott, Richard, David Richardson, J., and Rodrik, Dani. 2001. The Determinants of Individual Trade-Policy Preferences: International Survey Evidence. Brookings Trade Forum: 157–206.Google Scholar
Poulsen, Lauge N. Skovgaard, and Aisbett, Emma. 2013. When the Claim Hits: Bilateral Investment Treaties and Bounded Rational Learning. World Politics 65 (2):273–313.Google Scholar
Rho, Sungmin, and Tomz, Michael. 2017. Why Don't Trade Preferences Reflect Economic Self-Interest? International Organization 71 (S1):S85–S108.Google Scholar
Rosendorff, B. Peter. 2005. Stability and Rigidity: Politics and Design of the WTO's Dispute Settlement Procedure. American Political Science Review 99 (3):389–400.Google Scholar
Rosendorff, B. Peter. 2015. Domestic Politics and International Trade Disputes. In The Oxford Handbook of the Political Economy of International Trade, edited by Martin, Lisa L., 138–51. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rosendorff, B. Peter, and Milner, Helen V.. 2001. The Optimal Design of International Trade Institutions: Uncertainty and Escape. International Organization 55 (4):829–57.Google Scholar
Scheve, Kenneth F., and Slaughter, Matthew J.. 2001a. Globalization and the Perceptions of American Workers. Peterson Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
Scheve, Kenneth F., and Slaughter, Matthew J.. 2001b. What Determines Individual Trade-policy Preferences? Journal of International Economics 54 (2):267–92.Google Scholar
Simmons, Beth A. 2014. Bargaining Over BITs, Arbitrating Awards: The Regime for Protection and Promotion of International Investment. World Politics 66 (1):12–46.Google Scholar
Thompson, Alexander, Broude, Tomer, and Haftel, Yoram Z.. 2019. Once Bitten, Twice Shy? Investment Disputes, State Sovereignty, and Change in Treaty Design. International Organization 73 (4). <https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818319000195>>Google Scholar
Tsebelis, George, and Hahm, Hyeonho. 2014. Suspending Vetoes: How the Euro Countries Achieved Unanimity in the Fiscal Compact. Journal of European Public Policy 21 (10):1388–411.Google Scholar
UNCTAD. 2014. Investor-State Dispute Settlement: A Sequel. UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements II.Google Scholar
Wellhausen, Rachel L. 2019. International Investment Law and Foreign Direct Reinvestment. International Organization 73 (4). <https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818319000225>>Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Hahm et al. supplementary material

Appendix

Download Hahm et al. supplementary material(File)
File 2.1 MB