1932

Abstract

This article reviews the cumulation of evidence from survey experiments in the field of international political economy (IPE) and discusses their strengths and weaknesses in explaining the backlash against globalization. I first review the advancements made by the most commonly used survey experiment design in IPE, namely the Globalization-as-Treatment design, in which scholars randomly assign information about different features of globalization and solicit respondents’ attitudes toward protectionism. Then I discuss three issues with this design in addressing key puzzles in the emergence of globalization backlash: () using a coarse informational treatment that stacks the deck against the economic self-interest hypothesis; () overattributing globalization as a source of hardship; and () neglecting heterogeneous room-to-maneuver beliefs across and within countries. The article suggests alternative designs and strategies to study these questions. Evidence from survey experiments suggests that much of the globalization backlash we witness today is deeply rooted in domestic politics.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050317-063806
2020-05-11
2024-06-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/polisci/23/1/annurev-polisci-050317-063806.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050317-063806&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Acemoglu D, Robinson JA. 2001. Inefficient redistribution. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 95:3649–61
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahlquist JS, Copelovitch M, Walter S 2020. The political consequences from external economic shocks: evidence from Poland. Am. J. Political Sci. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Andreoni J, Vesterlund L. 2001. Which is the fair sex? Gender differences in altruism. Q. J. Econ. 116:1293–312
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Antràs P, Staiger RW. 2012. Offshoring and the role of trade agreements. Am. Econ. Rev. 102:73140–83
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Ardanaz M, Murillo MV, Pinto PM 2013. Sensitivity to issue framing on trade policy preferences: evidence from a survey experiment. Int. Organ. 67:2411–37
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Autor DH, Dorn D, Hanson GH 2013. The China syndrome: local labor market effects of import competition in the United States. Am. Econ. Rev. 103:62121–68
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Autor D, Dorn D, Hanson G, Majlesi K 2016. Importing political polarization? The electoral consequences of rising trade exposure NBER Work. Pap. w22637
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Baker A. 2015. Race, paternalism, and foreign aid: evidence from US public opinion. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 109:193–109
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Ballard-Rosa C, Malik M, Rickard S, Scheve K 2017. The economic origins of authoritarian values: evidence from local trade shocks in the United Kingdom Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Political Economy Society Austin, TX:
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bearce DH, Tuxhorn KL. 2017. When are monetary policy preferences egocentric? Evidence from American surveys and an experiment. Am. J. Political Sci. 61:1178–93
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bechtel MM, Hainmueller J, Margalit Y 2014. Preferences for international redistribution: the divide over the Eurozone bailouts. Am. J. Political Sci 58:4835–56
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Becker SO, Fetzer T, Novy D 2017. Who voted for Brexit? A comprehensive district-level analysis. Econ. Policy 32:92601–50
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bisbee J. 2019. What you see out your front door: how political beliefs respond to local trade shocks Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association Chicago, IL:
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Borjas GJ. 1999. The economic analysis of immigration. In Handbook of Labor Economics, Vol. 3 OC Ashenfelter, D Card 1697–760 Amsterdam: Elsevier
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Bullock JG, Green DP, Ha SE 2010. Yes, but what's the mechanism? (Don't expect an easy answer). J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 98:4550
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Bullock JG, Gerber AS, Hill SJ, Huber GA 2015. Partisan bias in factual beliefs about politics. Q. J. Political Sci. 10:4519–78
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Campello D. 2015. The Politics of Market Discipline in Latin America: Globalization and Democracy New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Chiang CF, Kuo J, Naoi M, Liu JT 2017. What do voters learn from foreign news? Emulation, backlash, and public support for trade agreements Paper presented at the Council of East Asian Studies, Yale Univ New Haven, CT:
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Chilton AS, Milner HV, Tingley D 2020. Reciprocity and public opposition to foreign direct investment. Br. J. Political Sci. 50:1129–53
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Colantone I, Stanig P. 2018. Global competition and Brexit. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 112:2201–18
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Craig MA, Richeson JA. 2014. On the precipice of a “majority-minority” America: perceived status threat from the racial demographic shift affects White Americans’ political ideology. Psychol. Sci. 25:61189–97
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Cramer KJ. 2016. The Politics of Resentment: Rural Consciousness in Wisconsin and the Rise of Scott Walker Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Díez FJ. 2014. The asymmetric effects of tariffs on intra-firm trade and offshoring decisions. J. Int. Econ. 93:176–91
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Duch RM, Stevenson RT. 2008. The Economic Vote: How Political and Economic Institutions Condition Election Results New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Dunwoody PT, Funke F. 2016. The aggression-submission-conventionalism scale: testing a new three factor measure of authoritarianism. J. Soc. Political Psychol 4:2571–600
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Fehr E, Schmidt KM 1999. A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Q. J. Econ 114:3817–68
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Fernández-Albertos J, Kuo A, Balcells L 2013. Economic crisis, globalization, and partisan bias: evidence from Spain. Int. Stud. Q. 57:4804–16
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Findley MG, Harris AS, Milner HV, Nielson DL 2017. Who controls foreign aid? Elite versus public perceptions of donor influence in aid-dependent Uganda. Int. Organ. 71:4633–63
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Gerber AS, Huber GA. 2010. Partisanship, political control, and economic assessments. Am. J. Political Sci. 54:1153–73
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Goldstein JL, Peters ME. 2014. Nativism or economic threat: attitudes toward immigrants during the great recession. Int. Interact. 40:3376–401
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Gomez BT, Wilson JM. 2001. Political sophistication and economic voting in the American electorate: a theory of heterogeneous attribution. Am. J. Political Sci. 45:4899–914
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Gomez BT, Wilson JM. 2003. Causal attribution and economic voting in American congressional elections. Political Res. Q. 56:3271–82
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Guisinger A. 2009. Determining trade policy: Do voters hold politicians accountable?. Int. Organ. 63:3533–57
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Guisinger A. 2017. American Opinion on Trade: Preferences Without Politics New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Hainmueller J, Hiscox MJ. 2006. Learning to love globalization: education and individual attitudes toward international trade. Int. Organ. 60:2469–98
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Hainmueller J, Hiscox MJ. 2010. Attitudes toward highly skilled and low-skilled immigration: evidence from a survey experiment. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 104:161–84
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Hainmueller J, Hiscox MJ, Margalit Y 2015. Do concerns about labor market competition shape attitudes toward immigration? New evidence. J. Int. Econ. 97:1193–207
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Hainmueller J, Hopkins DJ. 2015. The hidden American immigration consensus: a conjoint analysis of attitudes toward immigrants. Am. J. Political Sci. 59:3529–48
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Hainmueller J, Hopkins DJ, Yamamoto T 2014. Causal inference in conjoint analysis: understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political Anal 22:11–30
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Hanson GH, Scheve K, Slaughter MJ 2007. Public finance and individual preferences over globalization strategies. Econ. Politics 19:11–33
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Hellwig TT, Ringsmuth EM, Freeman JR 2008. The American public and the room to maneuver: responsibility attributions and policy efficacy in an era of globalization. Int. Stud. Q. 52:4855–80
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Hiscox MJ. 2006. Through a glass and darkly: attitudes toward international trade and the curious effects of issue framing. Int. Organ. 60:3755–80
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Hummels D, Jørgensen R, Munch J, Xiang C 2014. The wage effects of offshoring: evidence from Danish matched worker-firm data. Am. Econ. Rev. 104:61597–629
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Imai K, Keele L, Tingley D, Yamamoto T 2011. Unpacking the black box of causality: learning about causal mechanisms from experimental and observational studies. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 105:4765–89
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Jensen JB, Quinn DP, Weymouth S 2017. Winners and losers in international trade: the effects on US presidential voting. Int. Organ. 71:3423–57
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Kayser MA, Peress M. 2012. Benchmarking across borders: electoral accountability and the necessity of comparison. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 106:3661–84
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Kim IS. 2017. Political cleavages within industry: firm-level lobbying for trade liberalization. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 111:11–20
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Kim IS, Milner HV, Bernauer T, Osgood I, Spilker G, Tingley D 2019. Firms and global value chains: identifying firms’ multidimensional trade preferences. Int. Stud. Q. 63:1153–67
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Kosmidis S. 2018. International constraints and electoral decisions: Does the room to maneuver attenuate economic voting?. Am. J. Political Sci. 62:3519–34
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Kuk JS, Seligsohn D, Zhang JJ 2018. From Tiananmen to outsourcing: the effect of rising import competition on congressional voting towards China. J. Contemp. China 27:109103–19
    [Google Scholar]
  51. X, Scheve K, Slaughter MJ 2012. Inequity aversion and the international distribution of trade protection. Am. J. Political Sci. 56:3638–54
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Major B, Blodorn A, Major Blascovich G 2018. The threat of increasing diversity: why many White Americans support Trump in the 2016 presidential election. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 21:6931–40
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Malhotra N, Margalit Y, Mo CH 2013. Economic explanations for opposition to immigration: distinguishing between prevalence and conditional impact. Am. J. Political Sci. 57:2391–410
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Mansfield ED, Mutz DC. 2009. Support for free trade: self-interest, sociotropic politics, and out-group anxiety. Int. Organ. 63:3425–57
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Mansfield ED, Mutz DC. 2013. US versus them: mass attitudes toward offshore outsourcing. World Politics 65:4571–608
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Mansfield ED, Mutz DC, Brackbill D 2016. Effects of the Great Recession on American attitudes toward trade. Br. J. Political Sci. 49:11–22
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Margalit Y. 2012. Lost in globalization: international economic integration and the sources of popular discontent. Int. Stud. Q. 56:3484–500
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Margalit Y. 2013. Explaining social policy preferences: evidence from the Great Recession. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 107:180–103
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Melitz MJ. 2003. The impact of trade on intra‐industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity. Econometrica 71:61695–725
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Montgomery JM, Nyhan B, Torres M 2018. How conditioning on posttreatment variables can ruin your experiment and what to do about it. Am. J. Political Sci. 62:3760–75
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Mummolo J, Peterson E. 2019. Demand effects in survey experiments: an empirical assessment. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 113:2517–29
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Mutz DC. 2018. Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote. PNAS 115:19E4330–E4339
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Mutz DC, Kim E. 2017. The impact of in-group favoritism on trade preferences. Int. Organ. 71:4827–50
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Naoi M. 2015. Building Legislative Coalitions for Free Trade in Asia: Globalization as Legislation New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Naoi M. 2018. Voting with the wallet: consumers, income-earners and the new politics of economic crisis Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Political Economy Society Cambridge, MA:
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Naoi M. 2019. Does trade-originated income shock mobilize higher backlash against free trade? Experimental evidence from the United States and Japan Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association Washington, DC:
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Naoi M, Kume I. 2011. Explaining mass support for agricultural protectionism: evidence from a survey experiment during the global recession. Int. Organ. 65:4771–95
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Naoi M, Kume I. 2015. Workers or consumers? A survey experiment on the duality of citizens’ interests in the politics of trade. Comp. Political Stud. 48:101293–317
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Naoi M, Shi W, Zhu B 2019. “Yes-Man” Firms: government campaigns and policy positioning of businesses in China 21st Century China Cent. Res. Pap 2017–03
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Naoi M, Urata S. 2013. Free trade agreements and domestic politics: the case of the Trans‐Pacific Partnership Agreement. Asian Econ. Policy Rev. 8:2326–49
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Norris P, Inglehart R. 2019. Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit, and Authoritarian Populism New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Owen E, Johnston NP. 2017. Occupation and the political economy of trade: job routineness, offshorability, and protectionist sentiment. Int. Organ. 71:4665–99
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Pandya SS, Venkatesan R. 2016. French roast: consumer response to international conflict—evidence from supermarket scanner data. Rev. Econ. Stat. 98:142–56
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Rho S, Tomz M. 2017. Why don't trade preferences reflect economic self-interest?. Int. Organ. 71:S85–S108
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Rickard SJ. 2012. Welfare versus subsidies: governmental spending decisions in an era of globalization. J. Politics 74:41171–83
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Rickard SJ. 2015. Compensating the losers: an examination of congressional votes on trade adjustment assistance. Int. Interact 41:146–60
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Rickard SJ 2018. Incumbents beware: the impact of offshoring on elections Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Political Economy Society Cambridge, MA:
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Ruggie JG. 1982. International regimes, transactions, and change: embedded liberalism in the postwar economic order. Int. Organ. 36:2379–415
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Singer DA, Quek K. 2017. Attitudes toward internal and foreign migration: evidence from a survey experiment in China Res. Pap. 2017–28, Political Sci. Dep Mass. Inst. Technol:.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Stephens-Davidowitz S, Pabon A. 2017. Everybody Lies: Big Data, New Data, and What the Internet Can Tell Us About Who We Really Are New York: HarperCollins
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Tella RD, Rodrik D. 2019. Labor market shocks and the demand for trade protection: evidence from online surveys NBER Work. Pap. w25705
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Vreeland JR. 2003. The IMF and Economic Development New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  83. White House 2016. Statement by the President on the signing of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Off. Press Sec., Feb. 3. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/02/03/statement-president-signing-trans-pacific-partnership. Accessed Sep. 14, 2019
  84. Zmigrod L, Rentfrow PJ, Robbins TW 2018. Cognitive underpinnings of nationalistic ideology in the context of Brexit. PNAS 115:19E4532–E4540
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050317-063806
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050317-063806
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error