How Much is One American Worth? How Competition Affects Trade Preferences

Abstract

When forming opinions, mass publics may implicitly or explicitly value some people’s well-being more than others. Here we examine how two forms of this phenomenon—ethnocentric valuation and moral exclusion—affect attitudes toward international trade. We hypothesize that attitudes toward competition and believing that trade is a competition moderate the extent of ethnocentric valuation and moral exclusion; although all citizens value their co-nationals’ livelihoods systematically more than those of people in trading partner countries, greater ethnocentric valuation and moral exclusion occur when trade is seen as a competition and when individuals hold more positive attitudes toward competition. Using two survey experiments conducted on representative samples of both Americans and Canadians, we examine how differential valuation of in-country and out-country job gains and losses influences trade policy preferences. We test a series of hypotheses using multiple variables tied to competitive attitudes across two countries that differ in their attitudes toward competition.

The delusive economy: how information and affect colour perceptions of national economic performance

“…Ideological orientation, for example, informs immigration attitudes more than presumed selfinterest (Hainmueller and Hiscox 2007). Wolfe and Mendelsohn (2005) come to similar conclusions about Canadian trade attitudes, while Mansfield and Mutz (2013) and Mutz and Lee (2020) find ideological orientation to dominate US citizen views of trade policy and offshoring by American companies. Legge and Rainey (2003) see German attitudes towards privatization shaped by basic ideological orientation rather than by self-interested calculation.…”

International Investment Disputes, Media Coverage, and Backlash Against International Law

“…We build from studies of mass attitudes towards foreign policy and trade policy, which highlight the importance of attitudes towards in-groups and out-groups for how individuals react to international economic phenomena (Brutger and Rathbun, 2020; Mansfield and Mutz, 2009; Mutz and Kim, 2017). In the context of international trade, Mutz and Lee (2020, 1181) note that “nations serve as highly salient group memberships” such that international economics (trade agreements) generates “ethnocentric valuation,” which we expect to be highly salient in ISDS. Therefore, the public uses news coverage about who initiates the dispute and who is the defendant as a cue to who ultimately wins and losses when international law is applied.…”

Institutional Design, Information Transmission, and Public Opinion: Making the Case for Trade

“…This is consistent with work by Brutger and Clark (2020), who find that portions of the American public (conservatives) have greater support for the World Bank when they learn about the United States' influence in the organization. When it comes to trade, Mutz and Lee (2020) find that some members of the public view trade through a competitive lens, where they prefer that their nation's interests are prioritized. Having a veto vote should act as a strong signal to the public that the country can protect its interests and wield significant control in the negotiation, which should be appealing to many members of the public.…”

“…Past research has shown that ethnocentrism and out-group anxiety lead to less support for free trade (Mansfield and Mutz 2009). It is also the case that Americans prefer that trade benefits their in-group, not just in terms of absolute gains but also in terms of gains relative to the out-group (Mutz and Kim 2017; Mutz and Lee 2020). We expect that a more diverse membership to an agreement signals to the public that out-groups are benefiting, and gives rise to more competitive attitudes in trade, thereby reducing support for proposed trade agreements.…”

“…We expect that a more diverse membership to an agreement signals to the public that out-groups are benefiting, and gives rise to more competitive attitudes in trade, thereby reducing support for proposed trade agreements. This could be due to ethnocentrism (Mutz and Lee 2020), but may also be due to the public’s concern that trade could lead to security concerns by providing more resources to adversaries (Carnegie and Gaikwad 2021; Gowa and Mansfield 1993). A diverse set of countries is also likely to have heterogeneous preferences and interests, which will raise concerns among the public that the agreement is not in line with the national interest, or that it would require too many concessions to appease such a diverse set of countries.…”