Trade as a Foreign Policy Issue: A Bilateral Micro Perspective

Sattler, Thomas; Schweinberger, Tanja

doi:10.2139/ssrn.3468070

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this vein, the article also contributes to better understanding of how the impact of other countries' behavior on policy support is dependent upon exactly which countries are involved. Across many global issues, from trade to foreign direct investment, individuals differ in their support for policy reacting to other countries' behavior dependent on whether they are allies or adversaries (Chilton et al 2017;Herrmann et al 2001;Sattler and Schweinberger 2020;Spilker et al 2016). We find that the importance of such reference points also affects the relevance of other countries' behavior.…”

mentioning

confidence: 83%

“…First, which countries performance is benchmarked against, and their actions, may influence policy support. Across many global issues, individuals differ in their support for policy reacting to other countries' behavior dependent on whether they are allies or adversaries (Chilton et al 2017;Herrmann et al 2001;Sattler and Schweinberger 2020;Spilker et al 2016).…”

Section: Information and Reference Groupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Domestic Provision of Global Public Goods: How Other Countries’ Behavior Affects Public Support for Climate Policy

Beiser‐McGrath¹,

Bernauer²

2022

Global Environmental Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When considering public support for domestic policies that contribute to a global public good, such as climate change mitigation, the behavior of other countries is commonly regarded as pivotal. Using survey experiments in China and the United States we find that other countries’ behavior matters for public opinion, but in a contingent manner. When citizens learn that other countries decrease their emissions, this leads to support for further domestic action. Yet, support for reciprocal behavior is not a necessary consequence of other countries increasing their emissions. Responding in-kind to emissions increases abroad depends upon the home country’s past behavior and who the other country is. Our results imply that the international context remains important, despite global climate policy now relying more on unilateral action and polycentric governance. They also show, however, that we need to pay greater attention to contingent effects of countries’ positive and negative behavior in this area.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 83%

Section: Information and Reference Groupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Domestic Provision of Global Public Goods: How Other Countries’ Behavior Affects Public Support for Climate Policy

Beiser‐McGrath¹,

Bernauer²

2022

Global Environmental Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Trade Wars and Election Interference

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In response to the Trump trade war, China, the EU, and other countries enacted politically-targeted trade retaliation (PTTR) against swing states and Republican strongholds in the United States. We argue that PTTR increases public concerns about foreign election interference and assess the effects of such retaliation across partisan affiliations. We test our predictions using a national survey experiment in the United States fielded before the 2020 election. In contrast to findings about sanctions and foreign endorsements, we find strong evidence that PTTR increases fears of election interference among both Republicans and Democrats. Partisan double standards in reaction to PTTR were strongest for retaliation targeting swing states and smaller for retaliation targeting the President’s base. Overall, the evidence shows that economic policies which are not primarily intended to influence elections may nevertheless come to be viewed by the public as foreign election interference.

show abstract

Public opinion on trading with the enemy: Trade’s effects on the risk of war

Beesley,

Oak

2024

Journal of Peace Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While studies show that the public disapproves of trade with adversaries, political discourse has historically used security rhetoric to both justify and oppose trade with threatening states. Does emphasizing the potential of trade to exacerbate or mitigate security risks sway public opinion? Is public opinion malleable regardless of the level of threat? These questions become increasingly important as security and economic interactions between states become more intertwined. In a 2019 survey experiment, Ukrainian citizens report more optimism about the effects of trade with Russia (engaged in conflict with Ukraine since 2014) when told that trade decreases security risks. They are more pessimistic when presented with information that trade increases the risk of conflict. In contrast, attitudes about trade with a non-threatening trading partner (the European Union) are unaffected. This study demonstrates that the security effects of trade can both improve and worsen attitudes about trade with politically salient adversaries, even in the context of actual conflict. However, security rhetoric is unlikely to change public opinion about trade with non-threatening states unless they are viewed as reliable allies. Public opinion about trade, thus, responds to rhetoric about security, rather than representing an inflexible constraint on firms’ and states’ trade with adversaries.

show abstract

Trade as a Foreign Policy Issue: A Bilateral Micro Perspective

Cited by 3 publications

References 29 publications

Domestic Provision of Global Public Goods: How Other Countries’ Behavior Affects Public Support for Climate Policy

Domestic Provision of Global Public Goods: How Other Countries’ Behavior Affects Public Support for Climate Policy

Trade Wars and Election Interference

Public opinion on trading with the enemy: Trade’s effects on the risk of war

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About