Relative Gains in the Shadow of a Trade War

IF 8.2 1区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS International Organization Pub Date : 2022-03-04 DOI:10.1017/S0020818322000030
Eddy S. F. Yeung, Kai Quek
{"title":"Relative Gains in the Shadow of a Trade War","authors":"Eddy S. F. Yeung, Kai Quek","doi":"10.1017/S0020818322000030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract When do people care about relative gains in trade? Much of the international relations scholarship—and much of the political rhetoric on trade—would lead us to expect support for a trade policy that benefits ourselves more than it benefits others. Yet, a large interdisciplinary literature also points to the prevalence and importance of other-regarding preferences, rendering the conventional wisdom contestable. We investigate whether and how relative gains influence trade preferences through an original survey experiment in the midst of the China–US trade war. We find that in a win-win scenario, relative gains shape trade opinion: if both sides are gaining, people want to gain more than their foreign trade partner. However, these considerations are offset in a win-lose scenario where the other side is losing out. Relative-gains considerations causally affect opinion on trade, but not in a “beggar-thy-neighbor” or even a “beggar-thy-rival” situation. These findings contribute to our understanding of the role of relative gains in international relations and provide the first experimental evidence that relative-gains considerations can be offset by other-regarding preferences in international trade.","PeriodicalId":48388,"journal":{"name":"International Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Organization","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818322000030","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract When do people care about relative gains in trade? Much of the international relations scholarship—and much of the political rhetoric on trade—would lead us to expect support for a trade policy that benefits ourselves more than it benefits others. Yet, a large interdisciplinary literature also points to the prevalence and importance of other-regarding preferences, rendering the conventional wisdom contestable. We investigate whether and how relative gains influence trade preferences through an original survey experiment in the midst of the China–US trade war. We find that in a win-win scenario, relative gains shape trade opinion: if both sides are gaining, people want to gain more than their foreign trade partner. However, these considerations are offset in a win-lose scenario where the other side is losing out. Relative-gains considerations causally affect opinion on trade, but not in a “beggar-thy-neighbor” or even a “beggar-thy-rival” situation. These findings contribute to our understanding of the role of relative gains in international relations and provide the first experimental evidence that relative-gains considerations can be offset by other-regarding preferences in international trade.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
贸易战阴影下的相对收益
人们什么时候关心贸易中的相对收益?许多国际关系的学术研究——以及许多关于贸易的政治言论——会让我们期望对一项对自己有利多于对他人有利的贸易政策的支持。然而,大量的跨学科文献也指出了与他人相关的偏好的普遍性和重要性,这使得传统智慧受到质疑。在中美贸易战中,我们通过一项原始调查实验来研究相对收益是否以及如何影响贸易偏好。我们发现,在双赢的情况下,相对收益会影响人们对贸易的看法:如果双方都受益,人们希望获得比其外贸伙伴更多的收益。然而,在输赢的情况下,这些考虑被抵消了,因为另一方输了。相对收益的考虑会影响人们对贸易的看法,但在“以邻为壑”甚至“以邻为壑”的情况下则不会。这些发现有助于我们理解相对收益在国际关系中的作用,并提供了第一个实验证据,证明相对收益的考虑可以被国际贸易中的其他方面的偏好所抵消。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.50
自引率
1.30%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: International Organization (IO) is a prominent peer-reviewed journal that comprehensively covers the field of international affairs. Its subject areas encompass foreign policies, international relations, political economy, security policies, environmental disputes, regional integration, alliance patterns, conflict resolution, economic development, and international capital movements. Continuously ranked among the top journals in the field, IO does not publish book reviews but instead features high-quality review essays that survey new developments, synthesize important ideas, and address key issues for future scholarship.
期刊最新文献
Foreign Policy Appointments Resources and Territorial Claims: Domestic Opposition to Resource-Rich Territory Violent Competition and Terrorist Restraint The Future Is History: Restorative Nationalism and Conflict in Post-Napoleonic Europe Security, Society, and the Perennial Struggles over the Sacred: Revising the Wars of Religion in International Relations Theory
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1