Instinctive Commercial Peace Theorists? Interpreting American Views of the US–China Trade War

IF 1.4 3区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Business and Politics Pub Date : 2022-07-11 DOI:10.1017/bap.2022.9
David Bulman
{"title":"Instinctive Commercial Peace Theorists? Interpreting American Views of the US–China Trade War","authors":"David Bulman","doi":"10.1017/bap.2022.9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Existing theories of individual trade preferences do not satisfactorily explain how security concerns should affect American support for the US–China trade war that began in 2018. Although existing theories of public attitudes toward international trade—economic self-interest, sociotropism, partisanship, reciprocity, and xenophobia—all help to explain initial support for the trade war, these hypotheses do not adequately explain citizen attitudes in the context of an increasingly adversarial and securitized bilateral US–China relationship. In particular, they do not address how rising security tensions affect trade preferences. Using nationally representative original survey data (n = 1,016) and a nonrepresentative survey with an embedded experiment (n = 1,015), this article argues that securitization of the bilateral economic relationship has spurred threat perceptions and given rise to a Cold War narrative that has in turn caused a substantial share of Americans to become less concerned with the economic outcomes of trade and more concerned with trade's effect on security. These Americans demonstrate an instinctive “commercial peace” response, seeing trade liberalization as a potential deterrent to conflict. The results challenge conventional wisdom on political support for the trade war and add depth to existing theories of individual trade preferences regarding the interaction between economic, security, and psychological motivations.","PeriodicalId":39749,"journal":{"name":"Business and Politics","volume":"23 1","pages":"430 - 462"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Business and Politics","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bap.2022.9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Existing theories of individual trade preferences do not satisfactorily explain how security concerns should affect American support for the US–China trade war that began in 2018. Although existing theories of public attitudes toward international trade—economic self-interest, sociotropism, partisanship, reciprocity, and xenophobia—all help to explain initial support for the trade war, these hypotheses do not adequately explain citizen attitudes in the context of an increasingly adversarial and securitized bilateral US–China relationship. In particular, they do not address how rising security tensions affect trade preferences. Using nationally representative original survey data (n = 1,016) and a nonrepresentative survey with an embedded experiment (n = 1,015), this article argues that securitization of the bilateral economic relationship has spurred threat perceptions and given rise to a Cold War narrative that has in turn caused a substantial share of Americans to become less concerned with the economic outcomes of trade and more concerned with trade's effect on security. These Americans demonstrate an instinctive “commercial peace” response, seeing trade liberalization as a potential deterrent to conflict. The results challenge conventional wisdom on political support for the trade war and add depth to existing theories of individual trade preferences regarding the interaction between economic, security, and psychological motivations.
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
本能的商业和平理论家?解读美国对中美贸易战的看法
现有的个人贸易优惠理论并不能令人满意地解释安全问题如何影响美国对2018年开始的中美贸易战的支持。尽管现有的关于公众对国际贸易态度的理论——经济上的自利、社会取向、党派之争、互惠和仇外心理——都有助于解释最初对贸易战的支持,但这些假设并不能充分解释在日益敌对和安全的中美双边关系背景下的公民态度。特别是,它们没有解决日益加剧的安全紧张局势如何影响贸易优惠。本文使用具有全国代表性的原始调查数据(n = 1,016)和一项带有嵌入式实验的非代表性调查(n = 1,015),认为双边经济关系的证券化刺激了对威胁的认知,并引发了冷战叙事,这反过来又导致相当一部分美国人不再那么关心贸易的经济结果,而是更关心贸易对安全的影响。这些美国人表现出一种本能的“商业和平”反应,将贸易自由化视为对冲突的潜在威慑。研究结果挑战了关于政治支持贸易战的传统观点,并加深了有关经济、安全和心理动机之间相互作用的个人贸易偏好的现有理论。
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
Business and Politics
Business and Politics Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
16.70%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Business and Politics solicits articles within the broad area of the interaction between firms and political actors. Two specific areas are of particular interest to the journal. The first concerns the use of non-market corporate strategy. These efforts include internal organizational design decisions as well as external strategies. Internal organizational design refers to management structure, sourcing decisions, and transnational organization with respect to the firm"s non-market environment. External strategies include legal tactics, testimony, lobbying and other means to influence policy makers at all levels of government and international institutions as an adjunct to market strategies of the firm.
期刊最新文献
Housebuilding, land, and structural power: the case of mortgage market support schemes in England Blue versus red: partisan firm leaders and corporate culture The Paradox of Algorithms and Blame on Public Decision-makers Tycoon candidates, electoral strategies, and voter support: a survey experiment in South Africa Why is there no investor-state dispute settlement in RCEP? bargaining and contestation in the investment regime
×
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