Democratization, New Leaders, and the Need for Economic Reform: Can Preferential Trading Agreements Help?

Can international institutions help leaders commit economic reform? In this article, we examine how leaders use preferential trading agreements with major powers (European Union and the United States) to promote liberal economic policies. We argue that under democratization, new leaders benefit the most from credible commitment. Using original data on treaty negotiations, our empirical analysis shows that under democratization, leader change greatly increases the probability that the government of a developing country begins treaty negotiations. We also demonstrate that preferential trading agreements are accompanied by liberalization in different sectors of the economy, and this effect is most pronounced if it follows a leader change. These findings support the notion that international institutions enable credible commitment to economic reform

Easing the Pain of Adjustment? Preferential Trading Agreements, Foreign Aid, and Credible Commitment to Economic Reform

In this article, we propose that wealthy donors give foreign aid to developing countries to facilitate political adjustment, such as compensation for losers and side payments to influential elite constituencies, towards mutually profitable economic reform. Only democratic developing countries can credibly commit to using fungible revenue in ways that benefit the donor, so the adjustment effect only applies to democracies. A quantitative test against data on preferential trading agreements lends strong support to the theory. Strikingly, fully democratic developing countries that form a preferential trading agreement obtain a threefold increase in foreign aid in the short run. Additional tests show that this increase is not driven by macroeconomic difficulties and that the beneficial effect on foreign aid is temporary. Both findings are consistent with the theory. An important implication of these results is that if foreign aid facilitates economic reform through preferential trading agreements, previous research could have underestimated the benefits thereof

Investment Discrimination and the Proliferation of Preferential Trade Agreements

The proliferation of bilateral and regional trade agreements has arguably been the main change to the international trading system since the end of the Uruguay Round in the mid- 1990s. We argue that investment discrimination plays a major role in this development. Preferential trade agreements can lead to investment discrimination because of tariff differentials on intermediary products and as result of provisions that relax investment rules for the parties to the agreement. Excluded countries are sensitive to the costs that this investment discrimination imposes on domestic firms and react by signing a trade agreement that aims at leveling the playing field. We test our argument using a spatial econometric model and a newly compiled dataset that includes 166 countries and covers a period of 18 years (1990-2007). Our findings strongly support the argument that investment discrimination is a major driver of the proliferation of trade agreements

Institutions, Information, and Trade Policy in Times of Crisis

The paper examines the role of international institutions in preventing the rise of protectionism in times of times of crisis. Economic crisis exacerbates uncertainty in the conduct of commercial relations and thus makes it more likely for countries to resort to "beggar-thy-neighbor" trade policies. The historical record of the Great Depression supports this argument, where global trade suffered a downward spiral as governments pursued protectionist trade policies as a response to domestic pressures. This paper argues that the current era of globalization is distinguishable from its earlier counterparts by the presence of an extensive network of international institutions, which serve as conveyors of information that help to mitigate the information problem that prevails in prisoner‘s dilemma settings. Specifically, international institutions such as the WTO, preferential trade agreements (PTAs) and other international economic organizations increase the flow of information among countries. In doing so, they alleviate coordination problems as well as facilitate the detection of violations in commitments to maintaining a liberal trade regime. We suggest that this mechanism may explain why the current crisis is not replicating the pattern of the Great Depression. Moreover, we explore the combined effect of membership in international organization and political variables, the latter including democracy, veto players, partisanship of government, and government effectiveness. We test this argument using a newly-compiled dataset of trade policies during the current economic crisis and membership in international organizations. The paper finds strong support for the informational role of international institutions as a key factor preventing the rise of protectionism in times of crisis. Conversely, there is mixed evidence that the combining effect of international organizations and domestic political variables matters in explaining protectionism during this crisis

TPP may benefit both global businesses and the developing countries where they operate

Affiliate sales back to the home market tend to respond to US tariff cuts, writes Leonardo Baccini

Investment discrimination and the proliferation of preferential trade agreements

The proliferation of bilateral and regional trade agreements has arguably been the main change to the international trading system since the end of the Uruguay Round in the mid-1990s. We argue that investment discrimination plays a major role in this development. Preferential trade agreements can lead to investment discrimination because of tariff differentials on intermediary products and as a result of provisions that relax investment rules for the parties to the agreement. Excluded countries are sensitive to the costs that this investment discrimination imposes on domestic firms and react by signing a trade agreement that aims at leveling the playing field. We test our argument using a spatial econometric model and a newly compiled data set that includes 166 countries and covers a period of eighteen years (1990–2007). Our findings strongly support the argument that investment discrimination is a major driver of the proliferation of trade agreements

In explaining the rise of populism, it’s not economic anxiety vs. identity politics – it’s both.

Many commentators attributed Donald Trump’s surprise 2016 election victory to the role played by voters heavily affected by deindustrialization, often located in the so-called Midwestern ‘Rust Belt’. In new research which examines voting patterns in counties which have experienced manufacturing layoffs, Leonardo Baccini and Stephen Weymouth find that that these layoffs are associated with greater support for Republican challengers among whites compared to voters of color. They attribute this pattern to whites’ concerns about social and economic status loss in the face of layoffs, concerns which are played on by populist and reactionary candidates like Donald Trump

Investment discrimination and the proliferation of preferential trade agreements

The proliferation of bilateral and regional trade agreements has arguably been the main change to the international trading system since the end of the Uruguay Round in the mid-1990s. We argue that investment discrimination plays a major role in this development. Preferential trade agreements can lead to investment discrimination because of tariff differentials on intermediary products and as a result of provisions that relax investment rules for the parties to the agreement. Excluded countries are sensitive to the costs that this investment discrimination imposes on domestic firms and react by signing a trade agreement that aims at leveling the playing field. We test our argument using a spatial econometric model and a newly compiled data set that includes 166 countries and covers a period of eighteen years (1990–2007). Our findings strongly support the argument that investment discrimination is a major driver of the proliferation of trade agreements

The politics of trade agreement design: revisiting the depth-flexibility nexus

Existing research indicates the interrelated nature of different dimensions of the design of international institutions. In particular, it shows the greater flexibility of deep agreements. We argue—and demonstrate empirically—that the positive relationship between depth and flexibility holds for preferential trade agreements (PTAs). But we add two qualifications to the conventional wisdom that depth and flexibility go hand in hand. First, we argue that the positive relationship between depth and flexibility proves weaker for democracies than for nondemocracies. Second, when making deep agreements more flexible, countries also add strings to the use of the additional flexibility provisions. An original data set on the design of 587 PTAs allows us to test our arguments. Both descriptive evidence and multivariate statistics support the theoretical expectations. The findings contribute to the literatures on the design of international institutions and the causes and consequences of PTAs

The design of international trade agreements: introducing a new dataset

Preferential trade agreements (PTAs) have been proliferating for the last twenty years. A large literature has studied various aspects of this phenomenon. Until recently, however, many large-N studies have paid only scant attention to variation across PTAs in terms of content and design. Our contribution to this literature is a new dataset on the design of trade agreements that is the most comprehensive in terms of both variables coded and agreements covered. We illustrate the dataset's usefulness in re-visiting the questions if and to what extent PTAs impact trade flows. The analysis shows that on average PTAs increase trade flows, but that this effect is largely driven by deep agreements. In addition, we provide evidence that provisions that tackle behind-the-border regulation matter for trade flows. The dataset's contribution is not limited to the PTA literature, however. Broader debates on topics such as institutional design and the legalization of international relations will also benefit from the novel data