《国际政治经济学》文献资料（Political Economy of International Trade：Domestic Politics）Learning to Love Globalization. Education and Individual Attitudes Toward International Trade

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS International Organization Foundation Learning to Love Globalization:Education and Individual Attitudes toward International Trade Author(s):Jens Hainmueller and Michael J.Hiscox Source:International Organization,Vol.60.No.2 (Spring.2006),pp.469-498 Published by:Cambridge University Press on behalf of the International Organization Foundation Stable URL:http://www.jstor.org/stable/3877900 Accessed:07/07/201103:24 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use,available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp.JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides,in part,that unless you have obtained prior permission,you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles,and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal,non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work.Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars,researchers,and students discover,use,and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive.We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR,please contact support@jstor.org. Cambridge University Press and International Organization Foundation are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to International Organization. 29 STOR http://www.jstor.org

International Organization Foundation Learning to Love Globalization: Education and Individual Attitudes toward International Trade Author(s): Jens Hainmueller and Michael J. Hiscox Source: International Organization, Vol. 60, No. 2 (Spring, 2006), pp. 469-498 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the International Organization Foundation Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3877900 . Accessed: 07/07/2011 03:24 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Cambridge University Press and International Organization Foundation are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Organization. http://www.jstor.org

Learning to Love Globalization: Education and Individual Attitudes Toward International Trade Jens Hainmueller and Michael J.Hiscox Abstract Recent studies of public attitudes toward trade have converged on one central finding:support for trade restrictions is highest among respondents with the lowest levels of education.This has been interpreted as strong support for the Stolper- Samuelson theorem,the classic economic treatment of the income effects of trade that predicts that trade openness benefits those owning factors of production with which their economy is relatively well endowed(those with skills in the advanced economies)while hurting others (low-skilled workers).We reexamine the available survey data,showing that the impact of education on attitudes toward trade is almost identical among respondents in the active labor force and those who are not(even those who are retired).We also find that,while individuals with college-level educa- tions are far more likely to favor trade openness than others,other types of education have no significant effects on attitudes,and some actually reduce the support for trade,even though they clearly contribute to skill acquisition.Combined,these results strongly suggest that the effects of education on individual trade preferences are not primarily a product of distributional concerns linked to job skills.We suggest that exposure to economic ideas and information among college-educated individuals plays a key role in shaping attitudes toward trade and globalization.This is not to say that distributional issues are not important in shaping attitudes toward trade-just that they are not clearly manifest in the simple,broad association between education lev- els and support for free trade. A growing body of scholarly research has examined survey data on attitudes toward trade among voters,focusing on individual determinants of protectionist senti- ments.These studies have converged on one central finding:fears about the dis- tributional effects of trade openness among less-educated,blue-collar workers lie at the heart of much of the backlash against globalization in the United States and other advanced economies.Support for new trade restrictions is highest among The authors would like to thank James Alt,Jeffry Frieden,Robert Lawrence,Dani Rodrik,Ron Rogowski,Ken Scheve,Andy Baker,Peter Gourevitch,and Beth Simmons for helpful comments on earlier drafts. International Organization 60,Spring 2006,pp.469-498 2006 by The IO Foundation. D01:10.1017/S0020818306060140

Learning to Love Globalization: Education and Individual Attitudes Toward International Trade Jens Hainmueller and Michael J. Hiscox Abstract Recent studies of public attitudes toward trade have converged on one central finding: support for trade restrictions is highest among respondents with the lowest levels of education. This has been interpreted as strong support for the Stolper￾Samuelson theorem, the classic economic treatment of the income effects of trade that predicts that trade openness benefits those owning factors of production with which their economy is relatively well endowed (those with skills in the advanced economies) while hurting others (low-skilled workers). We reexamine the available survey data, showing that the impact of education on attitudes toward trade is almost identical among respondents in the active labor force and those who are not (even those who are retired). We also find that, while individuals with college-level educa￾tions are far more likely to favor trade openness than others, other types of education have no significant effects on attitudes, and some actually reduce the support for trade, even though they clearly contribute to skill acquisition. Combined, these results strongly suggest that the effects of education on individual trade preferences are not primarily a product of distributional concerns linked to job skills. We suggest that exposure to economic ideas and information among college-educated individuals plays a key role in shaping attitudes toward trade and globalization. This is not to say that distributional issues are not important in shaping attitudes toward trade-just that they are not clearly manifest in the simple, broad association between education lev￾els and support for free trade. A growing body of scholarly research has examined survey data on attitudes toward trade among voters, focusing on individual determinants of protectionist senti￾ments. These studies have converged on one central finding: fears about the dis￾tributional effects of trade openness among less-educated, blue-collar workers lie at the heart of much of the backlash against globalization in the United States and other advanced economies. Support for new trade restrictions is highest among The authors would like to thank James Alt, Jeffry Frieden, Robert Lawrence, Dani Rodrik, Ron Rogowski, Ken Scheve, Andy Baker, Peter Gourevitch, and Beth Simmons for helpful comments on earlier drafts. International Organization 60, Spring 2006, pp. 469-498 ? 2006 by The IO Foundation. DOI: 10.1017/S0020818306060140

470 International Organization respondents with the lowest levels of education.These findings are interpreted as strong support for the Stolper-Samuelson theorem,the classic economic treatment of the income effects of trade that predicts that trade openness benefits those own- ing factors of production with which their economy is relatively well endowed (those with high skill levels in the advanced economies)while hurting others (low- skilled and unskilled workers). However,the positive relationship between education and support for trade lib- eralization might also-and perhaps primarily-reflect the facts that more edu- cated respondents tend to be more exposed to economic ideas about the overall efficiency gains for the national economy associated with greater trade openness and tend to be less prone to nationalist and antiforeigner sentiments often linked with protectionism.2 Studies have shown that measures of economic knowledge are strongly associated with education levels among individuals,and exposure to economics at the college level has especially powerful effects.3 A large body of research also shows that increased education-and especially college education- tends to socialize students to have more tolerant,cosmopolitan views of the world.4 It thus seems quite possible that differences of opinion among more and less- educated voters over the trade issue may be shaped less by Stolper-Samuelson- style calculations about the expected distributional effects of trade than by competing ideational and cultural perspectives-that is,education may be impor- tant here primarily because it teaches students to think about trade and globaliza- tion in different ways and/or to evaluate it according to a different set of values. Which of these very different interpretations is more correct?The answer to this question is critical to our understanding of the political economy of trade and the nature of the political disagreements over globalization now taking place.Here we reexamine the available survey data on individual attitudes toward trade,con- ducting a simple test of the effects of education on support for trade that distin- guishes clearly between the Stolper-Samuelson interpretation of this relationship and alternative ideational and cultural accounts.We find that the impact of educa- tion on attitudes toward trade is almost identical among respondents currently in the active labor force and among those who are not (even those who are retired). That the effects of education on trade policy preferences are not mediated by whether or not individuals are actually being paid for the employment of their skills strongly suggests that it is not primarily a product of distributional con- cerns.The analysis also reveals clear nonlinearities in the relationship between education and trade preferences:while individuals who have been exposed to col- lege or university education are far more likely to favor trade openness than those who have not,other types of educational attainment have no significant effects on attitudes and some even reduce the likelihood that individuals support trade even 1.See,for example,Scheve and Slaughter 2001a and 2001b;Mayda and Rodrik 2005;and O'Rourke and Sinnott 2002. 2.See Bauer,Pool,and Dexter 1972,103;and Holsti 1996,87-88. 3.See Saunders 1980;and Gleason and van Scyoc 1995. 4.See for example,Campbell et al.1960,475-81;and Erikson,Luttbeg,and Tedin 1991,155-56

470 International Organization respondents with the lowest levels of education.' These findings are interpreted as strong support for the Stolper-Samuelson theorem, the classic economic treatment of the income effects of trade that predicts that trade openness benefits those own￾ing factors of production with which their economy is relatively well endowed (those with high skill levels in the advanced economies) while hurting others (low￾skilled and unskilled workers). However, the positive relationship between education and support for trade lib￾eralization might also-and perhaps primarily-reflect the facts that more edu￾cated respondents tend to be more exposed to economic ideas about the overall efficiency gains for the national economy associated with greater trade openness and tend to be less prone to nationalist and antiforeigner sentiments often linked with protectionism.2 Studies have shown that measures of economic knowledge are strongly associated with education levels among individuals, and exposure to economics at the college level has especially powerful effects.3 A large body of research also shows that increased education-and especially college education￾tends to socialize students to have more tolerant, cosmopolitan views of the world.4 It thus seems quite possible that differences of opinion among more and less￾educated voters over the trade issue may be shaped less by Stolper-Samuelson￾style calculations about the expected distributional effects of trade than by competing ideational and cultural perspectives-that is, education may be impor￾tant here primarily because it teaches students to think about trade and globaliza￾tion in different ways and/or to evaluate it according to a different set of values. Which of these very different interpretations is more correct? The answer to this question is critical to our understanding of the political economy of trade and the nature of the political disagreements over globalization now taking place. Here we reexamine the available survey data on individual attitudes toward trade, con￾ducting a simple test of the effects of education on support for trade that distin￾guishes clearly between the Stolper-Samuelson interpretation of this relationship and alternative ideational and cultural accounts. We find that the impact of educa￾tion on attitudes toward trade is almost identical among respondents currently in the active labor force and among those who are not (even those who are retired). That the effects of education on trade policy preferences are not mediated by whether or not individuals are actually being paid for the employment of their skills strongly suggests that it is not primarily a product of distributional con￾cerns. The analysis also reveals clear nonlinearities in the relationship between education and trade preferences: while individuals who have been exposed to col￾lege or university education are far more likely to favor trade openness than those who have not, other types of educational attainment have no significant effects on attitudes and some even reduce the likelihood that individuals support trade even 1. See, for example, Scheve and Slaughter 2001a and 2001b; Mayda and Rodrik 2005; and O'Rourke and Sinnott 2002. 2. See Bauer, Pool, and Dexter 1972, 103; and Holsti 1996, 87-88. 3. See Saunders 1980; and Gleason and van Scyoc 1995. 4. See for example, Campbell et al. 1960, 475-81; and Erikson, Luttbeg, and Tedin 1991, 155-56

Education and International Trade 471 though they clearly contribute to skill acquisition.These findings indicate that the particular ideational and/or cultural effects associated with college education,and not the gradual accumulation of skills,are critical in shaping individual attitudes toward trade. We conclude that the impact of education on how voters'think about trade and globalization has more to do with exposure to economic ideas and information about the aggregate and varied effects of these economic phenomena,than it does with individual calculations about how trade affects personal income or job secu- rity.This is not to say that the latter types of calculations are not important in shaping individuals'views of trade-just that they are not being manifest in the simple association between education and support for trade openness.As we dis- cuss in the concluding section,we think it is likely that concerns about the effects of trade on personal income and job security might actually hinge on the particu- lar impact of trade openness in specific industries.One of the key implications of our findings is that future empirical tests of the determinants of individual trade preferences need to be substantially refined to identify the impact of distributional concerns on attitudes toward trade and globalization and distinguish these from the impact of ideational and cultural factors. Explaining Attitudes Toward International Trade To date,the analysis of survey data aimed at revealing the determinants of indi- vidual attitudes toward trade has focused predominantly on occupational differ- ences among respondents.A principal aim has been to test standard economic models that describe the income effects of trade for different individuals as a function of the types of productive inputs they own.Examining data from recent American National Election Studies (NES)surveys in the United States,Scheve and Slaughter emphasized the importance of respondents'"human capital"or skills (measured principally by years of education),finding that individuals with lower skills were more likely to support restrictions on imports than those with higher skills.s Mayda and Rodrik and O'Rourke and Sinnott came to similar conclu- sions after examining the data from the 1995 ISSP survey:again skill levels, measured either by years of education (Mayda and Rodrik)or occupational cat- egories (O'Rourke and Sinnott),were found to have large effects on attitudes, with lower skilled individuals being the most protectionist in outlook.In terms of economic theory,these findings have been interpreted as providing strong sup- port for the Stolper-Samuelson theorem,which predicts that trade raises real 5.Scheve and Slaughter 2001a and 2001b. 6.See Mayda and Rodrik 2005;and O'Rourke and Sinnott 2002.Similar types of findings are reported by Balistreri 1997;and Beaulieu 2002,who examined data on support for the Canadian-U.S.Free Trade Agreement in Canada;Gabel 1998,who used Eurobarometer data on attitudes toward European integration;and Baker 2003,using similar survey data on attitudes toward trade in Latin American nations

Education and International Trade 471 though they clearly contribute to skill acquisition. These findings indicate that the particular ideational and/or cultural effects associated with college education, and not the gradual accumulation of skills, are critical in shaping individual attitudes toward trade. We conclude that the impact of education on how voters' think about trade and globalization has more to do with exposure to economic ideas and information about the aggregate and varied effects of these economic phenomena, than it does with individual calculations about how trade affects personal income or job secu￾rity. This is not to say that the latter types of calculations are not important in shaping individuals' views of trade-just that they are not being manifest in the simple association between education and support for trade openness. As we dis￾cuss in the concluding section, we think it is likely that concerns about the effects of trade on personal income and job security might actually hinge on the particu￾lar impact of trade openness in specific industries. One of the key implications of our findings is that future empirical tests of the determinants of individual trade preferences need to be substantially refined to identify the impact of distributional concerns on attitudes toward trade and globalization and distinguish these from the impact of ideational and cultural factors. Explaining Attitudes Toward International Trade To date, the analysis of survey data aimed at revealing the determinants of indi￾vidual attitudes toward trade has focused predominantly on occupational differ￾ences among respondents. A principal aim has been to test standard economic models that describe the income effects of trade for different individuals as a function of the types of productive inputs they own. Examining data from recent American National Election Studies (NES) surveys in the United States, Scheve and Slaughter emphasized the importance of respondents' "human capital" or skills (measured principally by years of education), finding that individuals with lower skills were more likely to support restrictions on imports than those with higher skills.5 Mayda and Rodrik and O'Rourke and Sinnott came to similar conclu￾sions after examining the data from the 1995 ISSP survey: again skill levels, measured either by years of education (Mayda and Rodrik) or occupational cat￾egories (O'Rourke and Sinnott), were found to have large effects on attitudes, with lower skilled individuals being the most protectionist in outlook.6 In terms of economic theory, these findings have been interpreted as providing strong sup￾port for the Stolper-Samuelson theorem, which predicts that trade raises real 5. Scheve and Slaughter 2001a and 2001b. 6. See Mayda and Rodrik 2005; and O'Rourke and Sinnott 2002. Similar types of findings are reported by Balistreri 1997; and Beaulieu 2002, who examined data on support for the Canadian-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in Canada; Gabel 1998, who used Eurobarometer data on attitudes toward European integration; and Baker 2003, using similar survey data on attitudes toward trade in Latin American nations

472 International Organization incomes for those who own factors with which the economy is relatively well endowed (that is,labor skills in the developed economies),while disadvantaging owners of other factors (unskilled or low-skilled labor).?Scheve and Slaughter highlight as a"key finding"of their study the conclusion that "the preferences about trade and immigration policy align strongly with labor market skills."8 Mayda and Rodrik report that the results from their analysis of the importance of educational attainment in shaping views about trade are "strikingly supportive of the implications of the factor-endowments model and of the Stolper-Samuelson theorem."9 Yet there are other,plausible,ways to interpret the positive relationship between the education levels of surveyed individuals and their support for trade openness. It seems particularly limiting to consider education only as a measure of workers' skill levels,relevant only in the way it affects the expected income effects of trade for each individual.Education may be relevant here for other reasons-other causal mechanisms may be generating the observed association between education levels and protrade attitudes.We think there are two likely candidates:an ideational mech- anism that hinges on the role played by economic ideas and knowledge in the formation of economic policy preferences;and a cultural mechanism that relates commitments to key values,such as tolerance and cosmopolitanism,to attitudes toward foreign policy issues. The ideational argument is fairly straightforward.Highly educated respondents are likely to think about international trade in different ways compared to less- educated counterparts;the highly educated use a more sophisticated set of ideas about cause-and-effect relationships and more information about the effects of trade for themselves and for others.10 College-educated individuals,in particular,are likely to be far more informed than others about the aggregate efficiency gains associated with expanded trade,especially if they have had any contact at all with economics courses and with the theory of comparative advantage.While there is a firm consensus among economists on the virtues of trade openness,the counterin- tuitive loveliness of the law of comparative advantage makes it much more diffi- cult to convey the case for trade outside the college classroom.Studies of economic "literacy"among the public have shown that general measures of eco- nomic knowledge are strongly associated with education levels among individu- als,and college education in particular.2 Exposure to at least one college-level economics course is an especially powerful predictor of economic knowledge.Crit- 7.Stolper and Samuelson 1941.This theorem has been used extensively in the analysis of trade politics;see Rogowski 1989;and Hiscox 2002. 8.Scheve and Slaughter 2001b.9. 9.Mayda and Rodrik 2005,1409. 10.Among scholars who have examined surveys of public attitudes toward trade,the topic is typi- cally regarded as a complex issue about which most survey respondents have low levels of informa- tion;see Bauer,Pool,and Dexter 1972,81-84;Destler 1995,180;and Pryor 2002. 11.See Krugman 1993. 12.See,for example,Saunders 1980;and Gleason and van Scyoc 1995

472 International Organization incomes for those who own factors with which the economy is relatively well endowed (that is, labor skills in the developed economies), while disadvantaging owners of other factors (unskilled or low-skilled labor).' Scheve and Slaughter highlight as a "key finding" of their study the conclusion that "the preferences about trade and immigration policy align strongly with labor market skills."8 Mayda and Rodrik report that the results from their analysis of the importance of educational attainment in shaping views about trade are "strikingly supportive of the implications of the factor-endowments model and of the Stolper-Samuelson theorem." 9 Yet there are other, plausible, ways to interpret the positive relationship between the education levels of surveyed individuals and their support for trade openness. It seems particularly limiting to consider education only as a measure of workers' skill levels, relevant only in the way it affects the expected income effects of trade for each individual. Education may be relevant here for other reasons-other causal mechanisms may be generating the observed association between education levels and protrade attitudes. We think there are two likely candidates: an ideational mech￾anism that hinges on the role played by economic ideas and knowledge in the formation of economic policy preferences; and a cultural mechanism that relates commitments to key values, such as tolerance and cosmopolitanism, to attitudes toward foreign policy issues. The ideational argument is fairly straightforward. Highly educated respondents are likely to think about international trade in different ways compared to less￾educated counterparts; the highly educated use a more sophisticated set of ideas about cause-and-effect relationships and more information about the effects of trade for themselves and for others.10 College-educated individuals, in particular, are likely to be far more informed than others about the aggregate efficiency gains associated with expanded trade, especially if they have had any contact at all with economics courses and with the theory of comparative advantage. While there is a firm consensus among economists on the virtues of trade openness, the counterin￾tuitive loveliness of the law of comparative advantage makes it much more diffi￾cult to convey the case for trade outside the college classroom." Studies of economic "literacy" among the public have shown that general measures of eco￾nomic knowledge are strongly associated with education levels among individu￾als, and college education in particular.12 Exposure to at least one college-level economics course is an especially powerful predictor of economic knowledge. Crit- 7. Stolper and Samuelson 1941. This theorem has been used extensively in the analysis of trade politics; see Rogowski 1989; and Hiscox 2002. 8. Scheve and Slaughter 2001b, 9. 9. Mayda and Rodrik 2005, 1409. 10. Among scholars who have examined surveys of public attitudes toward trade, the topic is typi￾cally regarded as a complex issue about which most survey respondents have low levels of informa￾tion; see Bauer, Pool, and Dexter 1972, 81-84; Destler 1995, 180; and Pryor 2002. 11. See Krugman 1993. 12. See, for example, Saunders 1980; and Gleason and van Scyoc 1995