Abstract
Most analyses of US congressional votes on trade policy identify political and economic factors, and general economic conditions as significant factors. In this paper we examine whether simulated state-level impacts of trade policy changes obtained from an applied general equilibrium model explain recent US Senate votes on trade bills. We find that simulated gross state product effects are good predictors of recent trade-policy votes. Our model-based measures of trade sensitivity perform slightly better in statistical terms than the more traditional economic measures. For the Senate as a whole, import considerations have a larger impact on senate voting than export considerations.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Armington, P. S. (1969). A theory of demand for products distinguished by place of production. IMF Staff Papers, 16, 159–176.
Baldwin, R. E., & Magee, C. S. (2000). Is trade policy for sale? Congressional voting on recent trade bills. Public Choice, 105, 79–101.
Black, D. (1958). The theory of committees and elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2003). News: union members in 2002. News release USDL 03-88. Washington, DC: US Department of Labor. Data available at ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/History/union2.02252003.news.
Canning, P., & Tsigas, M. E. (2000). Regionalism, federalism, and taxation: a food and farm perspective. Technical Bulletin No. 1882. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture.
Center for Responsive Politics (2005). Contributions to members of the Senate, 108th Congress. Data available at http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/candlist.asp?Sort=S&Cong=108.
Das, G. G., Alavalapati, J. R. R., Carter, D. R., & Tsigas, M. E. (2005). Regional impacts of environmental regulations and technical change in the US forestry sector: a multiregional CGE analysis. Forest Policy and Economics, 7, 25–38.
Dixon, P. B., & Rimmer, M. T. (2001). MONASH-USA: creating a 1992 benchmark input-output database. Clayton: Centre of Policy Studies, Monash University.
Dixon, P. B., & Rimmer, M. T. (2002). USAGE-ITC: theoretical structure. Clayton: Centre of Policy Studies, Monash University.
Dixon, P. B., & Rimmer, M. T. (2003). USAGE-ITC: creating historical shocks for 1992 to 1998. Clayton: Centre of Policy Studies, Monash University.
Dixon, P. B., Parmenter, B. R., & Sutton, J. (1978). Spatial disaggregation of ORANI results: a preliminary analysis of the impact of protection at the state level. Economic Analysis and Policy, 8, 35–86.
Dixon, P. B., Rimmer, M. T., & Tsigas, M. (2004). Creating a USAGE-ITC database for 2002. Clayton: Centre of Policy Studies, Monash University.
Donnelly, W. A., Johnson, K., Tsigas, M., & Ingersoll, D. (2004). Revised Armington elasticities of substitution for the USITC model and the concordance for constructing a consistent set for the GTAP model (Office of Economics Research Note No. 2004-01-A). Washington, DC: US International Trade Commission.
Drope, J. M., & Hansen, W. L. (2004). Purchasing protection? The effect of political spending on US trade policy. Political Research Quarterly, 57, 27–37.
Grimmett, J. J. (2005). Why certain trade agreements are approved as congressional-executive agreements rather than as treaties (CRS Report to Congress). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress.
Griswold, D. (2005). Free trade, free markets: rating the 108th Congress (Trade Policy Studies No. 28). Washington, DC: Cato Institute.
Hansen, W. L., & Prusa, T. J. (1997a). The economics and politics of trade policy: an empirical analysis of ITC decision-making. Review of International Economics, 5, 230–245.
Hansen, W. L., & Prusa, T. J. (1997b). The role of the median legislator in US trade policy: a historical analysis. Economic Inquiry, 35, 97–107.
Harrison, W. J., & Pearson, K. R. (2002). An introduction to GEMPACK (6th ed.) (GEMPACK Document No. 1). Clayton: Centre of Policy Studies, Monash University.
Hertel, T. W. (Ed.). (1997). Global trade analysis: modeling and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hertel, T. W., Hummels, D., Ivanic, M., & Roman, K. (2003). How confident can we be in CGE-based assessments of free trade agreements? (GTAP Working Paper No. 26). West Lafayette: Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University.
Kamdar, N., & Gonzalez, J. G. (1998). An empirical analysis of the US Senate vote on NAFTA and GATT. International Advances in Economic Research, 4, 105–114.
Lawson, A. M. (1997). Benchmark input-output accounts for the US economy, 1992: make, use, and supplementary tables. Survey of Current Business, 77, 36–82. Washington, DC: Bureau of Economic Analysis, US Department of Commerce.
Leontief, W., Morgan, A., Polenske, K., Simpson, D., & Tower, E. (1965). The economic impact—industrial and regional—of an arms cut. Review of Economics and Statistics, 47, 217–241.
Liew, L. H. (1984). Tops-down’ versus ‘bottoms-up’ approaches to regional modeling. Journal of Policy Modeling, 6, 351–67.
Reksulak, M., Karahan, G. R., & Shughart II, W. F. (2007). Flags of our fathers: voting on confederate symbols in the state of Georgia. Public Choice, 131, 83–99.
Richardson, Jr., L.E., & Munger, M. C. (1990). Shirking, representation, and congressional behavior: voting on the 1983 amendments to the social security act. Public Choice, 67, 11–33.
United States International Trade Commission. (2004). The economic effects of significant US import restraints: fourth update 2004 (Investigation No. 332-325). Publication 3701. Washington, DC.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This paper represents solely the views of the authors and does not represent the views of the US International Trade Commission or any of its Commissioners.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Arce, H.M., Koopman, R.B. & Tsigas, M. Using state-level simulations in a political economy model of US trade policy. Public Choice 135, 91–107 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-007-9240-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-007-9240-3