GRIPE

Allison Carnegie (Columbia, presenter) and Ricky Clark (Cornell), "Perils of Populism: How Populists Warp Global Governance"
2023-12-06 12:00 - 13:30 (America/New_York)
Link to PDF
Note: The PDF contains two chapters: the introduction and one empirical chapter from the book.
Moderator: Stephen Chaudoin

Chloe Ahn (UPenn) and Nina Obermeier (King’s College London, presenter), "Cryptocurrency and the State: Evidence from South Korea"
2023-11-15 09:30 - 11:00
Abstract: National currencies regulated by state monetary authorities have long been associated with nation-state building and the expansion of state control. The rise of cryptocurrencies—that is, digital currencies outside of state control—has the potential to challenge the dominance of the state in this area and to disrupt state-society relations traditionally mediated through state-issued currencies. However, as recent crises and scandals involving cryptocurrencies demonstrate, cryptocurrencies may—in the absence of regulation—be perceived as too volatile and unsafe to act as a true alternative to state-regulated currencies or to investments that offer some level of government protection. In fact, the failure of cryptocurrencies to provide a safe alternative financial system may lead people to appreciate the role of government in regulating markets more. We test these expectations in the case of South Korea, using a number of different approaches. First, a quantitative content analysis of recent South Korean news media shows that despite public attention to the possibility of “striking it rich” through cryptocurrency investment, public discourse on cryptocurrency has recently become dominated by discussion of the weaknesses of non-state-regulated currencies, particularly after a series of scandals. Second, a nationally representative survey experiment reveals that exposing South Koreans to information about the volatility of cryptocurrencies increases their trust in government, as hypothesized. At the same time, exposure to positive information about cryptocurrencies does not undermine trust in government or support for government regulation. These results point to limitations to the potential of unregulated cryptocurrencies to offer an alternative to state-issued currencies or government-regulated investment vehicles.
Moderator: Federica Genovese
Link to PDF

Bobby Gulotty (Chicago, presenter) and Anton Strezhnev (Chicago), "The Political Benefits of the Monoculture: Estimating Political Manipulation in the Market Facilitation Program"
2023-10-11 12:00 - 13:30
Abstract: Many redistributive programs use estimates of need to determine access. These esti- mates, in turn, depend on a formulaic combination of objective measures and subjective evaluations. Such formulas do not eliminate political influence, but instead force politicians to use industrial policy to target individuals by way of their positions as economic producers or consumers, rather than by their membership in a relevant political community. In the politics of farm subsidies, the government may lack the data or expertise to render political communities sufficiently legible to target via product-specific transfer schemes. We use these constraints to examine the impact of the US Department of Agriculture’s Market Facilitation Program (MFP) which provided over $16 billion in direct payments, surplus purchasing, and other forms of support to US agricultural producers from 2018 to 2020. According to official statements, these funds were allocated in response to “objective” econometric estimates of the damage caused by the US-China trade war. We use county and crop-level administrative data to reconstruct the formula used to significantly expand payments in 2019 and show how the determination of damages for particular crops propagated via the formula into county-specific compensation rates based on these counties’ prior planting decisions. We find that counties receiving higher levels of formula-induced compensation, on average, have higher Republican Party presidential vote shares in the 2020 presidential election. Instrumenting for actual MFP disbursements in 2019-2020 using the reconstructed formula, we find that each additional $10 million in MFP payments to a county increased that county’s 2020 Trump vote share by about 0.6 percentage points on average.
Link to PDF
Moderator: Iain Osgood

Haillie Lee (Seoul National University) and Erik Voeten (Georgetown, presenter), "Transboundary Air Pollution and Hazy Accountability: Evidence from South Korea and China"
2023-09-20 09:30 - 11:00
Abstract: Environmental problems often originate at least partially in other jurisdictions. We argue that trans- boundary pollution can increase public hostility towards the polluting country and break accountability links in the country that receives some of its pollution from abroad. We examine this argument in the context of trans-boundary air pollution in South Korea. South Korea’s air pollution is the worst in the OECD and it partially originates in China. We combine daily air quality measurements with Gallup World Poll surveys from 2015-2022 to show that on days with bad air quality, Koreans become significantly less satisfied with China’s leadership but not with the Korean government, including the government’s efforts to preserve the environment. We also use air quality as an instrument for subjective satisfaction with air quality and find that subjective beliefs about air quality have a strong negative causal effect on satisfaction with China’s leadership but have no significant effect on satisfaction with the Korean government. This evidence suggests that air pollution partially causes negative Korean views to- wards China and that cross-border deflection of responsibility may relief pressure from the South Korean government to adopt stronger environmental measures. Moreover, we find that the effect runs through reduced confidence in the local economy rather than the effects of pollution on perceived life satisfaction or health.
Link to PDF
Moderator: Stephen Chaudoin

Siyao Li (Pittsburgh), Aditi Sahasrabuddhe (Brown, presenter), Scott Wingo (CACR), "The Limits Of Economic Statecraft: RMB Internationalization And The External Security Environment"
2023-07-12 12:00 - 13:30
Abstract:

Expanded use of the Chinese currency beyond China’s own borders is an important indication of China’s growing influence in global affairs. Contrary to earlier expectations however, China has only internationalized its currency, the renminbi (RMB), on a very limited scale. While this outcome is not altogether puzzling, we argue that the conventional wisdom on international reserve currencies has overlooked security considerations, namely security and military partnerships from the currency issuing state, and the external security environment as key factors in generating and strengthening support for international markets in its currency. We advance an historically informed argument of the security limits to RMB internationalization. We demonstrate that the deployment of China’s primary tool for currency internationalization—RMB swaps—is constrained by the dual exigencies of guaranteeing security for overseas economic interests in addition to domestic goals of maintaining domestic financial stability. We then show that RMB internationalization is influenced by both Chinese and US security alliances. We find that, counterintuitively, the growth of China’s military power and ability to back its economic interest seem to constrain its choice of BSA partners in regions closer to China given existing US military alliances.

Moderater: Sarah Bauerle Danzman
Link to PDF

Sung Eun Kim (Korea), Rebecca Perlman (Princeton, presenter) and Grace Zeng (Princeton), "The Politics of Rejection: Explaining Chinese Import Refusals"
2023-06-14 12:00 - 13:30
Abstract:
Health and safety standards offer a convenient means by which governments can credibly claim to be protecting the population, even while pursuing less publicly- oriented goals. In the realm of international trade, such regulatory standards have most often been studied as a method of veiled protectionism that can help nations privilege domestic industry while skirting World Trade Organization requirements of openness. Yet precisely because health and safety standards create ambiguity about their intent and are therefore difficult to punish, nations may be incentivized to use them for goals that extend well beyond protecting domestic industry. In particular, we theorize that governments will, at times, use regulatory barriers as a means of po- litical retribution. In order to show this, we collect and translate detailed, original data on import refusals by Chinese border inspectors between 2011 and 2019. Though os- tensibly intended to keep dangerous products out of the hands of Chinese consumers, we demonstrate that import rejections have systematically been used by the Chinese government as a way to punish states that act against China’s interest.
Moderator: Lauren Prather
Link to PDF

Minju Kim (Syracuse, presenter) and Shu Fu (Chicago), “Bringing Home the Bacon: Politician Ambassadors and Home State Trade”
2023-05-17 12:00 - 13:30
Abstract:

Ambassadors promote domestic exports to a host country and represent the inter- est of their home country at large. However, are trade benefits equally distributed domestically? In the United States, a substantial number of ambassadors are former governors or legislators (“politician ambassadors”). We argue that politician ambas- sadors are particularly equipped with knowledge and incentives to promote exports from their home states to host countries. Leveraging the biographic information of 164 ambassadors and US state-level exports to 30 major export destinations from 2002 to 2020, we find that the home states of politician ambassadors, compared to other states, enjoy a significant export increase to host countries on average (“home-state effect”). We find that the home-state effect is particularly apparent in countries where the US exports the most, and in industries that export final goods. Personal background of ambassadors can explain how the benefits of diplomacy are distributed domestically.
Moderator: Maggie Peters

Link to PDF

Boram Lee (LSE), "Baptists and Bootleggers in Trade Politics: How Treaty Recognition Makes Side Agreements Credible"
2023-04-19 09:30 - 11:00
Studies show that liberalizing governments include social and environmental clauses in trade agreements to gain pro-trade support from activists. However, these studies do not address how the government makes issue linkage credible to activists, who understand that the government has weak incentives to enforce such linkages once the agreement is ratified. How do liberalizing governments make issue linkage credible to activists despite the commitment problem? Focusing on U.S. government decisions regarding environmental clauses in trade agreements, I argue that a liberalizing government uses international treaties to mitigate activists’ fears of defection. By recognizing environmental international organizations’ authority in trade agreements, the government can mitigate activists’ fear of defection and increase their support for trade agreements. Using original data, I find that the government recognized environmental treaties with more ties to U.S.-based activists in designing environmental clauses in trade agreements from 2000 to 2016. Based on a comparative case study, I also show that activists with ties to recognized treaties supported issue linkage whereas those without ties to the treaties joined forces with anti-trade groups.

Moderator: Federica Genovese
Link to PDF

Ed Mansfield (Penn, presenter) and Omer Solodoch (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), "Pandemic Protectionism: COVID-19 and the Rise of Public Opposition to Trade"
2023-03-22 12:00 - 13:30
Abstract:

How did the COVID-19 pandemic affect public attitudes toward international trade? In this study, we argue that the pandemic promoted protectionist sentiment in the United States. Based on cross-sectional and panel data, we find a substantial increase in Americans’ opposition to trade following the outbreak of the pandemic. This heightened opposition was both long-lasting and pervasive, cutting across demographic, economic, and partisan lines. We also find that experiencing a personal pandemic shock stemming from contracting the Coronavirus or suffering economically from the pandemic contributed to rising hostility to trade. Further, the effect of such shocks was driven primarily by Republicans, a result that accords with partisan motivated reasoning.

Link to PDF
Moderator: Cameron Ballard-Rosa

Kate McNamara (Georgetown), "The Politics of the New European Industrial Policy: How a Post-Neoliberal Shift Is Transforming the European Union"
2023-02-15 12:00 - 13:30
Abstract:
Markets require rules, made and enforced by governments, and modern market-making has therefore unfolded as an intrinsic part of state-building. While the European Union is not a Weberian state, it has not been immune to these processes. Over the last three decades it has constructed a Single European Market and a currency while building political authority and expanding its institutional capacities. The EU has done this through supranational market-making largely centered on neoliberal precepts of competition and openness. Today, however, the EU is breaking with that tradition by pursuing an active, interventionist European industrial and geopolitical market-making strategy, layered above the member-states. Scholars have yet to fully grapple with this new and contentious shift. This paper begins this task by describing and mapping European industrial policy and situating it within the larger global turn to industrial policy, while raising a series of questions about the political sources and consequences of this change for the EU’s political development, and for broader transformations in capitalism in Europe and beyond.
Moderator: Sarah Bauerle Danzman
Link to PDF

Patrick Bayer (Strathclyde, presenter) and Federica Genovese (Essex), "Climate Policy Costs, Regional Identity and Backlash against International Cooperation"
2023-01-25 12:00 - 13:30
Abstract:

Scholars in international political economy are increasingly interested in how the sub- national patterns of major economic adjustments such as trade investment and environmental reforms fuel public opposition to international institutions that are meant to catalyze those adjustments. While the literature has sharpened the understanding of material policy costs and their implications for public opinion, the impact of less material considerations—for example, specific subnational identities—is still largely unexplained. In this paper, we explore if and how vulnerability to climate policy, which pushes communities to lash out against rapid decarbonization, is moderated by a sense of strong regional identities, which may reduce the appreciation for national policies at the expense of international ambition. We present new survey evidence from the United Kingdom that assesses if and how communities with different sensitivities to distributive climate policy costs and subnational identities form varying preferences for international cooperation. Our study of 3,000 individuals from three different geographically targeted areas supports our argument and highlights the importance of new climate-related cleavages among politically relevant constituencies on international integration.

Moderator: Iain Osgood
Link to PDF

Chase Foster (Technische Universität München) and Jeffry Frieden (Harvard), "Compensation, Austerity, and Populism: Social Spending and Voting in 17 Western European Countries"
2022-11-30 12:00 - 13:30
Abstract:

There has been a dramatic rise in voting for populist parties in Europe over the past twenty years. There are clear material and non-material sources of this backlash against political and economic integration, which is part of the broader global trend. We assess the role of government social policy in dampening or provoking populist sentiment, on two different dimensions. First, we ask whether the existence of a broader and deeper social safety net mitigated the political discontent that took the form of populist voting. Here we examine a panel of 187 elections from 1990 to 2017 and find evidence that populist parties fared worse where countries spent more on social support, especially for labor market programs that provide income to workers experiencing unemployment or early retirement from the workforce (“passive labor market” policies). This suggests that “compensatory” social spending did work to dampen support for populism. Second, we ask whether cuts to government support for those facing economic distress, largely undertaken with reforms in the 1990s and early 2000s, stimulated populist discontent. Here we add an analysis of pooled cross-sectional data from eight waves of the European Social Survey. We find that cuts to social spending, especially spending on passive labor market policies, were strongly associated with increased support for populist parties. The effect was stronger among those individuals who had experienced unemployment and among those facing adverse economic circumstances. This suggests that the welfare and labor-market reforms of the 1990s and early 2000s may have alienated vulnerable segments of the population and driven them toward populist political parties.

Moderator: Iain Osgood
Link to PDF

Simone Cremaschi (Bocconi), Paula Rettl (Bocconi), Marco Cappelluti (UCL), and Catherine E. De Vries (Bocconi, presenter), "Geographies of Discontent: How Public Service Deprivation Increased Far-Right Support in Italy"
2022-11-16 09:30 - 11:00
Abstract:

Electoral support for far-right parties is often linked to specific geographies of discontent. We argue that public service deprivation, defined as reduced access to public services at the local level, helps explain these patterns in far-right support. Public service deprivation increases the appeal of far-right parties by making people more worried about immigration and increased competition for public services. We examine our argument using three studies from Italy, home to some of the most electorally successful far-right parties in recent decades. We examine cross-sectional data from municipalities (study 1), exploit a national reform forcing municipalities below a certain population threshold to jointly share local public services (study 2), and explore geo-coded individual-level election survey data (study 3). Our findings suggest that public service deprivation helps us better understand geographic differences in far-right support and the mechanisms underlying them.
Moderator: Federica Genovese
Zoom link: https://essex-university.zoom.us/j/95646499175?pwd=[REDACTED]
Meeting ID: 956 4649 9175
Password: [REDACTED]
Link to PDF

David Gill (Nottingham), "The Default Taboo: Repayment Norms during the Great Depression"
2022-10-26 12:00 - 13:30
Abstract:

France and Britain were responsible for the two largest sovereign defaults in modern history when they unilaterally suspended war debt repayments to the United States during the Great Depression. Despite facing similar economic challenges, Paris defaulted in 1932 whereas London continued payment until 1934. Conventional explanations for why states default or repay their debts— which tend to focus on future borrowing costs, the risk of sanctions, economic spillover effects, or domestic-political trade-offs—struggle to explain this variation. This article refocuses attention on the role of ideas and norms in policymakers’ decision-making at critical moments on the path to default. Archival research in Britain and the United States reveals a default taboo in operation in London. The taboo functioned instrumentally, affecting cost-benefit calculations, but also substantively, making repayment legitimate and appropriate. Variation in the key mechanisms of normative influence— domestic public opinion, international reputation, and personal moral convictions—provides a stronger explanation of repayment behavior than existing theories. British policymakers were initially concerned about outraging the public, feared non-payment by Britain’s own debtors, and believed repayment was morally right. Britain defaulted only after these concerns faded, and despite economic recovery. In contrast, French policymakers faced immediate and strong public resistance to repayment, held more limited concerns about international reputation, and were more divided on the morality of default. Analysis of these historical examples, which represent difficult cases due to pervasive assumptions about economic rationality, highlights the importance of ideas and norms in the study of sovereign debt and helps to explain why states can repay debts in bad times or default in good times.
Moderator: Maggie Peters
Link to PDF
Click here for Zoom recording with passcode: [REDACTED]

Julian Michel (UCLA), Michael K. Miller (GWU), Margaret E. Peters (UCLA), "Get Out: How Autocratic Regimes Select Who Emigrates"
2022-09-28 12:00 - 13:30
Abstract: Most autocracies restrict emigration, yet still allow some citizens to voluntarily exit. How do these regimes decide who can leave? We argue that many autocracies strategically target anti-regime actors for emigration, thereby crafting a more loyal population without the drawbacks of persistent cooptation or repression. However, this generates problematic incentives for citizens to join opposition activity to secure exit. In response, autocracies simultaneously punish dissidents for attempting to emigrate, screening out all but the most determined opponents. To test our theory, we examine an original dataset coded from 20,000 pages of declassified emigration applications from East Germany’s state archives. In the first individual-level test of an autocracy’s emigration decisions, we find that active opposition promoted emigration approval, but also punishment for applying. Pensioners were also more likely to secure exit and professionals less likely. Our results shed light on global migration’s political sources and an overlooked strategy of autocratic resilience.
Moderator: Stephen Chaudoin
Link to PDF
Click here for Zoom recording with passcode: [REDACTED]
