racial diversity and redistribution: …...• racial diversity in particular linked to diminished...
TRANSCRIPT
RACIAL DIVERSITY AND REDISTRIBUTION: EXPLAINING (WHITE) AMERICANS’ CONTINUED SUPPORT FOR TRADE PROTECTION
Alexandra Guisinger University of Notre Dame [email protected]
Does racial diversity diminish support for trade protection?
• Trade protection is redistributive • Support for a variety of redistributive policies found to be
conditional on community homogeneity • Racial diversity in particular linked to diminished support
for welfare, both comparatively and within the U.S. (Alesina and Glaeser 2004)
Characteristics of redistribution and race • Income-based welfare is depicted as benefiting primarily
unemployed, minorities (Gilens 1999; Kellstedt 2000; Goren 2008)
• Age-based social security is depicted as benefitting the elderly (see AARP ads)
• Product/Industry-based trade policy • tends toward industries with high ratios of white employment:
farming, machine and metal manufacturing, textile mills • depicted as benefitting …
What is the face of trade protection? • 385 “trade-related” ads from the The University of
Wisconsin Advertising Project • Congressional, Gubernatorial, and Presidential television
advertisements in the 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2008 election cycles
• 146 “trade-related” ads from Public Citizen • 2 Presidential, 58 House of Representative, and
19 Senate candidates
• 2 independent coders • White to black ratio:
• 9 to 1 in 2000, 2002 and 2003/2004 • 8 to 1 in 2008 • 9 to 1 in 2012
• Between 55% to 68% ads “white only”
Weighing benefits to others • Start with 𝑈𝑈 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 = 𝑏𝑏i + 𝑤𝑤o𝑏𝑏𝑜𝑜, where
• 𝑏𝑏i is an individual’s beliefs about own net benefits from the policy • 𝑤𝑤o is the weight of others’ benefits (includes racial diversity) • 𝑏𝑏𝑜𝑜 belief about others’ benefits.
• Add a measure of racialization of the policy: 𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝 • normed to 0 ; ranging from -1 to 1 • 𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝 < 0 if policies are highly racialized in favor of an individuals’
group • 𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝 > 0 if policies highly racialized in favor of another group
• New 𝑈𝑈 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 = 𝑏𝑏i + 𝑤𝑤o(1 − 𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝)𝑏𝑏𝑜𝑜 • Again, assumes 𝑤𝑤o is a function of racial diversity
• 𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝 = 0 (policy racially neutral) weighting of socio-trop concerns still might be conditional on community diversity
• 𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝 > 0 or 𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝 <0 simply increasing/decreasing strength of diversity effect
Support for Redistributive Policies (ANES) Whites only, individual characteristics not shown (see paper)
Multinomal Analysis of Response:"Increase"C.D. Racial HH Index (0 to ~1) -0.93 *** 0.46 0.46 * 1.21 ***
0.34 0.45 0.26 0.39C.D. Residency HH Index (0 to ~1) 0.19 -1.41 ** -0.71 ** -2.80 ***
0.48 0.63 0.35 0.61C.D. Income Inquality (0 to ~1) 3.50 * 5.68 ** -0.83 -6.18 ***
2.03 2.84 1.67 2.18C.D. % Rural -1.04 *** 0.89 ** 0.79 *** 1.21 ***
0.25 0.35 0.19 0.30Political South (ANES) 0.00 -0.12 -0.09 0.13
0.10 0.12 0.07 0.11
Federal Spending on Limits on TradeWelfare Soc. Security All Years Post-NAFTA
Observations 7743 11523 9450 4119R^2 (pseudo) 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.08B R "D " F ll l i l di hi d "I d i i " i A di
Predicted Probabilities of Support
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Pred
icte
d Pr
obab
ility
Sup
port
Racial Diversity (HH Index) (min. =.03 / max.=.72)
1986 to 2008
Increase TradeProtection
95% Conf.Interval
Increase Welfare
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Pred
icte
d Pr
obab
ility
Sup
port
Racial Diversity (HH Index) (min. =.03 / max.=.72)
1994 to 2008 (Post NAFTA)
Increase TradeProtection
95% Conf.Interval
Increase Welfare
Robustness Check - CAFTA Mologit(Base = Against CAFTA)
Comm: Racial HH Index -0.30 ** -0.13 -0.32 ** -0.28 ** -0.41 *** -0.33 ** -0.22 * -0.08 -0.24 ** -0.21 * -0.31 ** -0.25 * (0 to ~1) 0.13 0.15 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.13Comm: Residency HH Index 0.65 *** 0.16 0.56 *** -0.20 0.45 ** -0.25 0.58 *** 0.19 0.50 *** -0.12 0.38 ** -0.18 (0 to ~1) 0.22 0.23 0.20 0.22 0.20 0.22 0.19 0.20 0.18 0.19 0.18 0.19Comm: Income Inquality 0.82 -0.41 0.60 -0.98 0.69 -0.90 0.49 -0.38 0.31 -0.80 0.47 -0.71 (0 to ~1) 0.70 0.77 0.68 0.75 0.69 0.75 0.62 0.67 0.61 0.66 0.62 0.66Comm: % Rural -0.70 *** -0.34 *** -0.72 *** -0.44 *** -0.74 *** -0.44 *** -0.64 *** -0.26 *** -0.65 *** -0.34 *** -0.64 *** -0.32 ***
0.10 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08County: Import Competiting -0.05 0.16 * -0.04 0.18 * -0.03 0.18 * (0/1) 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09Political South (ANES) -0.04 -0.19 *** -0.04 -0.20 ***
0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04Res. of CAFTA affected state 0.02 -0.07 ** 0.01 -0.08 ** 0.01 -0.08 ** 0.00 -0.09 ** (0/1) 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
County-LevelCongressional District-Level
For DK For DK For DKFor DK For DKModel 1b Model 2bModel 1a Model 2a Model 3bModel 3a
For DK
Observationspseudo R^2
25679 25679 25654
26508 26508 26483
0.080.06 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.06
Conclusions
• Post-NAFTA preference formation • Diminished employment in the jobs depicted as benefitting from
trade (manufacturing) • Small numbers perceive own interests as central to trade policy • Incorporation of benefit to others important
• Can’t assume uniform inclusion of benefits to others
Extra Slides
Opinion on redistributive policies ANES 1996
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Welfare Social Security Trade Limits
Perc
ent o
f tot
al re
spon
ses
(151
8 ob
s.)
Increase
Same/DK
Decrease
Typical picture of foreign workers
Support for Redistribution Policies Individual determinants
Skilled -0.04 -0.91 *** -0.73 *** -0.92 ***0.08 0.12 0.06 0.10
Mid Income Group (34 to 67 percentile*) -0.59 *** -0.39 *** -0.10 0.01 0.09 0.15 0.08 0.12High Income Group (> 68 percentile*) -0.69 *** -0.79 *** -0.35 *** -0.45 *** 0.11 0.16 0.08 0.13Unemployed (0/1) 0.53 *** 0.64 ** 0.10 0.21
0.13 0.26 0.12 0.18PID7 -0.35 *** -0.25 *** -0.05 *** -0.02
0.02 0.03 0.01 0.02Age -0.01 ** 0.02 *** 0.00 0.01 ***
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Female (0/1) 0.40 *** 1.14 *** 0.46 *** 0.64 ***
0.08 0.11 0.06 0.09Hispanic (0/1) 0.08 -0.33 0.25 0.09
0.28 0.34 0.24 0.34Owns House (0/1) -0.54 *** 0.04 0.09 0.16
0.09 0.12 0.07 0.11Union Household -0.07 0.94 *** 0.29 *** 0.13
0.11 0.17 0.07 0.12Constant 0.07 1.19 0.58 2.75 ***
0.85 1.18 0.69 0.94Year dummies not shownObservations 7743 11523 9450 4119R^2 (pseudo) 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.08Base Response "Decrease". Full results including third "Indecisive" category in Appendix.Asterisks denote the following p-values: *<.10, **<.05, and ***<.01.Standard errors in italics below coefficients.
Multinomal Analysis of Response:"Increase"
l d ( ) *** * ***
Federal Spending on Limits on TradeWelfare Soc. Security All Years Post-NAFTA
Racial Diversity Distribution of Congressional District by State Census 2000
0 .2 .4 .6 .8HH Index of Racial Diversity
HawaiiDistrict of Columbia
CaliforniaGeorgia
AlaskaLouisiana
MississippiNew Mexico
MarylandSouth Carolina
New JerseyTexas
North CarolinaNevada
AlabamaDelaware
VirginiaOklahomaNew York
ArizonaArkansas
IllinoisConnecticutWashington
FloridaRhode Island
ColoradoTennessee
KansasMichigan
OregonMassachusetts
South DakotaUtah
MontanaPennsylvania
IdahoKentucky
OhioWyomingNebraska
North DakotaWisconsin
MissouriIndiana
MinnesotaWest Virginia
IowaNew Hampshire
VermontMaine