RACIAL DIVERSITY AND REDISTRIBUTION: EXPLAINING (WHITE) AMERICANS’ CONTINUED SUPPORT FOR TRADE PROTECTION

Alexandra Guisinger University of Notre Dame Guisinger.1@nd.edu

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