English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

The classic political economy of trade models state behavior on the international plane by reference to the formation of domestic interests. Voters, interest groups and politicians are rational actors in this model, pursuing their economic preferences without cognitive or motivational distortions. This article questions the sufficiency of the rational choice model in the formation of contemporary trade policy. Starting from the classic political economy story, this article explores real world deviations from rationally expected outcomes by drawing on cognitive psychology. Using both theoretical and empirical analysis, we seek to identify key distortions that can better explain voter and politician behavior in the current trade wars. We begin with loss aversion in that individuals have asymmetrical attitudes towards gains and losses. Rising inequality within the rich world amounts to a perceived relative loss particularly for middle-class citizens. Combined with the absolute rise of equality between countries, this can trigger a double loss frame – both as an individual loss and a national loss – that can profoundly shape anti-trade preferences in certain countries. Framing trade as a security threat also invokes powerful hawkish biases. Lastly, the availability bias can be provoked by social media mechanisms making people tend to focus on particular risks and overweight their import.

Beyond Rational Choice: International Trade Law and the Behavioral Political Economy of Protectionism