Search

The article discusses the importance of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in American foreign policy and argues for its reinstatement. It highlights the economic gains, job creation, and policy leverage that joining the TPP could bring, particularly in countering China's rise. However, the article acknowledges the challenges of persuading the American public and Congress due to partisan gridlock and populist backlash. It also mentions the Biden administration's introduction of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) as an alternative, but suggests that active advocacy is needed to rally support for the TPP and pursue a coherent foreign economic policy. [Extracted from the article]

Political economy research shows that more democratic governments generally have more open trade policies with more flexible exchange rate regimes, yet political behavior theory argues that citizens do not think of foreign economic policy as salient and do not cast their votes considering such issues. This note investigates the puzzle about how democracies could have different foreign economic policies than autocracies if citizens do not vote based on these international issues. Using a political model with two possible ways for societal actors to influence state policy (electoral and/or special interest pressure), it first considers how voting based on salient domestic outcomes like inflation and unemployment may lead democratic governments towards more open trade and flexible exchange rates. Second, if more societal groups are able to lobby as special interests in more democratic regimes, then governments may also be pushed toward these same foreign economic policies. Thus, there is no fundamental contradiction between the political economy empirical results and the political behavior theory, although scholars need to adjust their theories to explain foreign economic policy differences across political regime type. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why do certain governments often have an actual exchange-rate policy that differs from their official declaration, creating a gap between their de jure and de facto exchange-rate regimes? This article offers a political explanation centered on the need for certain types of government to respond to a broader set of societal actors with different preferences concerning the exchange-rate regime. The argument posits that more democratic governments must respond to a broader set of societal actors, thus leading them to use their de jure and de facto regimes as short-term political substitutes. In using one regime (either de jure or de facto) to appeal to one group of societal actors and the other regime to appeal to another group with different preferences, exchange-rate regimes are hypothesized to be more frequent for more democratic governments. The statistic evidence accords with this expectation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]