Goldstein, Judith. "The impact of ideas on trade policy:
the origins of
Thesis: Trade policies are not uniquely determined by systemic, domestic political/social, or functional influences. They are the result of history, which can open up or foreclose on policymaking opportunities; ideas, which can isolate single equilibria from among many options; and institutions, which condition the success/failure of particular ideas initially and over time. Outcomes may not be "rational" either initially or over time due to cognitive limitations of decisionmakers, the timing of policy initiatives, and institutional lock-ins.
Approach:
Goldstein's approach is puzzle-driven and inductive. The puzzle is why the
Cases:
A. Agriculture
1. There were three responses to the decline of agriculture after WWI (1920s). None was philosophically dominant and none was liberal.
a. price parity: dump abroad and raise prices (and agricultural purchasing power) at home.
b. cartelization: control supply through private, cooperative (cartel) forming initiatives of agricultural producers
c. government allotment: fix guaranteed domestic allotments for home consumption
2. The actual policy (1930s) was a mixture of these.
a. The initiatives of the 1920s politicized agricultural problems and reduced the range of viable options available to policymakers.
b. The only option not discredited by the experience of the 20s was the main thrust of policy.
3. Summary: the combination of history, ideas, and institutions resulted in policies which became locked-in over time, and which could not be changed even when more "rational" policies were available.
B. Manufactures
1. Two responses to manufacturing problems were contemplated in the 1930s.
a. nationalistic, which had little ideational/philosophical support
b. international, which had ideational/philosophical support
2. Two policies enacted
a. NIRA came first, but failed and lacked ideational underpinnings
b. Trade liberalization came second, and was the result of four necessary conditions
1) idea of MFN; 2) idea of reciprocity; 3) Cordell Hull; 4) administrative shift of authority from Congress to President
C. Conclusion
· Neither functional nor societal explanations can explain the content or timing of policies.
· Sequencing and timing are key.
· Four generalizations:
1) ideas need political support
2) crisis is a less constraining environment for innovation
3) past success conditions degree of institutionalization of a policy
Questions:
1. How determining are ideas? Can we simply look to history to give us the explanations for policy outcomes that we need?
2. How does the notion that ideas need political support affect the contention that ideas matter?
3. How can explain policy change in established areas in this model when it occurs in the absence of crisis?
4. Are you comfortable that social scientific analysis can rest upon "idiosyncratic environmental factors?"