Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T03:34:16.496Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Reaction of Private Interests to the 1934 Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2003

Karen E. Schnietz
Get access

Abstract

In recent research on the 1934 Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act (RTAA), there has been no examination of the reaction of private actors to the RTAA. Did producer groups and investors in 1934 believe the Democratic RTAA was the solution to Republican protectionism, as institutional analyses of the RTAA claim, or did they realize the RTAA was no “magic bullet” against a return of protectionism, as skeptics argue? Archival data suggests that many producer groups believed the RTAA would result in durable liberalization, but that fewer understood the likely effects of its specific features. An event study of investor reaction to the RTAA reveals that export-dependent firms experienced a significant, positive stock return increase on news of the RTAA, while heavily tariff-protected firms experienced a significant stock decline, albeit several months later.

Type
Research Note
Information
International Organization , Volume 57 , Issue 1 , Winter 2003 , pp. 213 - 233
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bailey, Michael A., Goldstein, Judith, and Weingast, Barry R.. 1997. The Institutional Roots of American Trade Policy: Politics, Coalitions, and International Trade. World Politics 49 (3):309–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borah (William) Papers. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, Manuscript Division.Google Scholar
Brown, Stephen J., and Warner, Jerold B.. 1980. Measuring Security Price Performance. Journal of Financial Economics 8 (3):205–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Michael. 1998. Cautious Visionary Cordell Hull and Trade Reform, 1933–1937. Kent, Ohio: Kent State Press.Google Scholar
Ellison, Sara, and Mullin, Wallace. 1995. Economics and Politics: The Case of Sugar Tariff Reform. Journal of Law, and Economics 38 (2):335–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fama, Eugene F., Fisher, Lawrence, Jensen, Michael C., and Roll, Richard. 1969. The Adjustment of Stock Prices to New Information. International Economic Review 10 (1):1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feis (Herbert) Papers. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, Manuscript Division.Google Scholar
Gilligan, Michael. 1997. Empowering Exporters: Reciprocity, Delegation, and Collective Action in American Trade Policy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haggard, Stephan. 1988. The Institutional Foundations of Hegemony: Explaining the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934. International Organization 42 (1):91–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanson, Robert C., and Song, Moon H.. 1998. Shareholder Wealth Effects of Free Trade: U.S. and Mexican Stock Market Response to NAFTA. International Review of Economics and Statistics 7 (2):209–24.Google Scholar
Hiscox, Michael J. 1999. The Magic Bullet? The RTAA, Institutional Reform, and Trade Liberalization. International Organization 53 (4):669–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull (Cordell) Papers. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, Manuscript Division.Google Scholar
Irwin, Douglas A. 1998. From Smoot-Hawley to Reciprocal Trade Agreements: Changing the Course of U.S. Trade Policy in the 1930s. In The Defining Moment: The Great Depression and the American Economy in the Twentieth Century, edited by Bordo, Michael D., Goldin, Claudia, and White, Eugene N., 325–53. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Irwin, Douglas A., and Kroszner, Randall S.. 1999. Interests, Institutions, and Ideology in Securing Policy Change. The Republican Conversion to Trade Liberalization After Smoot-Hawley. Journal of Law and Economics 42 (2):643–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohmann, Susanne, and O'Halloran, Sharyn. 1994. Divided Government and U.S. Trade Policy: Theory and Evidence. International Organization 48 (4):595–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNary (Charles N) Papers. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, Manuscript Division.Google Scholar
McWilliams, Abagail, and Siegel, Donald. 1997. Event Studies in Management Research: Theoretical and Empirical Issues. Academy of Management Journal 40 (3):626–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moody's Investors Service. 1934. Moody's Manual of Industrial Securities. New York: Moody's Investor Services.Google Scholar
Mullin, Joseph C., and Mullin, Wallace P.. 1997. United States Steel's Acquisition of the Great Northern Ore Properties: Vertical Foreclosure or Efficient Contractual Governance? Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 13 (1):74–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Halloran, Sharyn. 1994. Politics, Process, and American Trade Policy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schattschneider, E. E. 1935. Politics, Pressures, and the Tariff: A Study of Free Private Enterprise in Pressure Politics, as Shown in the 1929–30 Revision of the Tariff. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Schnietz, Karen E. 1994. To Delegate or Not to Delegate: Congressional Institutional Choices in the Regulation of Foreign Trade. Unpublished Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Schnietz, Karen E. 2000. The Institutional Foundation of U.S. Trade Policy: Revisiting Explanations for the 1934 Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act. Journal of Policy History 12 (4):417–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stolper, Wolfgang F., and Samuelson, Paul A.. 1941. Protection and Real Wages. Review of Economic Studies 9 (1):58–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1935. Biennial Census of Manufactures. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1938. Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1975. Historical Statistics of the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. Various years. Statistical Abstract of the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
U.S. House of Representatives. Ways and Means Committee Papers. National Archives, Record Group 233, various containers.Google Scholar
U.S. Senate. Committee on Finance. 1934. Reciprocal Trade Agreements Hearings. 73d Cong., 2d ses. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. Finance Committee Papers. National Archives, Record Group 46, various containers.Google Scholar