Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-bthnr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-07T04:06:20.854Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When is Good News About Pro-Co-operation Lobbies Good News About Co-operation?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2013

Stephen Chaudoin  and
Johannes Urpelainen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Lobbies are active participants in international co-operation. In a repeated game, this article allows domestic lobbies to offer contingent rewards to influence their government to make pro-co-operation policy adjustments. The effect of lobbies depends on the type and intensity of their preferences. If the lobbies are ‘internationally benefiting’ – that is, they are interested in whether the foreign government reciprocates with adjustments of its own, they unambiguously improve co-operation. However, if the lobbies are ‘domestically benefiting’ – that is, they are interested in their own government's policy, they are less beneficial for co-operation. A domestically benefiting lobby that is willing to compensate its government even without foreign reciprocity undermines the credibility of punishing free riders. This article demonstrates this argument in the context of trade and environmental co-operation.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , April 2015 , pp. 411 - 433
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

Department of Political Science, University of Pittsburgh (email: chaudoin@pitt.edu); Department of Political Science, Columbia University (email: ju2178@columbia.edu). We thank Anthony Arias, Joseph Brown, Sarah Hummel, Robert Keohane, Jeff Kucik, John Londregan, Tom Scherer, Alice Xu, as well as Adam Meirowitz and participants at the Princeton University Graduate Seminar in Political Economy. We also thank Hugh Ward and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. Online appendices are available at http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1017/S0007123413000367.

References

Agrawala, Shardul Andresen, Steinar. 1999. Indispensability and Indefensibility? The United States in the Climate Treaty Negotiations. Global Governance 5 (4):457–482.Google Scholar
Alvarez, Jose. 2005. Sweetening the US Legislature: The Remarkable Success of the Sugar Lobby. The Political Quarterly 76 (1):92–99.Google Scholar
Axelrod, Robert Keohane, Robert O. 1985. Achieving Cooperation Under Anarchy: Strategies and Institutions. World Politics 38 (1):226–254.Google Scholar
Baldwin, R. 1985. Political Economy of U.S. Import Policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Barrett, Scott. 2008. Climate Treaties and the Imperative of Enforcement. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 24 (2):239–258.Google Scholar
Bearce, David H. Tirone, Daniel C.. 2010. Foreign Aid Effectiveness and the Strategic Goals of Donor Governments. The Journal of Politics 72 (3):837–851.Google Scholar
Becker, Elizabeth. 2003. U.S. Steel Makers to Defend Tariffs. The International Herald Tribune, 3 December.Google Scholar
Boselovic, Len. 2004. O'Neill Says Politics Fueled Steel Tariffs. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 13 January.Google Scholar
Brummer, Alex. 2003. Bush Backs Down on Steel. Daily Mail London, 5 December.Google Scholar
Crittenden, Michael R. Barkley, Tom. 2011. Chamber of Commerces Donohue: China Currency Bill Invites Retaliation. The Wall Street Journal, 7 October.Google Scholar
Dai, Xinyuan. 2005. Why Comply? The Domestic Constituency Mechanism. International Organization 59 (2):363–398.Google Scholar
Dai, Xinyuan. 2007. International Institutions and National Policies. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
den Blanken, Joris, Risso, Sebastien. 2009. Supporting the Global Battle Against Climate Change. Greenpeace Briefing Paper. Available from http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/Publications/2009-and-earlier/briefing-commission-copenhagen-communication-27-01-09/, accessed 7 October 2013.Google Scholar
DeSombre, Elizabeth R. 1995. Baptists and Bootleggers for the Environment: The Origins of United States Unilateral Sanctions. Journal of Environment and Development 4 (1):53–75.Google Scholar
Downs, George W. Rocke, David M.. 1995. Optimal Imperfection? Domestic Uncertainty and Institutions in International Relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Downs, George W., Rocke, David M. Barsoom, Peter N.. 1996. Is the Good News About Compliance Good News about Cooperation? International Organization 50 (3):379–406.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, Sean D. 2007. Access to Protection: Domestic Institutions and Trade Policy in Democracies. International Organization 61 (3):571–605.Google Scholar
Fredriksson, Per, Neumayer, Eric Ujhelyi, Gergely. 2007. Kyoto Protocol Cooperation: Does Government Corruption Facilitate Environmental Lobbying? Public Choice 133:231–251.Google Scholar
Fudenberg, Drew Maskin, Eric S.. 1986. The Folk Theorem in Repeated Games with Discounting or with Incomplete Information. Econometrica 54 (3):567–587.Google Scholar
Grieco, Joseph M., Gelpi, Christopher F. Warren, T. Camber. 2009. When Preferences and Commitments Collide: The Effect of Relative Partisan Shifts on International Treaty Compliance. International Organization 63 (2):341–355.Google Scholar
Grossman, Gene M. Helpman, Elhanan. 1994. Protection for Sale. American Economic Review 84 (4):833–850.Google Scholar
Grossman, Gene M. Helpman, Elhanan. 1995a. The Politics of Free-Trade Agreements. American Economic Review 85(4):667–690.Google Scholar
Grossman, Gene M. Helpman, Elhanan. 1995b. Trade Wars and Trade Talks. Journal of Political Economy 103 (4):675–708.Google Scholar
Grossman, Gene M. Helpman, Elhanan. 2001. Special Interest Politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hug, Simon Konig, Thomas. 2002. In View of Ratification: Governmental Preferences and Domestic Constraints at the Amsterdam Intergovernmental Conference. International Organization 56 (2):447–476.Google Scholar
James, Scott C. Lake, David A.. 1989. The Second Face of Hegemony: Britain's Repeal of the Corn Laws and the American Walker Tariff of 1846. International Organization 43 (1):1–29.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. 1984. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. 1986. Reciprocity in International Relations. International Organization 40 (1):1–27.Google Scholar
King, Neil Jr. Matthews, Robert Guy. 2002. U.S. Feels the Pain of Steel Tariffs. The Wall Street Journal, 31 May.Google Scholar
Limão, Nuno. 2005. Trade Policy, Cross-Border Externalities and Lobbies: Do Linked Agreements Enforce More Cooperative Outcomes? Journal of International Economics 67 (1):175–199.Google Scholar
Lohmann, Susanne. 1997. Linkage Politics. Journal of Conflict Resolution 41 (1):38–67.Google Scholar
Mansfield, Edward D., Milner, Helen V. Rosendorff, B. Peter. 2002. Why Democracies Cooperate More: Electoral Control and International Trade Agreements. International Organization 56 (3):477–513.Google Scholar
Milner, Helen V. 1987. Resisting the Protectionist Temptation: Industry and the Making of Trade Policy in France and the United States During the 1970s. International Organization 41 (4):639–655.Google Scholar
Milner, Helen V. 1988. Resisting Protectionism: Global Industries and the Politics of International Trade. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Milner, Helen V. 1997. Interests, Institutions, and Information: Domestic Politics and International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Morrow, James D. 1994. Modeling the Forms of International Cooperation: Distribution versus Information. International Organization 48:387–423.Google Scholar
Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert D. 1988. Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games. International Organization 44 (3):427–460.Google Scholar
Sanger, David E. 2003. Backing Down on Steel Tariffs, U.S. Strengthens Trade Group. The New York Times, 5 December.Google Scholar
Schreurs, Miranda A. Tiberghien, Yves. 2007. Multi-Level Reinforcement: Explaining European Union Leadership in Climate Change Mitigation. Global Environmental Politics 7 (4):19–46.Google Scholar
Sell, Susan K. 1996. North-South Environmental Bargaining: Ozone, Climate Change, and Biodiversity. Global Governance 2 (1):97–118.Google Scholar
Simmons, Beth A. 2009. Mobilizing for Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Skodvin, Tora Andresen, Steinar. 2006. Leadership Revisited. Global Environmental Politics 6 (3):13–27.Google Scholar
Stevenson, Richard W. Becker, Elizabeth. 2003. After 21 Months, Bush Lifts Tariff on Steel Imports. New York Times, 5 December.Google Scholar
Underdal, Arild. 1994. Leadership Theory: Rediscovering the Art of Management. In International Multilateral Negotiation: Approaches to the Management of Complexity, edited by I. William Zartman, 178–197. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Urpelainen, Johannes. 2011. Can Unilateral Leadership Promote International Environmental Cooperation? International Interactions 37 (3):320–339.Google Scholar
Victor, David G. 2011. Global Warming Gridlock: Creating More Effective Strategies for Protecting the Planet. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Walsh, Bryan. 2012. The Coming U.S.-China Solar War. Time, 31 January.Google Scholar
Young, Oran R. 1991. Political Leadership and Regime Formation: On the Development of Institutions in International Society. International Organization 45 (3):281–308.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Chaudoin and Urpelainen Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download Chaudoin and Urpelainen Supplementary Material(PDF)
PDF 48.3 KB