MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409733448 · doi:10.1017/bap.2025.1

Intra-Industry Trade, Global Value Chains, and the Political Economy of Selective Trade Protection

2025· article· en· W4409733448 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Emile van Ommeren

Bibliographic record

VenueBusiness and Politics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsValue (mathematics)International tradePoliticsBusinessEconomicsInternational economicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recent trade wars have confronted the trade policy literature with a major puzzle. How can we explain protectionist tendencies in the context of global economic integration? In this article, I aim to provide an answer to the question why, and under which conditions, internationally oriented companies are in favor of trade restrictions. More specially, I argue that intra-industry trade (IIT) and global value chains (GVCs) give rise to internally conflicting interests on the part of firms, generating incentives to lobby for specific, targeted measures against their closest competitors. To test whether firms’ preferences are translated into trade policies pursued by governments, I use data on trade barriers imposed by Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, India, Japan, Russia, and the United States. I find compelling evidence that the levels of IIT and to a lesser extent trade in GVCs positively affect the decision to implement selective trade measures—such as bilateral tariffs and antidumping duties—rather than broader forms of trade protection. This result suggests that IIT and GVCs have structurally altered firms’ attitudes toward trade barriers and, consequently, the way in which countries protect their domestic markets against foreign competition.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.372
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.192 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBusiness and PoliticsSame topicGlobal trade and economicsFrench-language works237,207