Trade, Welfare States and Confidence in Domestic Political Institutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Council of Canada. The internationalization of the economy is often seen as a potential threat to public confidence in domestic political institutions. Some suggest that economic openness drives down confidence in state institutions because citizens of free-trading states are more exposed than citizens of relatively closed economies to international economic shocks, and because free trade limits the economic and social policy options of states. Others argue that economically open states are resilient in the face of global economic pressures, and are well-suited to maintain the sorts of fiscal and social policies that encourage state legitimacy. Yet others point out that economic openness might not affect aggregate public confidence in state institutions, but can instead induce "confidence gaps " between different domestic social groups, depending upon whether they benefit or not from an open economy. Systematic empirical investigations of how mass publics react to economic openness remain rare. This paper employs data from the World Values Surveys (WVS) and Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) from 30 countries to examine the effects of economic openness on confidence in domestic political institutions. We show that trade openness does have a marked impact on confidence in public institutions in countries where welfare spending effort is modest. Specifically, the results indicate substantial differences in levels of confidence between individuals of low and high socioeconomic status in states with open economies and minimal social spending. This evidence provides substantial empirical support for theoretical claims about the potential impact of economic openness on domestic politics.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".