Modification de Domestic trade politics

International political economy is an important area of study that encompasses the global interplay between politics, economics, and culture. Domestic trade politics are integral to this dynamic, as countries strive to maximise the benefits and minimise the costs of the international trading system. Domestic trade policies can help create a competitive advantage in the global marketplace while also providing the opportunity to promote economic stability and growth. Such policies can have profound impacts on the global economy and can be used to help promote or protect a nation’s economic interests. Understanding the implications of domestic trade politics is critical for governments, businesses, and citizens alike, as it can help them to make informed decisions and maximise their benefits from the international trading system.

Domestic trade policies can take many forms and can be implemented for a variety of reasons. For example, a government may implement tariffs or quotas on imports in order to protect domestic industries from foreign competition. This can help create jobs and increase domestic production, but it can also lead to higher consumer prices and reduced access to foreign goods. Other domestic trade policies can be used to promote specific industries or sectors of the economy. For example, a government may offer subsidies or tax breaks to encourage the development of new technologies or expand existing industries. This can help to create new economic opportunities and drive innovation, but it can also lead to market distortions and unfair competition. There are also trade policies that are designed to promote social or environmental objectives. For example, a government may impose tariffs on goods produced in countries with poor labour or environmental standards to encourage companies to improve their practices. This can help to promote social and environmental responsibility, but it can also lead to trade disputes and retaliatory measures.

= Introduction =
== Models of trade politics ==
Liberalism and mercantilism are two different economic theories that have influenced the development of international trade and economic policies.

Liberalism is an economic theory that emphasises the role of free markets in determining the allocation of resources and the distribution of wealth. It is based on the idea that individuals, rather than governments, should be free to make their own economic decisions and that the market, rather than government intervention, should determine the prices of goods and services.

On the other hand, mercantilism is an economic theory that emphasises the role of government in regulating and controlling trade and economic activity to increase the state’s wealth and power. It is based on the idea that a country’s wealth is determined by its stock of gold and other precious metals. The government should pursue policies that increase exports and decrease imports to accumulate more wealth.

One key difference between liberalism and mercantilism is their respective views on the role of government in the economy. Liberalism advocates for minimal government intervention in economic affairs, while mercantilism advocates for a more active role for government in regulating trade and economic activity. Another key difference is their respective views on the importance of international trade. Liberalism sees international trade as a way to increase efficiency and wealth, while mercantilism sees it as a way to increase the wealth and power of the state.

== Analytical frameworks ==

International political economy (IPE) is a field of study that examines the interaction between politics and economics in the international system. It seeks to understand how political and economic factors influence each other and shape the policies and outcomes of international trade, investment, and financial relations.

In the real world, trade policy outcomes are influenced by a complex set of factors, including the interests of different actors, the institutions that govern international economic relations, and the ideas and ideologies that shape economic policies. These factors interact and influence each other in a dynamic and complex way, making it difficult to predict the direction and outcome of trade policy decisions.

For example, the interests of different actors, such as firms, workers, and governments, may conflict with each other and shape trade policy differently. Institutions, such as international organisations like the World Trade Organization (WTO), also play a role in shaping trade policy by establishing rules and procedures for international trade and dispute resolution. And ideas and ideologies, such as liberal or mercantilist views of trade, can shape the direction of trade policy by influencing the way policymakers and other actors think about trade and its consequences.

IPE provides an analytical framework for understanding the complex and multifaceted nature of trade policy outcomes and how the interaction of these different factors influences them. It helps scholars and policymakers understand the underlying forces shaping trade policy and the implications of different policy choices.

International political economy (IPE) often begins with identifying the interests of different actors in the international system, as these interests can shape and influence trade policy outcomes. Actors in the international system can include classes, sectors, individual firms, voters, and governments, among others.

Classes are groups of people who share common economic interests based on their position in the social and economic hierarchy. For example, the working class may have different interests from the upper class when it comes to trade policy due to their different positions in the economic system.

Sectors refer to different industries or areas of economic activity, such as manufacturing, agriculture, or services. Different sectors may have different interests in trade policy due to their unique economic characteristics and the impact of trade on their respective industries.

Individual firms also have specific interests in trade policy, as trade can directly affect their ability to compete in global markets and access new customers.

Voters also have an interest in trade policy, as it can affect the availability and prices of goods and services, as well as job opportunities and wages.

As the main policymakers, governments also have their own interests in trade policy, which may be influenced by the interests of their constituents and other factors such as national security and international relations.

Understanding the interests of these different actors is important in IPE because it helps to shed light on the motivations and drivers behind trade policy decisions and the potential consequences of those decisions.

In international political economy (IPE), examining how particular political institutions shape and influence trade policy outcomes is important. Political institutions refer to the formal and informal rules, procedures, and structures that govern a country’s political system.

Political institutions can significantly impact trade policy by filtering and shaping the interests and preferences of different actors and shaping the policy-making process. For example, the type of government (democracy vs autocracy) can influence trade policy by determining the extent to which different interests and preferences are represented and considered in the policy-making process.

The electoral system (majoritarian vs proportional) can also shape trade policy by determining the balance of power between different political parties and groups and how closely the public policy preferences are reflected in policy decisions.

The separation of powers (executive vs congressional authority) can affect trade policy by determining which branch of government has the primary responsibility for making trade policy decisions and how much influence different branches have on the policy-making process.

The central bank’s independence can also influence trade policy by determining the extent to which monetary policy (which can affect exchange rates and international trade) is independent of political influence.

Understanding how these and other political institutions filter and shape the interests and preferences of different actors is important in IPE because it helps to explain the policy choices made by governments and the potential consequences of those choices.

= Societal models =

== Factor model ==

=== The Heckscher-Ohlin model ===
The Heckscher-Ohlin model, also known as the Heckscher-Ohlin-Samuelson (HOS) model, is an economic model that explains the pattern of international trade based on differences in the relative abundance or scarcity of certain factors of production, such as capital and labour. The model was developed by economists Eli Heckscher and Bertil Ohlin in the early 20th century and later extended by economist Paul Samuelson. It is based on the assumption that countries will specialise in producing goods that use their abundant factors of production more intensively and trade with other countries to obtain goods that use their scarce factors of production less intensively.

According to the model, a country with a relative abundance of capital (compared to labour) will tend to specialise in producing and exporting capital-intensive goods, such as machinery and equipment, and import labour-intensive goods, such as textiles and apparel. Conversely, a country with a relative abundance of labour (compared to capital) will tend to specialise in producing and exporting labour-intensive goods and importing capital-intensive goods.

The Heckscher-Ohlin model has influenced our understanding of international trade and has been widely used to explain trade patterns between countries. However, it has also been subject to criticism and has been modified and extended to take into account other factors that influence trade, such as technological differences and transportation costs.

One example of how the Heckscher-Ohlin model might be applied to explain international trade patterns between China and the United States is by producing toys and aerospace products.

According to the model, China, which has a relatively abundant supply of labour, might specialise in producing and exporting labour-intensive goods, such as toys, which require a large amount of labour to produce but relatively little capital. The United States, which has a relatively abundant supply of capital, might specialise in producing and exporting capital-intensive goods, such as aerospace products, which require a large amount of capital to produce but relatively little labour.

In this scenario, the United States might import toys from China and export aerospace products to China, taking advantage of their respective comparative advantages in producing these goods. This pattern of trade would be consistent with the predictions of the Heckscher-Ohlin model.

It is worth noting that this example is simplified and does not consider other factors that could influence trade patterns between the two countries, such as technological differences, transportation costs, and government policies. Nonetheless, the Heckscher-Ohlin model provides a useful framework for understanding how differences in the relative abundance of factors of production can shape international trade patterns.

=== Heckscher-Ohlin model’s distributional effect ===

The Heckscher-Ohlin model is an economic model that explains the pattern of international trade based on differences in the relative abundance or scarcity of certain factors of production, such as capital and labour. While the model is primarily concerned with understanding the overall pattern of trade between countries, it can also have distributional effects within countries.

One distributional effect of the Heckscher-Ohlin model is that it can lead to changes in the relative demand for different factors of production within a country. For example, suppose a country specialises in producing and exporting capital-intensive goods, as the model predicts. In that case, it might lead to an increase in the demand for capital and a decrease in the demand for labour. This could result in an increase in the wages of capital owners and a decrease in workers’ wages, leading to a shift in income distribution within the country.

Another distributional effect of the Heckscher-Ohlin model is that it can lead to changes in the relative demand for different industries within a country. For example, suppose a country specialises in producing and exporting labour-intensive goods, as the model predicts. In that case, it might lead to an increase in the demand for labour in the labour-intensive industries and a decrease in the demand for labour in other industries. This could result in shifts in employment and wages within the country, as well as changes in the overall structure of the economy.

It is worth noting that these distributional effects are not necessarily negative and can lead to overall gains in efficiency and welfare. However, they can also have negative consequences for some groups, particularly those who lose out as a result of the changes in the demand for factors of production or industries. As such, it is important to consider the distributional implications of trade policies and to design policies that address any negative effects.

== Political implications ==

=== Class conflict ===

International trade can have political implications in terms of class conflict, as it can lead to changes in the demand for different factors of production and industries, which can affect the economic interests and power of different social classes.

For example, if international trade leads to an increase in the demand for capital and a decrease in the demand for labour, as the Heckscher-Ohlin model predicts, it could lead to an increase in the wages of capital owners and a decrease in the wages of workers. This could lead to a shift in the distribution of income and wealth within the country, potentially exacerbating class conflict between capital owners and workers.

Similarly, if international trade leads to an increase in the demand for certain industries and a decrease in the demand for others, it could lead to shifts in employment and wages within the country, potentially affecting the economic interests and power of different social classes.

These distributional effects of international trade can have political implications in terms of class conflict, as they can lead to tensions and conflicts between different social classes over the distribution of economic benefits and burdens. Governments and policy-makers may need to consider these implications when designing trade policies and consider measures to address any negative distributional effects.

=== Political parties ===

International trade can also have political implications in terms of political parties, as it can affect the economic interests and power of different groups within society and shape political debates and alignments.

For example, suppose international trade leads to changes in the demand for different factors of production and industries, as discussed above. In that case, it could affect the economic interests and power of different social groups and potentially influence their political preferences and allegiances. This could lead to changes in the support for different political parties and the issues they prioritise.

Political parties may also take different positions on trade policy based on their ideology and the interests of their constituents. For example, a party representing the interests of capital owners might support trade policies that favour the export of capital-intensive goods, while a party that represents the interests of workers might support trade policies that favour the export of labour-intensive goods.

Political parties may also be influenced by the broader public opinion on trade policy, which can shape the perceived benefits and costs of trade for different groups within society. For example, suppose international trade is seen as leading to job losses or wage decreases for some groups. In that case, it could lead to increased support for political parties that oppose trade or advocate for policies that address these negative effects.

In summary, international trade can have political implications in terms of political parties by influencing the economic interests and power of different groups within society and shaping political debates and alignments.

=== Interest groups ===
International trade can also have political implications regarding interest groups, as it can affect the economic interests and power of different groups within society and shape the agendas and activities of interest groups. Interest groups are organisations that represent the interests of a particular group or sector within society and advocate for policies that reflect those interests. They can include business associations, labour unions, environmental groups, and other types of advocacy organisations.

As discussed above, international trade can affect the economic interests of different groups within society, and this can influence the agendas and activities of interest groups that represent those groups. For example, suppose international trade leads to job losses or wage decreases for certain groups. In that case, it could lead to increased activism and advocacy by labour unions and other groups representing the interests of those affected. Similarly, suppose international trade increases exports and profits for certain industries. In that case, it could lead to increased lobbying and advocacy by business associations and other groups representing those interests.

Interest groups may also take different positions on trade policy based on their ideology and the interests of their constituents. For example, a labour union might support trade policies that favour the export of labour-intensive goods and protect the interests of workers. In contrast, a business association might support trade policies that favour the export of capital-intensive goods and protect the interests of businesses.

=== The Corn Law’s case ===
The Corn Laws were a series of tariffs and other trade restrictions on imported grains that were implemented in the United Kingdom in the 19th century. These laws were designed to protect domestic grain producers from foreign competition and ensure a steady grain supply for the domestic market. The Corn Laws provide an example of how trade policy can have distributional effects within a country and how these effects can shape political debates and alignments. The Corn Laws were supported by landowners and grain producers, who benefited from the protection they provided. Still, they were opposed by urban consumers and industrialists, who were hurt by the higher prices of grain caused by the tariffs.

This conflict over the Corn Laws reflected a wider divide between agricultural and industrial interests in the United Kingdom. It contributed to the development of the modern political system in the country. The repeal of the Corn Laws in the mid-19th century was a crucial moment in the history of the United Kingdom and had significant implications for the country’s economic and political development.

The Corn Laws also illustrate how trade policy can be influenced by the interests of different groups within society and how these interests can shape policy outcomes. The support for the Corn Laws among landowners and grain producers reflects their economic interests, while the opposition to the laws among urban consumers and industrialists reflects their economic interests. The ultimate repeal of the Corn Laws reflects the changing balance of power between these groups and the shifts in their relative economic interests.

== Sector model ==
The Ricardo-Viner model is a theoretical framework used to analyse trade policy’s effects on a country’s international trade and economic welfare. It is named after David Ricardo and John Viner, two classical economists who contributed significantly to the theory of international trade. The Ricardo-Viner model is based on the idea that trade between countries can lead to economic gains for both parties as long as each country specialises in producing the goods that it can produce most efficiently. The model assumes that countries will choose to specialise in producing and exporting the goods they have a comparative advantage in and will import the goods they have a comparative disadvantage in. This specialisation can lead to gains from trade for both countries, as each can focus on producing the goods that it is best at rather than trying to produce everything itself.

The Ricardo-Viner model is often used to analyse the effects of trade policy on international trade and economic welfare. For example, it can be used to analyse the effects of tariffs and other trade barriers on trade patterns between countries and to evaluate the potential gains from trade liberalisation and free trade agreements.

The Stolper-Samuelson theorem is a theoretical framework used to analyse the effects of international trade on income distribution within a country. It is named after Wolfgang Stolper and Paul Samuelson, two economists who developed the theorem in the 1940s.

Like the Ricardo-Viner model, the Stolper-Samuelson theorem is based on the idea that trade between countries can lead to economic gains for both parties. However, the Stolper-Samuelson theorem focuses specifically on how international trade affects income distribution within a country, rather than on the overall gains from trade.

According to the Stolper-Samuelson theorem, international trade can lead to a redistribution of income within a country, with the owners of the factors of production that are used intensively in the production of export goods (such as capital or skilled labour) gaining at the expense of the owners of the factors of production that are used intensively in the production of import-competing goods (such as unskilled labour). This is because international trade can lead to changes in the prices of different goods and production factors, affecting income distribution within a country.

So, while the Ricardo-Viner model and the Stolper-Samuelson theorem are both concerned with the effects of international trade on economic welfare, the Ricardo-Viner model focuses on the overall gains from trade. In contrast, the Stolper-Samuelson theorem focuses on the distribution of those gains within a country.

The Stolper-Samuelson theorem suggests that international trade can lead to a redistribution of income within a country, with the owners of the factors of production that are used intensively in the production of export goods (such as capital or skilled labour) gaining at the expense of the owners of the factors of production that are used intensively in the production of import-competing goods (such as unskilled labour).

This income redistribution can lead to forming political coalitions along industry lines, as those who have gained from trade (such as owners of export-oriented firms) may support policies that promote international trade and liberalisation. In contrast, those who have lost from trade (such as workers in import-competing industries) may support policies that protect their industries from foreign competition.

It’s important to note that the effects of international trade on income distribution within a country can be complex and depend on various factors. For example, the overall gains from trade may be large enough to compensate those who have lost from trade, or the government may choose to implement policies that redistribute income to mitigate the negative effects of trade on certain groups. Additionally, trade effects on income distribution can vary across different industries and regions within a country.

The Stolper-Samuelson theorem suggests that international trade can lead to a redistribution of income within a country, with the owners of the factors of production that are used intensively in the production of export goods (such as capital or skilled labour) gaining at the expense of the owners of the factors of production that are used intensively in the production of import-competing goods (such as unskilled labour).

This redistribution of income can lead to the formation of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ within a country, with those who have gained from trade (such as owners of export-oriented firms) being considered ‘winners’ and those who have lost from trade (such as workers in import-competing industries) being considered, ‘losers’. However, it’s important to note that the overall gains from trade may be large enough to compensate those who have lost from trade, or the government may choose to implement policies that redistribute income to mitigate the negative effects of trade on certain groups.

It’s also worth noting that the effects of international trade on the income distribution within a country can be complex and depend on various factors. For example, trade’s effects on income distribution can vary across different industries and regions within a country. In addition, other economic and social policies may influence them.

In the case of trade between the United States and China, the owners of export-oriented firms in the United States (such as those producing goods for export to China) may have gained from the increase in international trade. In contrast, the owners of import-competing firms (such as those producing goods that compete with cheaper imports from China) may have lost. Similarly, workers in export-oriented industries in the United States may have benefited from the increase in international trade, while workers in import-competing industries may have been negatively affected.

It’s important to note that the effects of international trade on income distribution within each country can be complex and depend on various factors, including the specific industries and regions involved, and each country’s broader economic and social policies.

== Political implications ==

=== Sectorial conflict ===
Conflicts over trade policy may form along sectoral lines, with different industries having different interests in terms of trade policy. According to the Stolper-Samuelson theorem, international trade can lead to a redistribution of income within a country, with the owners of the factors of production that are used intensively in the production of export goods (such as capital or skilled labour) gaining at the expense of the owners of the factors of production that are used intensively in the production of import-competing goods (such as unskilled labour).

This income redistribution can lead to different industries having different interests in trade policy. For example, industries that use abundant factors of production (such as capital or skilled labour) intensively may favour free trade, as international trade can lead to increased demand for their products and higher profits. On the other hand, industries that use scarce factors of production (such as unskilled labour) intensively may favour protectionist measures, as international trade can lead to increased competition and lower profits.

It’s important to note that the relationship between an industry’s use of specific factors of production and its stance on trade policy is only sometimes straightforward and may be influenced by a variety of factors. Additionally, the overall gains from trade may be large enough to compensate those who have lost from trade, or the government may choose to implement policies that redistribute income to mitigate the negative effects of trade on certain groups.

=== Political Parties ===
Intra-party splits over trade policy may occur within political parties, as parties may represent voters in both export-oriented and import-competing sectors. According to the Stolper-Samuelson theorem, international trade can lead to a redistribution of income within a country, with the owners of the factors of production that are used intensively in the production of export goods (such as capital or skilled labour) gaining at the expense of the owners of the factors of production that are used intensively in the production of import-competing goods (such as unskilled labour).

This income redistribution can lead to different industries having different interests in trade policy, and political parties may represent voters in both export-oriented and import-competing sectors. For example, a political party may have constituents who support free trade and its benefits to export-oriented industries. On the other hand, they are concerned about the negative effects of trade on import-competing industries and favour protectionist measures.

As a result, there may be intra-party splits over trade policy, with some members of a political party advocating for free trade and others advocating for protectionist measures. This can make it difficult for parties to develop a clear and consistent partisan trade strategy, as they may need to balance the interests of different groups within their party.

=== Interest groups ===
Highly active sector-specific interest groups may engage in strong lobbying and campaigning efforts to influence trade policy. According to the Stolper-Samuelson theorem, international trade can lead to a redistribution of income within a country, with the owners of the factors of production that are used intensively in the production of export goods (such as capital or skilled labour) gaining at the expense of the owners of the factors of production that are used intensively in the production of import-competing goods (such as unskilled labour). This income redistribution can lead to different industries having different interests in trade policy, and interest groups representing specific sectors may engage in lobbying and campaigning efforts to influence trade policy in favour of their industry. For example, an interest group representing an export-oriented industry may lobby for free trade and the benefits it brings to their industry. In contrast, an interest group representing an import-competing industry may lobby for protectionist measures to safeguard their industry from foreign competition.

It’s important to note that the influence of interest groups on trade policy can vary depending on various factors, such as the strength and resources of the group, the broader political and economic context, and the specific issues at stake.

=== US trade policy in 1930s ===
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 was a piece of legislation that the United States Congress passed in an effort to protect domestic industries from foreign competition. The Act raised tariffs (import taxes) on a wide range of imported goods, including agricultural products, manufactured goods, and raw materials.

The Act was named after its sponsors, Representative Willis C. Hawley and Senator Reed Smoot, both of whom were members of the Republican Party. It was intended to boost the U.S. economy by protecting domestic industries and helping them to sell their products at higher prices. However, the Act was controversial at the time and has been the subject of much economic debate.

Some economists argue that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act contributed to the severity of the Great Depression, as it led to a spiral of protectionist measures by other countries and a decline in international trade. However, others have argued that the Act had a relatively small impact on the overall economy and that other factors, such as the collapse of the banking system and the Federal Reserve's contractionary monetary policy, were more important in causing the Great Depression.

The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 (RTAA) was a piece of legislation that the United States Congress passed to reduce tariffs (import taxes) and promote international trade. The Act granted the President of the United States the authority to negotiate trade agreements with other countries and to reduce tariffs on a reciprocal basis (i.e., if one country reduced its tariffs, the other country would also reduce its tariffs).

The RTAA marked a shift in U.S. trade policy towards a more liberal, pro-trade stance, and it helped pave the way for the gradual dismantling of tariffs and other trade barriers in the United States and worldwide. The Act also established the principle of "most-favoured-nation" treatment, which requires countries to extend the same tariff concessions to all of their trading partners.

The RTAA was a significant piece of legislation that helped to liberalize international trade and contributed to the growth of the global economy. In addition, it has been credited with helping to reduce tensions between countries and fostering a more cooperative approach to international trade.

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 and the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 (RTAA) represent different approaches to trade policy in the United States. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act raised tariffs (import taxes) on a wide range of imported goods in an effort to protect domestic industries from foreign competition. In contrast, the RTAA marked a shift towards a more liberal, pro-trade stance and granted the President the authority to negotiate trade agreements with other countries and to reduce tariffs on a reciprocal basis.

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and the RTAA reflect different views on the role of trade policy in the U.S. economy. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was a protectionist measure intended to boost the U.S. economy by protecting domestic industries and helping them sell their products at higher prices. In contrast, the RTAA represented a more liberal approach to trade policy that aimed to reduce tariffs and promote international trade.

It's worth noting that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and the RTAA were both passed during economic difficulty in the United States, and both pieces of legislation intended to address specific economic challenges. However, the two Acts represent different approaches to trade policy and had different impacts on the U.S. economy and international trade.

In the context of trade policy, cleavage refers to the division or separation of different groups within a society or political system based on their interests or positions on trade issues. In the case of trade policy, cleavages may be based on sectoral conflict, with different industries having different interests in terms of trade policy.

Sectoral conflict refers to the idea that different industries within a society or political system may have competing interests on trade policy, with some industries supporting free trade and others supporting protectionist measures. For example, industries that use abundant factors of production (such as capital or skilled labour) intensively may favour free trade. In contrast, industries that use scarce factors of production (such as unskilled labour) intensively may favour protectionist measures.

Log rolling refers to exchanging political favours or support, often in the form of votes on specific issues, to achieve a mutually beneficial outcome. In the context of trade policy, log rolling may involve different industries or interest groups supporting or opposing specific trade measures in exchange for support on other issues.

Voting along narrow industry lines refers to the idea that individuals or groups may vote for or against specific trade measures based on the impact that those measures are expected to have on their specific industry or sector. For example, individuals or groups representing export-oriented industries may vote in favour of free trade measures, while those representing import-competing industries may vote against such measures.

During the 1930s, trade policy in the United States was characterized by significant cleavages, with different industries and interest groups taking different positions on trade issues. This was partly due to the economic challenges of the time and the different approaches to trade policy represented by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 and the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 (RTAA).

Sectoral conflict was a key factor in shaping trade policy in the 1930s, as different industries had competing interests in terms of trade policy. For example, industries that used abundant factors of production (such as capital or skilled labour) intensively may have favoured free trade and the benefits it brought to their industries. In contrast, industries that used scarce factors of production (such as unskilled labour) intensively may have favoured protectionist measures to safeguard their industries from foreign competition.

Log rolling also shaped trade policy in the 1930s, as different industries and interest groups exchanged political favours or support to achieve their preferred outcomes on trade issues. For example, industries that supported free trade may have supported protectionist measures favoured by other industries in exchange for support on free trade measures.

Voting along narrow industry lines was also a factor in shaping trade policy in the 1930s. Individuals and groups representing specific industries voted for or against specific trade measures based on the impact those measures were expected to have on their industries. For example, individuals or groups representing export-oriented industries may have voted in favour of free trade measures, while those representing import-competing industries may have voted against such measures.

During the 1930s, political conflict over trade policy was a significant factor in shaping trade policy in the United States. This was partly due to the economic challenges of the time, as well as the different approaches to trade policy represented by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 and the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 (RTAA).

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 was a protectionist measure that raised tariffs (import taxes) on a wide range of imported goods in an effort to protect domestic industries from foreign competition. The Act was controversial and was opposed by many businesses and trade groups, particularly those that relied on imports or exported to countries that raised tariffs in response to the Act. The Act was also opposed by some members of the Democratic Party and was supported by members of the Republican Party.

In contrast, the RTAA of 1934 marked a shift towards a more liberal, pro-trade stance and granted the President the authority to negotiate trade agreements with other countries and to reduce tariffs on a reciprocal basis. The Act was supported by many businesses and trade groups, particularly those that relied on exports or imported intermediate goods for their production processes. The Act was also supported by some members of the Republican Party and was opposed by some members of the Democratic Party.

= Evaluation =

== Reconciling the models ==
In economics, the factor model refers to a framework that emphasizes the role of factors of production (such as labor and capital) in the economy. This model assumes that factors of production are highly mobile, meaning that they can easily move between different sectors of the economy in response to changes in demand or supply. The factor model is often contrasted with the sector model, which emphasizes the importance of specific sectors or industries in the economy. The sector model assumes that factors of production are highly specific, meaning that they are tied to particular sectors or industries and are less likely to move between sectors.

The assumptions of high inter-sectorial factor mobility and high factor specificity can have important implications for economic policy and the distribution of economic benefits. For example, if factors of production are highly mobile, then policies that seek to promote or protect specific sectors or industries may be less effective, as factors of production may simply move to other sectors. On the other hand, if factors of production are highly specific, then policies that seek to promote or protect specific sectors or industries may be more effective, as factors of production may be less likely to move to other sectors.

her words, factors of production can be more or less mobile, depending on a range of economic, technological, and political conditions.

Some of the key factors that can affect factor mobility include:

# Regulation: Government regulations can make it more or less difficult for factors of production to move between sectors. For example, strict labor regulations or complex tax systems can make it difficult for workers to switch industries, while relaxed regulations may make it easier for them to do so.
# Transportation: The ease of transportation can also affect factor mobility. Factors of production that are difficult to transport, such as specialized machinery or raw materials, may be more tied to specific sectors or locations. On the other hand, factors that are easy to transport, such as labor and capital, may be more mobile.
# Industry-specific machinery and skills: Factors of production that are specialized for particular industries or sectors may be less mobile than those that are more general. For example, workers with specific skills or knowledge may be more likely to stay in a particular industry, while those with more general skills may be more likely to move between industries.

Factor mobility is affected by a range of economic, technological, and political conditions, and it is important to consider these factors when analyzing the mobility of factors of production in the economy.

One way to measure the mobility of factors of production is to look at the variation in their rate of return across sectors. The rate of return for a factor of production refers to the return that it generates for its owner, such as wages for labor or profits for capital. If the rate of return for a factor varies significantly across sectors, this suggests that the factor is relatively immobile and is tied to particular sectors or industries. On the other hand, if the rate of return for a factor is relatively constant across sectors, this suggests that the factor is more mobile and is able to move between sectors in response to changes in demand or supply.

For example, if wages for labor vary significantly across sectors, this suggests that labor is relatively immobile and is tied to particular sectors or industries. On the other hand, if wages are relatively constant across sectors, this suggests that labor is more mobile and is able to move between sectors in response to changes in demand or supply. Similarly, if profits for capital vary significantly across sectors, this suggests that capital is relatively immobile, while constant profits suggest greater mobility.

If there is a low level of factor mobility in an economy, this can lead to the formation of industry coalitions among firms and workers within specific sectors or industries. These coalitions may seek to influence government policy in order to promote the interests of their members. This can have an effect on political parties and peak associations, which may become divided over trade issues and adopt ambiguous policy positions in order to accommodate the diverse interests of their constituents.

For industry groups, low factor mobility can have a number of implications. First, it may make it easier for firms and workers within a particular sector or industry to organize and advocate for their interests. However, it can also lead to a narrow focus on the interests of the specific sector or industry, rather than on the broader interests of the economy as a whole. This can create conflicts of interest and lead to trade disputes or other policy conflicts. Additionally, low factor mobility may make it more difficult for firms and workers to adapt to changing economic conditions, as they may be more tied to specific sectors or industries. This can limit the ability of the economy to respond to changing market conditions and may lead to economic inefficiencies.

== Electoral consequences ==

== Other electoral effects ==

= Conclusion =