Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T02:37:08.752Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Political Economy of the U.S.-Mexico Free Trade Agreement: Analysis of the Congressional Fast Track Vote

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Fred O. Boadu  and
Maria R. Thompson
Fred O. Boadu
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University
Maria R. Thompson
Affiliation:
Texas A&M University, and Columbia University Law School, New York, New York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents an empirical analysis of the strategic forces shaping U.S.-Mexico trade relationships and the possibilities of extending the trade agreement to the rest of the Americas. The paper concludes that constituency interests, party loyalty, the proportion of a state's population of Hispanic origin, and the influence of textile-related employment in the state were significant explanatory factors in the Congressional Fast Track vote that occurred in May of 1991.

Keywords

free trade agreementfast tracktextilescongressional voting
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , December 1993 , pp. 27 - 35
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1993

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

Abler, D. G. “Vote Trading on Farm Legislation in the U.S. House.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 71(1989):583-91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American Textile Manufacturing Institute. Statement Before the Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives (102nd Cong. 1st Sess.), 1991.Google Scholar
Baldwin, R. E.Trade Policy in a Changing World Economy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1988.Google Scholar
Belsley, D., Kuh, E., and Welsch, R.Regression Diagnostics. New York: Wiley, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coughlin, C. C. “Domestic Content Legislation: House Voting and the Economic Theory of Regulation.” Economic Inquiry 23(1985):437–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donahue, T. R. (Sec.-Treas., AFLCIO). Statement Before the Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives (102nd Cong. 1st Sess.), 1991.Google Scholar
Edwards, G.Presidential Influence in Congress. San Francisco: Freeman, 1980.Google Scholar
Federal Election Commission. Federal Candidate Disclosure Reports, 1989-90. Washington, D.C., 1991.Google Scholar
Gardner, B. L. “Causes of U.S. Farm Commodity Programs.” J. Polit. Econ. 95(1987):290–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grier, K. B., Munger, M. C., and Torrent, G. M.. “Allocation Patterns of PAC Monies: The U.S. Senate.” Pub. Choice 67(1990):11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guttman, J. “Interest Groups and the Demand for Agricultural Research.” J. Polit. Econ. 86(1978):467–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgs, R. “Do Legislators' Votes Reflect Constituency Preference? A Simple Way to Evaluate the Senate.” Pub. Choice 63(1989): 175–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschman, A. O. “Rival Interpretations of Market Society: Civilizing, Destructive, or Feeble.” J. Econ. Lit. 20(1982): 1463-85.Google Scholar
Kau, J. B., and Rubin, P. H.. Congressmen, Constituents, and Contributors: Determinants of Roll-Call Voting in the House of Representatives. Boston: Nijhoff, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, D., and Silberberg, E.. “Ideology and Legislator Shirking.” Econ. Inquiry 25(1987): 15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
North Carolina Office of the Governor. State Rankings, 1989, Raleigh, N.C., 1991.Google Scholar
Ortman, D. E. On Behalf of the Friends of the Earth, Natural Wildlife Federation, Texas Center for Policy Studies. Statement before the Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives (102nd Cong. 1st Sess.), 1991.Google Scholar
Peltzman, S. “Constituent Interest and Congressional Voting.” J. Law and Econ. 27(1984): 181–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, J. G. “The 1977 Farm Bill: Coalitions in Congress.” The New Politics of Food, Hadwiger, Don F. and Browne, W.P., eds. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1978.Google Scholar
Rivers, D., and Rose, N.. “Passing the President's Program.” Amer. J. Polit. Sc. 29(1985):183–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tosini, S. C., and Tower, E.. “The Textile Bill of 1985: The Determinants of Congressional Voting Patterns.” Pub. Choice 54(1987): 19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). “U.S.-Mexico Trade: Trends and Impediments in Agricultural Trade.” GAO/NSIAD-90-85BR, Washington, D.C., 1990.Google Scholar
U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). “The Likely Impact on the United States of a Free Trade Agreement with Mexico.” Investigation No. 332-297, USITC Pub. No. 2353, Washington, D.C., 1991.Google Scholar
Zupan, M. A. “Local Benefit-Seeking and National Policymaking: Democrats vs. Republicans in the Legislature.” Pub. Choice 68(1991):245–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar