Palabras clave
Comportamiento político
Globalización
Comercio internacional
Economía política internacional
Cómo citar
Resumen
El artículo analiza los determinantes de las opiniones de los brasileños sobre la integración de la
economía brasileña en los mercados globales, analizando los datos de encuesta, con una muestra
nacional, realizada en el ámbito del proyecto “Brasil, las Américas y el mundo”. Demostramos que los brasileños, en gran medida, son a favor de la apertura internacional de nuestra economía y que sus actitudes están guiadas tanto por motivaciones económicas como por ideas y valores políticos. La baja exposición de la economía brasileña a la competición externa parece contribuir a la existencia de opiniones a favor de un mayor acceso a los bienes importados. La posición ideológica, a su vez, actúa como un filtro para estas percepciones independientemente de las condiciones económicas de los individuos. Así, la evidencia indica que la posición del individuo como consumidor, su ideología política y sus puntos de vista nacionalistas influyen en sus pun-tos de vista sobre la globalización y el libre comercio. Los resultados confirman estudios previos sobre el mismo tema realizados en países en desarrollo.
Citas
ALMEIDA, M., et al. O Brasil, as Américas e o mundo segundo a opinião do público e dos líderes. São Paulo: Cebrap, 2010.
ALMEIDA, M., et al. O Brasil, as Américas e o mundo segundo a opinião do público e dos líderes. São Paulo: Cebrap, 2014.
ALMEIDA, M., et al. O Brasil, as Américas e o mundo segundo a opinião do público. São Paulo: Cebrap, 2019.
ARDANAZ, M.; MURILLO, M. V.; PINTO, P. M. “Sensitivity to issue framing on trade policy preferences: evidence from a survey experiment”. International Organization, vol. 67, nº 2, p. 411-437, abr. 2013. BAKER, A. “Why is trade reform so popular in Latin America? A consumption-based theory of trade policy preferences”. World Politics, vol. 55, nº 3, p. 423-55, 2003.
ARDANAZ, M.; MURILLO, M. V.; PINTO, P. M. “Who wants to globalize? Consumer tastes and labor markets in a theory of trade policy beliefs”. American Journal of Political Science, vol. 49, nº 4, p. 924-938, 2005.
ARDANAZ, M.; MURILLO, M. V.; PINTO, P. M. The market and the masses in Latin America: policy reform and consumption in liberalizing economies. Cambridge; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
BALISTRERI, E. J. “The performance of the Heckscher-Ohlin-Vanek Model in predicting endogenous policy forces at the individual level”. The Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue Canadienne d’Economique, vol. 30, nº 1, p. 1-17, 1997.
BEAULIEU, E. “Factor or industry cleavages in trade policy? An empirical analysis of the Stolper– Samuelson Theorem”. Economics & Politics, vol. 14, nº 2, p. 99-131, 2002.
BEAULIEU, E.; NAPIER, M. “Why are women more protectionist than men?”. Manuscrito não publicado.
Department of Economics, University of Calgary, 2008. Disponível em:
http://www.uvic.ca/socialsciences/economics/assets/docs/pastdept-3/beaulieu.pdf. Acesso em: 8 nov. 2008.
BEAULIEU, E.; YATAWARA, R. A.; WANG, W. G. “Who supports free trade in Latin America?”. The World Economy, vol. 28, nº 7, p. 941-958, 2005.
BEKHUIS, H.; LUBBERS, M.; VERKUYTEN, M. “How education moderates the relation between globalization and nationalist attitudes”. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, vol. 26, nº 4, p. 487-500, 2014.
BLONIGEN, B. A. “Revisiting the evidence on trade policy preferences”. Journal of International Economics, vol. 85, nº 1, p. 129-135, 2011.
BOONE, W. J.; STAVER, J. R.; YALE, M. S. Rasch analysis in the human sciences. [s.l.] Springer Netherlands, 2014.
BROMHEAD, A. D. “Women voters and trade protectionism in the interwar years”. Oxford Economic Papers, vol. 70, nº 1, p. 22-46, 2018.
BURGOON, B.; HISCOX, M. J. “The mysterious case of female protectionism: gender bias in the attitudes and politics of international trade”. In: American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL. Set. 2–5. 2004.
BURGOON, B.; HISCOX, M. J. “The gender divides over international trade: why do men and women have different views about openness to the world economy?”, 2008. Manuscrito não publicado. Department of Government, Harvard University. Disponível em:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brian_Burgoon/publication/228432050_The_Gender_Divide_ov er_International_Trade_Why_Do_Men_and_Women_Have_Different_Views_about_Openness_to_the_ World_Economy/links/0deec51dfedd2170f5000000.pdf. Acesso em: 1 jan. 2008.
CHACHAMOVICH, E. “Teoria de resposta ao item: aplicação do modelo Rasch em desenvolvimento e validação de instrumentos em saúde mental”. Tese de doutorado. Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, 2007.
CHIANG, C.-F.; LIU, J.-T.; WEN, T.-W. “Individual preferences for trade partners in Taiwan”. Economics & Politics, vol. 25, nº 1, p. 91-109, 2013.
CLARO, H. G. “Validação dos instrumentos avaliação global das necessidades individuais – inicial e de rastreio rápido”. Tese de Doutorado em Cuidados em Saúde. Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2015.
DATAFOLHA, Avaliação Fernando Henrique Cardoso (6 meses), junho de 1995, Brasil. In: CESOP – Centro de Estudos de Opinião Pública, Banco de Dados, Pesquisa nº 432. Disponível em: https://www.cesop.unicamp.br/por/banco_de_dados/v/1486. Acesso em: 1 jan. 2020.
DEUTSCHMANN, E.; MINKUS, L. “Swinging leftward: public opinion on economic and political integration in Latin America, 1997-2010”. Latin American Research Review, vol. 53, p. 38-56, 2018.
DIGIUSEPPE, M.; KLEINBERG, K. B. “Economics, security, and individual-level preferences for trade agreements”. International Interactions, vol. 45, nº 2, p. 289-315, 2018.
DROPE, J.; CHOWDHURY, A. “The puzzle of heterogeneity in support for free trade”. Business and Politics, vol. 16, nº 3, p. 453-479, out. 2014.
FATTORE, C.; FITZPATRICK, B. “Perceived inequality and support for trade liberalization in Latin America”. Journal of International Trade Law and Policy, vol. 15, nº 2-3, p. 102-114, 2016.
FORDHAM, B. O.; KLEINBERG, K. B. “How can economic interests influence support for free trade?”. International Organization, vol. 66, nº 2, p. 311-328, abr. 2012.
GUISINGER, A. “Determining trade policy: do voters hold politicians accountable?”. International Organization, vol. 63, nº 3, p. 533-557, 2009.
HAINMUELLER, J.; HISCOX, M. J. “Learning to love globalization: education and individual attitudes toward international trade”. International Organization, vol. 60, nº 2, p. 469-498, abr. 2006.
HERRMANN, R. K.; TETLOCK, P. E.; DIASCRO, M. N. “How Americans think about trade: reconciling conflicts among money, power, and principles”. International Studies Quarterly, vol. 45, nº 2, p. 191218, 2001.
HICKS, R.; MILNER, H. V.; TINGLEY, D. “Trade policy, economic interests, and party politics in a developing country: the political economy of Cafta-DR”. International Studies Quarterly, vol. 58, nº 1, p. 106-117, 2014.
HISCOX, M. J. “Through a glass and darkly: attitudes toward international trade and the curious effects of issue framing”. International Organization, vol. 60, nº 3, p. 755-780, 2006.
HUMPHREYS, L. G.; MONTANELLI JR., R. G. “An investigation of the parallel analysis criterion for determining the number of common factors”. Multivariate Behavioral Research, vol. 10, nº 2, p. 193205, 1975.
IBOPE - Instituto Brasileiro de Opinião e Estatística, Pesquisa de opinião pública sobre assuntos políticos e administrativos, Brasil, agosto de 1990. In: CESOP – Centro de Estudos de Opinião Pública, Banco de Dados, Pesquisa nº 229. Disponível em:
https://www.cesop.unicamp.br/por/banco_de_dados/v/474. Acesso em: 1 jan. 2020.
JÄKEL, I. C.; SMOLKA, M. “Individual attitudes towards trade: Stolper-Samuelson revisited”. Open Economies Review, vol. 24, nº 4, p. 731-761, 2013.
JÄKEL, I. C.; SMOLKA, M. “Trade policy preferences and factor abundance”. Journal of International Economics, vol.
, p. 1-19, 2017.
KAGITANI, K.; HARIMAYA, K. “Who fears or favors globalization? Evidence from individual-level survey data in Japan”. International Economics, vol. 156, p. 61-76, 2017.
KALTENTHALER, K. C.; GELLENY, R. D.; CECCOLI, S. J. “Explaining citizen support for trade liberalization”. International Studies Quarterly, vol. 48, nº 4, p. 829-852, 2004.
KALTENTHALER, K.; MILLER, W. J. “Social psychology and public support for trade liberalization”. International Studies Quarterly, vol. 57, nº 4, p. 784-790, 2013.
KUME, H. “Avaliação e reformulação da estrutura tarifária no Brasil” (online). Iepe/CdG, 2017. Disponível em: http://iepecdg.com.br/artigos/avaliacao-e-reformulacao-da-estrutura-tarifaria-nobrasil/. Acesso em: 1 jan. 2019.
KUO, J.; NAOI, M. Individual attitudes. In: MARTIN, L. (Ed.). The Oxford handbook of the political economy of international trade, p. 99-118. Oxford University Press, USA, maio 2015.
LAKE, D. A.; LINDSEY, D. Moral foundations and individual-level foreign policy preferences. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, 2013.
LATINOBARÓMETRO, 1996. Disponível em: https://www.latinobarometro.org/latContents.jsp. Acesso em: 1 jan. 2020.
MANSFIELD, E. D.; MUTZ, D. C. “Support for free trade: self-interest, sociotropic politics, and out-group anxiety”. International Organization, vol. 63, nº 3, p. 425-457, jul. 2009.
MANSFIELD, E. D.; MUTZ, D. C.; SILVER, L. R. “Men, women, trade, and free markets”. International Studies Quarterly, vol. 59, nº 2, p. 303-315, 2015.
MAYDA, A. M.; RODRIK, D. “Why are some people (and countries) more protectionist than others?”. European Economic Review, vol. 49, nº 6, p. 1.393-1.430, 2005.
MERINO, M.; VARGAS, D. “How consumers perceive globalization: a multilevel approach”. Journal of Business Research, vol. 66, nº 3, p. 431-438, 2013.
NAOI, M.; KUME, I. “Workers or consumers? A survey experiment on the duality of citizens’ interests in the politics of trade”. Comparative Political Studies, vol. 48, nº 10, p. 1.293-1.317, 2015.
NAOI, M.; URATA, S. “Free trade agreements and domestic politics: the case of the trans-pacific partnership agreement”. Asian Economic Policy Review, vol. 8, nº 2, p. 326-349, 2013.
ONG, A. D.; DULMEN, M. H. M. V. Oxford handbook of methods in positive psychology. [s.l.] Oxford University Press, 2006.
O’ROURKE, K. H.; SINNOTT, R. “The determinants of individual attitudes towards immigration”. European Journal of Political Economy, vol. 22, nº 4, p. 838-861, 2006.
PEREIRA, J. C. R. Bioestatística em outras palavras. São Paulo: Edusp, 2010.
POLIT, D. F.; BECK, C. T. Fundamentos de pesquisa em enfermagem: avaliação de evidências para a prática da enfermagem. Porto Alegre: Artmed Editora, 2018.
RATHBUN, B. C.; KERTZER, J. D.; PARADIS, M. “Homo diplomaticus: mixed-method evidence of variation in strategic rationality”. International Organization, vol. 71, nº S1, p. S33-S60, abr. 2017.
RHO, S.; TOMZ, M. “Industry, self-interest, and individual preferences over trade policy”. Working paper R&R, 2015.
RATHBUN, B. C.; KERTZER, J. D.; PARADIS, M. “Why don’t trade preferences reflect economic self-interest?”. International Organization, vol. 71, nº S1, p. S85-S108, abr. 2017.
SABET, S. What’s in a name? Isolating the effect of prejudice on individual trade references. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, 2013.
SCHEVE, K. F.; SLAUGHTER, M. J. ”What determines individual trade-policy preferences?”. Journal of International Economics, vol. 54, nº 2, p. 267-292, 2001.
SPILKER, G.; BERNAUER, T.; UMAÑA, V. “Selecting partner countries for preferential trade agreements: experimental evidence from Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Vietnam”. International Studies Quarterly, vol. 60, nº 4, p. 706-718, 2016.
SPILKER, G.; BERNAUER, T.; UMAÑA, V. “What kinds of trade liberalization agreements do people in developing countries want?”. International Interactions, vol. 44, nº 3, p. 510-536, 2018.
TAVAKOL, M.; DENNICK, R. “Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha”. International Journal of Medical Education, vol. 2, p. 53-55, 2011.
ZELLER, R. A.; CARMINES, E. G. Measurement in the social sciences: the link between theory and data. [s.l.] CUP Archive, 1980.
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
Derechos de autor 2021 Flávio Pinheiro
Descargas
