Of course, my study only looks at the case of the US and may not be generalizable to other countries with different comp. advantages. This may be a reason why international cooperation is all the more important. (end)

this pro-env effect decreases as the average level of GVC integration increases. In other words, disguised protectionism works in very nuanced ways. More importantly, trade is not necessarily the enemy of environment. (4/n)

On the other hand, I find some evidence for disguised protectionism, but conditional on low GVC integration: Although env bills with trade effects are more likely to gain a pro-env vote with increased imports (which could be explained by an increased in demands for disguised protectionism) (3/n)

I argue that an increase in imports weakened the 'dirty' industries in the US insofar as it opened up room for more environmental support among the US legislators. This is in line with classical econ theories that predict a decline in industries with comp. disadvantage. (2/n)

Thank you Bit! 😊

Of course I don’t mean to claim that more international economic competition is always beneficial for the environment, because my study only deals with the US. However, my results suggest that reconciling liberal economic order and env protection is possible.

I test whether representatives from districts with bigger trade shocks vote more favorably on env. bills using congressional roll call votes classified by the LCV. I find that legislators vote more pro-environmentally when there is a bigger import shock.

I argue that international economic competition can contribute to environmental protection in the US. How? Because trade shocks hurt the dirty industries more given the US comparative disadvantage in dirty goods.

Congratz Anthony!!

academic.oup.com/isq/article/...
By Lauren Peritz!