| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
167878
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
What arguments affect citizen support for policies? Most existing studies of preferences emphasize direct effects on personal welfare. Yet, for many regulatory policies—like financial regulations—recent theories highlight indirect policy externalities, such as interdependent foreign policies and/or global economic networks. We theorize that citizens will respond to arguments emphasizing the three distinct theoretical logics—direct, interdependent, and network. We further hypothesize that their beliefs about the international system and about out-group members might explain heterogeneity in citizen responses. An original survey experiment compares support for financial regulations when respondents receive different arguments about the policy's positive effects. Respondents most strongly supported regulations when provided with the network logic. Even among respondents least likely to support financial regulations (e.g., conservatives), the network argument systematically increased support. Interdependence arguments did not significantly increase support. We find some evidence of moderation by respondents’ beliefs about the international system but little evidence of moderation by beliefs about out-group members. Overall, we find strong, consistent effects of network arguments and conclude that citizens respond to indirect arguments. Our results suggest that interdependent and networked perspectives toward the structure of the global economy represent a promising avenue to further understand public support for economic policies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|