International trade is often hailed as a driver of economic growth and consumer welfare. Yet, despite its economy-wide benefits, it remains divisive and politically contentious – especially when it comes to employment. Part of this dynamic has to do with the fact that trade helps firms which are export-oriented but hurts firms that compete with imports. Given that people are sensitive to their employment situation, how then should trade’s impacts be explained, or framed, to highlight the benefits and assuage people’s concerns?
Our new study sheds light on this crucial question. Drawing on a large-scale survey experiment across 18 Latin American countries, conducted in collaboration with LAPOP at Vanderbilt University, we explore how different types of messages about trade’s employment impacts influence public support for trade liberalization. Our findings, showing the power of negative messages and the more limited impact of positive ones, show how messaging content can be critical, providing insights for policymakers and communicators.
Previous research has shown that people are more responsive to negative messages about trade – especially those highlighting job losses – than to positive ones about lower prices and expanded choices. But our study is the first to systematically test the efficacy of messages specifically focused on trade-related employment gains or trade-related compensation for workers who lose their jobs across a diverse set of countries.
A Framing Experiment: Four Messages
To explore how messaging affects trade attitudes, we randomly assigned survey participants to one of five groups. One group received no additional information and served as the control. The other four groups each received a different message before being asked whether they support increasing or restricting trade.
All four messages highlight a different aspect of the impact of trade on employment. One message warned that expanding trade could reduce jobs in firms that compete with imports, and another delivered the same warning but added that the government would compensate the affected workers. A third message emphasized that expanding trade would increase jobs in firms that export to other countries. The final message suggested that restricting trade could reduce jobs in export-oriented firms.
The Results: Messaging Matters, Opinions Change
Our results show that most Latin Americans are generally supportive of expanding trade with other countries. But that support may be shifted by messaging. The analysis revealed that negative messages had the strongest impact. The message about job losses in import-competing sectors reduced support for trade by about eight percentage points. Surprisingly, adding a mention about government compensation made people even more skeptical of trade. Rather than softening the blow, it may have made the risks feel more real or raised concerns about who would bear the cost.
Positive messages had a more limited effect. The message about job gains in export sectors did increase support for trade, but only by about half as much as the negative messages decreased it. This pattern may be related to what behavioral economists call “loss aversion”, namely that losses are more acutely felt than gains.
Meanwhile, the message about job losses from restricting trade had no significant effect at all. People may have already thought about those losses, and so the message didn’t come as a surprise. In fact, we do find that respondent reactions to messaging are stronger when the message goes against what they perceive to be the prevailing expert opinion on trade, suggesting that people are open to updating their beliefs on the issue.
Weighing the Implications for Trade Policy
These findings have real implications. How things are said matters just as much as what is said, and if policymakers want to build public support for trade agreements or reforms, they need to be careful about their messaging.
Focusing on job creation in export sectors can help—but it needs to be clear and concrete. Talking about compensation for job losses might backfire if it makes the risks feel more immediate or raises concerns about fairness or feasibility. And simply warning about the costs of restricting trade doesn’t seem to resonate with most of the public.
The silver lining is that people who were skeptical about trade to begin with were the most likely to change their minds when they heard a positive message. That’s an indication that even those who are wary of trade can be persuaded if the messaging is right. Trade policy isn’t just about economics. It’s also about public opinion. And public opinion is shaped by stories – especially stories about jobs. For anyone working on trade policy, communications strategies, or public engagement, that’s a lesson worth remembering.
Leave a Reply