Ronald W.Cox 375levels of trade relative to direct foreign investment. U.S.-based firms in electronics
and autos have geared production around regional markets via foreign direct
investment in North America, the EEC (European Economic Community) and
Asia. The international character of these firms has not meant continued support
for multilateralism but, instead, has resulted in support for regional trading blocs
designed to increase protection against foreign competitors. In addition, electronics
and auto firms supported nontariff barriers to trade throughout the late 1970s and
1980s, including voluntary export restraints.
Does this mean an end to the multilateralism of GATT in favor of regional
trading blocs? Not necessarily. Another trend in trade politics has been the
emergence of antiprotectionist political organizations based among exporters,
business and industrial import users, retailers and other trade-related services,
and foreign governments of exporting countries. In general, the degree to which
firms are dependent on exports as a percentage of overall production is a
determining factor in their commitment to antiprotectionism. One well-documented
trend in the late 1970s and 1980s was the fact that the U.S. economy as a whole
saw substantial increases in trade dependence as a percentage of GNP. This
trend meant that certain U.S. firms in selective industries developed a greater
interest in antiprotectionist activity.
Since the mid-1970s, groups with a high export dependence, including the
National Association of Wheat Growers and the American Soybean Association,
have increased their antiprotectionist lobbying efforts. However, these efforts tend
to selectively lobby against trade restrictions involving particular foreign customers
and do not usually involve a defense of multilateralism as a general principle. In
addition, certain export-dependent groups, such as cotton growers, have joined
the American Textile Manufacturers in lobbying for textile protection. Cotton
growers identify their interests with domestic textile producers who would be
hurt by free trade measures. Other industries that were export dependent, such as
aircraft, included firms with an interest in opposing trade restrictions with steel-
producing countries, since these countries constituted 21 percent of all aircraft
exports and 8 percent of aircraft production. However, aircraft firms had less interest
in opposing trade restrictions on countries producing shoes, since only 2 percent
of industrial output went to these countries.
The selective nature of antiprotection interests indicates significant limits in
the development of an aggressive political coalition advocating multilateralism.
However, other political interests have developed since the 1990s with a more
widespread interest in antiprotectionist legislation. These groups tend to be
concentrated in retailing and service firms with a stake in importing automobiles,
textiles and footwear, all targets of protectionist efforts in the 1970s and 1980s.
In fact, retailers formed several antiprotectionist coalitions in the 1980s designed
to lobby against trade restrictions on textiles, automobiles, and footwear....
[Nonetheless] one has to search elsewhere to find stable political coalitions or
interests that advocate a generalized commitment to multilateralism. The leading
proponents of multilateralism are difficult to readily identify, since they often
eschew overt lobbying efforts used by the previous antiprotection groups. Instead,
multilateralists often work with the executive branch in promoting multilateralism