Contextualizing Individual Attitudes on Economic Statecraft

Abstract When do US citizens express greater support for economic intervention abroad in response to violations of international norms? Under what conditions do they express greater support for punitive sanctions or positive inducements? We know little about whether and to what extent citizens offer greater support for sanctions compared to positive inducements and how contextual factors might alter support for each. We design a conjoint survey experiment to gauge support for an intervention—i.e., sanctions or inducements—using comparable counterfactuals. We compare long-enduring bad behavior to recent shocks, differently framed consequences of inaction, as well as varying expertise levels among policy proposal authors. We also consider preexisting attitudes about the target country. In a US sample, we find that policy proposals are supported to a greater extent when they involve sanctions as opposed to inducements, but that preexisting affinity toward the country has a strong conditioning impact.