Economics & Sociology

ISSN: 2071-789X eISSN: 2306-3459 DOI: 10.14254/2071-789X
Index PUBMS: f5512f57-a601-11e7-8f0e-080027f4daa0
Article information
Title: Expert knowledge status quo in the Internet provided public debate on Free Trade Agreements. Meta analysis of Polish literature
Issue: Vol. 12, No 1, 2019
Published date: 03-2019 (print) / 03-2019 (online)
Journal: Economics & Sociology
ISSN: 2071-789X, eISSN: 2306-3459
Authors: Bogna Gawronska-Nowak
Lazarski University

Krzysztof Beck
Lazarski University

Paul Valdivieso
Institute of Socio-Economic Enquiry, Warsaw
Keywords: Free Trade Agreements (FTA), meta-analysis, social perception, Polish public opinion
DOI: 10.14254/2071-789X.2019/12-1/14
Index PUBMS: 3fbfe54b-5d5c-11e9-8b68-fa163e6feac6
Language: English
Pages: 248-261 (14)
JEL classification: F13, F14, F53, F55, Z13
This paper is part of the broader output of the research project “Social expectations concerning Free Trade Agreements: perception versus reality” co-financed by the Santander Universidades / Bank Zachodni WBK.

Recently the Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) have been drawing public attention enormously being affected by new waves of political populism, alter-globalisation, and some other tendencies redefining the patterns in the world economic ties. From the European perspective, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) have brought “on board” serious public concerns about environmental protection, food quality, job security, and citizen rights. Donald Trump openly criticizes the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) calling it “the single worst trade deal ever approved in this [US] country”. The main purpose of this paper is to define expert views on FTAs in a measurable way. We want to capture the expert dissemination effect in Polish language Internet sources. Defining a mismatch between social perception and expert knowledge is the main aim of our research project on “Social expectations concerning FTAs: perception versus reality”, to which this paper, as we believe can contribute, at the same time contributing into diagnosing and analysing actual public debate on FTAs in Poland.


1. Ambroziak, Ł. (2016). Efekt kreacji w handlu Polski z Kanadą po wejściu w życie umowy CETA. Unia Europejska. pl, (2), 19-28.

2. Bearce, D. H., & Tuxhorn, K. L. (2017). When are monetary policy preferences egocentric? Evidence from American surveys and an experiment. American Journal of Political Science, 61(1), 178-193.

3. Berkey, C. S., Hoaglin, D. C., Mosteller, F., & Colditz, G. A. (1995). A random‐effects regression model for meta‐analysis. Statistics in medicine, 14(4), 395-411.

4. Bluth, C. (2016). Attitudes to global trade and TTIP in Germany and the United States. Global Economic Dynamics, BertelsmannStiftung.

5. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101(4), 637-655.

6. Cieślik, A. (2007). Wpływ porozumień o wolnym handlu na wielkość wymiany handlowej Polski w latach 1992-2004. Bank i Kredyt, (6), 3-23.

7. Cieślik, A., Michałek, J. J., & Mycielski, J. (2008). Analiza skutków handlowych przystąpienia Polski do Europejskiej Unii Monetarnej przy użyciu uogólnionego modelu grawitacyjnego. Projekty badawcze Część I, 318.

8. DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986). Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled clinical trials, 7(3), 177-188.

9. Działo, J., Gawrońska-Nowak, B., Jura, J. (2017a). Social expectations concerning free trade agreements: perception versus reality. Studia Polityczne.

10. Dzialo, J., Gawronska-Nowak, B., & Jura, J. (2017b). Social Debate on Free Trade Agreements: Illusions Versus Reality. Economics & Sociology, 10(3), 116-135.

11. European Commission. (n.d.). Eurobarometer 83-7Standard Eurobarometer 83-87, 2014-2017.

12. Hagemejer, J. (2015). Liberalization of Trade Flows under TTIP from a Small Country Perspective. The Case of Poland. Warsaw Univeristy Working Papers, 17, 21-41.

13. Halvorsen, R., & Palmquist, R. (1980). The interpretation of dummy variables in semilogarithmic equations. American economic review, 70(3), 474-475.

14. Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (2014). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic press.

15. Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998). Fixed-and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychological methods, 3(4), 486-504.

16. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Sage.

17. Jungherr, A., Mader, M., Schoen, H., & Wuttke, A. (2018). Context-driven attitude formation: the difference between supporting free trade in the abstract and supporting specific trade agreements. Review of International Political Economy, 25(2), 215-242.

18. Klimczak, Ł. (2015). Model grawitacyjny jako narzędzie analizy handlu zagranicznego. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie, (5 (941)), 107-130.

19. Kuo, J., Megumi, N. (2015). Individual attitudes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

20. Laird, N. M., & Mosteller, F. (1990). Some statistical methods for combining experimental results. International journal of technology assessment in health care, 6(1), 5-30.

21. Lü, X., Scheve, K., & Slaughter, M. J. (2012). Inequity aversion and the international distribution of trade protection. American Journal of Political Science, 56(3), 638-654.

22. Maciejewski, M. (2017). Determinanty wykorzystania czynników wytwórczych w strukturze eksportu państw Unii Europejskiej. Horyzonty Polityki, 8(22), 131-149.

23. Mansfield, E. D., & Mutz, D. C. (2009). Support for free trade: Self-interest, sociotropic politics, and out-group anxiety. International Organization, 63(3), 425-457.

24. Molendowski, E., & Klimczak, Ł. (2015). Porozumienie CEFTA-2006-jego znaczenie dla rozwoju handlu wzajemnego krajów Bałkanów Zachodnich. Research Papers of the Wroclaw University of Economics/Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wroclawiu, (407).

25. Morris, C.N. (1983). Parametric Empirical Bayes Inference: Theory and Applications. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 78(381), 47-55.

26. Przybyliński, M. (November 2015). Wpływ TTIP na Polskę (analiza input-output: wstępne szacunki). Paper presented at the conference: “The Impact of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) on International Cooperation – Conclusions for EU

27. Raudenbush, S.W. (2009). Analyzing Effect Sizes: Random Effects Models, In H Cooper, LV Hedges, JC Valentine (eds.), The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis, 2nd edition, pp. 295-315. Russell Sage Foundation, New York.

28. Scheve, K., & Slaughter, M. (2001). What determines individual trade-policy preferences?. Journal of International Economics, 54(2), 267-292.

29. Sidik K., & Jonkman J.N. (2005a). A Note on Variance Estimation in Random Effects Meta-Regression. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 15(5), 823-838.

30. Sidik, K., & Jonkman, J.N. (2005b). Simple Heterogeneity Variance Estimation for Meta-Analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society C, 54(2), 367-384.

31. Śledziewska, K., & Witkowski, B. (2012). Światowy kryzys gospodarczy a handel międzynarodowy. Ekonomista, (4).

32. Viechtbauer, W. (2005). Bias and Efficiency of Meta-Analytic Variance Estimators in the Random-Effects Model. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 30(3), 261-293.

33. Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metaphor Package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1-48.