Domestic influences on trade negotiations have always been a major field in the study of international political economy; and now that the US and Japan have reached an accord on autos/auto parts we can start figuring out how to explain the specific outcomes, and what it means in the broader historical context of US-Japan (trade) relations.

An article by Jurek Martin in the Financal Times (July 3) explains the US side of the story in terms of President Clinton's effort to woo "the working class democrats and the independent voters of the Perot stripe" of Ohio and Michigan since both states are indispensable for his reelection "now that so much of the South and West are solidy Republican."

Could anyone tell me whether this "domestic political calculus" of the President can be regarded as the major explanation of why the most substantial part of the bilateral accord is further Japanese FDI in the US (instead of opening up Japanese markets)?

Does this explanation make sense, especially to those who are familiar with American politics/government, and if not what is wrong with it? Does anyone have any ideas, or explanations, how influences/interests of domestic actors in the US (or Japan) were reflected/neglected in the negotiations and outcomes?

Again, I ask for the list members' help in figuring out the implications of this incident.

Nobuhiro Hiwatari