Political Cleavages within Industry and the Determinants of Firm-Level Lobbying
2017 · paper · Political science
Finds that much variation in U.S. tariff rates occurs within industries, and offers a theory linking product differentiation to firm-level lobbying. Using lobbying disclosures, it finds productive exporting firms lobby to reduce tariffs, especially with differentiated products.
Checked: PDF from web.mit.edu, fetched 5 Oct 2026. Page numbers are those of that PDF.
7 findings
Substance p9 says that with "a = 0" a "sufficiently big domestic market size (αD ≫ αF) results in a negative tariff rate". Proposition 1 at σ=0, a=0 gives τ = κ/16 = (αD+αF−c1−c3)/2, which is positive and rises with αD. Separately, the σ⁰ term of eq. (14), "(αD − 2αF − 5τ + 2c1 − 5c3)", does not match the model at σ=0, where it should be (αD − 2αF − τ + 2c1 − c3).
- p. 9 Left column, paragraph on scenarios at σ = 0
cares only about political rents (i.e., a = 0), a sufficiently big domestic market size (αD ≫ αF ) results in a negative tariff rate
- p. 18 Appendix A, definition of κ
κ = −8(1 + a)c1 + 4(−2 + 5a)c3 − 4(−2 + a)αD
- p. 9 Left column, 2nd paragraph
ciently big domestic market size (αD ≫ αF ) results in a negative tariff rate
- p. 8 Proposition 1, equation (5)
10aσ3 + (10 + 21a)σ2 + (16 − 20a)σ + 16 − 20a
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Viewed p8 (eq. 5), p9 (text and fn 14) and p18 (κ, eq. 14). Text claim: at σ=0 the eq. (5) denominator is 16−20a, so 16 at a=0. κ at a=0 is −8c1 − 8c3 + 8αD + 8αF, giving τ = (αD+αF−c1−c3)/2, which increases with αD. Solving Σ∂Π_i/∂τ = 0 directly at σ=0 gives the same: −(αF−c1−τ)/2 − (αD−c3−τ)/2 = 0. The text's direction therefore conflicts with the paper's own formula. One caveat: since Π_i = q_i² is convex in τ, the stationary point at a=0 may be a minimum rather than a maximum. Only the authors can say which claim they intend, hence author_query. Eq. (14): at σ=0 each firm is a monopolist, q3 = (αD−c3−τ)/2 and q1* = (αF−c1−τ)/2. Then dΠ1/dτ = −q1*, ds/dτ = −q3/2 and dr/dτ = q3 − τ/2, which sum to (αD − 2αF + 2c1 − c3 − τ)/4. At σ=0, αD and c3 can enter only as (αD − c3), so the printed −5c3 cannot be right. As a check, the corrected domestic part gives the textbook optimal tariff (αD−c3)/3 against a foreign monopolist. κ and the denominator constant 16−20a follow from the printed (14), so the error carries into Proposition 1. The a→∞ qualitative claim in fn 14 survives with the corrected limit αD − 2αF + 2c1 − c3.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label The reference entry reads "Bradford, Jensen J., Dennis P. Quinn, and Stephen Weymouth. 2015." and the in-text citation reads "Bradford, Quinn, and Weymouth 2015"; the first author appears to be J. Bradford Jensen, with given name and surname inverted.
- p. 19 References
Bradford, Jensen J., Dennis P. Quinn, and Stephen Weymouth. 2015.
- p. 2 Left column, literature list
Bradford, Quinn, and Weymouth 2015
- p. 20 References
Framing Buisiness In-
- p. 19 References
Bradford, Jensen J., Dennis P. Quinn
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: that the first author of the 2015 International Organization article is J. Bradford Jensen, the same person named in the Bernard et al. entries. Viewed the page 19 crop: the entry is printed as quoted and is alphabetised under B. The same reference list prints "J. Bradford Jensen" in several Bernard et al. entries, which supports the inversion. The in-text citation on page 2 was checked in the text layer only ("Bradford, Quinn, and Weymouth 2015"). The "Buisiness" misspelling also listed in this cluster is handled in C039.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Equation (6) defines "Zi = ( AVi CVDi )", but the text names the two dummies as anti-dumping "(AD)" and countervailing duties "(CVD)"; AV is never defined.
- p. 15 Equation (6) block, definition of Zi
Zi = ( AVi CVDi )
- p. 16 Paragraph after Table 4
been subject to an anti-dumping (AD) or countervaling duties (CVD) investigation
- p. 10 Table 2, TTBD row
antidumping, countervaling duties
- p. 16 text under Table 4
countervaling duties (CVD)
Judge's note: The p.15 image shows Z_i = (AV_i CVD_i). The p.16 text describes the dummies as AD and CVD. AV appears nowhere else, so AD is evidently intended. The "countervaling" spelling also listed in this cluster is the same defect as C018 and is handled there.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Utility (1) and surplus (3) print the cross term as "2σ Σ_i Σ_{j≠i} q_i q_j" over ordered pairs. That implies inverse demand p_k = α − q_k − 2σΣ_{j≠k}q_j, whereas every Appendix A derivative (e.g. eq. (12)) uses p_k = α − q_k − σΣ_{j≠k}q_j.
- p. 7 equation (1)
2σ
- p. 8 equation (3)
2σ
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Viewed p7 eq. (1) and p8 eq. (3): both print 2σ ΣΣ_{j≠i}. My working: ∂/∂q_k of Σ_iΣ_{j≠i} q_i q_j = 2Σ_{j≠k} q_j, so ∂U/∂q_k = α − q_k − 2σΣ_{j≠k}q_j. I derived eq. (12) myself from Cournot with p_i = α − q_i − σΣ_{j≠i}q_j: Q = ΣA/(2(1+σ)), q2 = [(2+σ)A2 − σA1 − σA3]/(2(2−σ)(1+σ)), dΠ2/dτ = σ q2/((2−σ)(1+σ)). That reproduces the printed numerator (c1+c3−c2−αD+τ)σ² − 2(c2−αD)σ and the denominator 2(−2+σ)²(1+σ)² exactly. So the derivations use σ, not 2σ. The utility as printed is off by a factor of 2: either σ over ordered pairs or 2σ over i<j is needed. The derived results do not depend on this. It is a definitional slip in the model statement, so S3.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording "With sufficiently large a (the government values social welfare more than political rents), it is optimal to set a negative tariff" at σ = 0 is stated unconditionally, yet under the printed formula and the footnote 12 parameters the tariff is positive for large a.
- p. 8 Right column, text below Figure 4
With sufficiently large a (the government values social welfare more than political rents), it is optimal to set a negative tariff
- p. 9 Left column, 2nd paragraph
it is op-timal to set positive tariffs either when the productive domestic firm is less productive than the productive foreign firm (c1 ≫ c3) or when domestic market size is sufficiently big (αD ≫ αF )
- p. 8 Footnote 12
αD = 5, αF = 2, and a = 6.5
- p. 18 Figure B.1 notes
a is set at 0.65. All the other parameter values are set at the same level as the ones used for producing Figure 4.
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Reworked from eq. (5) and the Appendix A κ. At σ=0, τ = κ/(16−20a). With c1=c3=0.1, αD=5, αF=2, κ = 54.4 − 2.8a. At a=6.5 τ ≈ −0.32, but κ changes sign at a ≈ 19.4, so τ > 0 for larger a. The limit as a→∞ is (2c1−5c3+αD−2αF)/5 = +0.14. So "sufficiently large a" does not give a negative tariff for the paper's own parameter set, and the p.9 statement (positive tariff as a→∞ when αD≫αF) agrees with the formula, not with the p.8 sentence. Assumption 1 of the Online Appendix is not among the files and might restrict parameters, though footnote 12 says these values fit it. The second issue in this cluster is not a defect: the Figure B.1 note states "a is set at 0.65" as a deliberate exception to the Figure 4 values (a = 6.5).
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording In eq. (11) the σ-term "2(αD − c3 − c4 + 2τ)σ" omits +c1; the model gives 2(αD + c1 − c3 − c4 + 2τ)σ, which is also what the printed ξ requires.
- p. 18 Appendix A, equation (11)
2(αD − c3 − c4 + 2τ)σ
- p. 18 Appendix A, definition of ξ
ξ = 4 [2c2 + c4 + a(−2c1 + 6c3 + c4 − 3αD) − 2αD − αF]
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Viewed p18. My derivation: q1 = [(2+σ)A1 − σA2 − σA3]/D0 with dq1/dτ = σ/D0, and q1* = [(2+σ)B1 − σB3 − σB4]/D0 with dq1*/dτ = −(2+σ)/D0, where D0 = 2(2−σ)(1+σ). The σ coefficient is 2A1 − 4B1 + 2B3 + 2B4 = 2(αD + c1 − c3 − c4 + 2τ). The printed σ² and constant terms match. Summing the corrected (11), (12) and corrected (13) (see C036) and adding a·(14) gives the a-free part of ξ as 4(2c2 + c4 − 2αD − αF), which matches the printed ξ. The printed (11) would instead add a +4c1 term. So the slip is in the displayed line and ξ stands.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording In eq. (13) the σ-term "2(c3 − c1 − c2 + 2τ − αF)σ" has the wrong sign on αF; the model and the printed ξ require 2(c3 − c1 − c2 + 2τ + αF)σ.
- p. 18 Appendix A, equation (13)
2(c3 − c1 − c2 + 2τ − αF )σ
- p. 18 Appendix A, definition of ξ
− 2αD − αF ]
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Viewed p18. Firm 3 is the mirror of firm 1. Home market F: q3* = [(2+σ)B3 − σB1 − σB4]/D0 with dq3*/dτ = σ/D0. Export market D: dq3/dτ = −(2+σ)/D0. The σ coefficient is 2B3 − 4A3 + 2A1 + 2A2 = 2(αF + c3 − c1 − c2 + 2τ). With +αF, the ξ a-free part comes to −4αF as printed; the printed −αF would give +4αF. Symmetry check at αD=αF=10, all costs 0, τ=0, σ=1: direct numerator −20, printed (13) gives −60, while (11) gives −20.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
27 minor (typos and the like; most checked by the judge only)
Wording Abstract says "a new dataset on lobbying by all publicly traded manufacturing firms", while p.11 says "all publicly traded firms in manufacturing and agriculture" and the Table 3 notes say "all 4,030 public firms in agriculture and manufacturing industries".
- p. 1 Abstract
lobbying by all publicly traded manufacturing firms
- p. 11 Left column, empirical analysis paragraph
traded firms in manufacturing and agriculture between
- p. 12 Table 3 notes
all 4,030 public firms in agriculture and manufacturing industries
- p. 1 Abstract
all publicly traded manufacturing firms
Judge's note: Read the abstract on the p.1 image, the p.11 crop and the Table 3 notes crop. The wording is as quoted in all three places. The abstract drops agriculture; this is most likely shorthand, but the population is described differently. No passage reconciles the two descriptions.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording The number of U.S. tariff-line products is given as "almost 17,000 products" on p.2 and, with "As noted", as "over 17,000 products listed as of 2016" on p.6.
- p. 2 Product-level Trade Policy Variation within Industry, first paragraph
nontariff barriers across almost 17,000 products
- p. 6 Trade Politics with Product Differentiation, third paragraph
with over 17,000 products listed as of 2016
- p. 2 Product-level Trade Policy Variation
almost 17,000 products
- p. 6 Trade Politics with Product Differentiation
over 17,000 products listed as of 2016
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Both passages read on the images. The p.6 sentence refers back ("As noted") and both describe the current schedule ("now" / "as of 2016"). "Almost" and "over" cannot both hold for one count. No passage explains a difference, for example tariff lines versus tariff plus nontariff products. Only the author can say which is right.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Figure 1 note says "a significant proportion (≈70%) of the current variance in MFN tariff rates" is within-industry, but the plotted recent points (within about 130-135, total about 165-170, between about 35) give a share near 79%.
- p. 3 Figure 1 note
a significant proportion (≈70%) of the current variance in MFN tariff rates
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Read the Figure 1 points on the p.3 image against the 0-200 axis. For the last plotted year within is about 135 and total about 170, a share near 0.79. Roughly 64% applies only to 1989-93 (about 30 of 47). These are eyeball readings from the graph, so the gap is approximate; the underlying numbers are not printed. Query to the author whether ≈70% is a period average or should be nearer 80%.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Text says the U.S. used tariffs to pressure Vietnam "until it joined the WTO in 2006"; Vietnam's WTO membership is generally dated January 2007.
- p. 3 Granularity section, third paragraph
until it joined the WTO in 2006
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: Vietnam's WTO accession took effect in January 2007 (accession approval and U.S. PNTR were in late 2006). The page does print "until it joined the WTO in 2006" (p.3 image). Nothing in the files gives the date, so this cannot be verified here; the author should check it against Carnegie (2015).
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Text defines the industry measure as "the inverse of the mean elasticity of substitution", but Figure 5(b), captioned as "the distribution of the measure of product differentiation", has an x-axis running 0-80 with "Differentiated" at the low end and "Substitutable" at the high end, i.e. the elasticity itself rather than its inverse.
- p. 10 Right column, last paragraph
I calculated the inverse of the mean elasticity of substitution
- p. 11 Figure 5, panel (b) axis
Differentiated
- p. 11 Figure 5 panel (b) axis and notes
Panel (b) summarizes the distribution of the measure of product differentiation
- p. 15 Product Differentiation and Trade Liberalization
I take the average of the trade elasticity measure
Judge's note: Viewed p.10 and p.11. The p.10 text says inverse of mean elasticity. Panel (b) axis runs 0 to 80 with an arrow from Differentiated (low) to Substitutable (high), which fits the raw elasticity. The positive Differentiated x Productivity coefficients in Table 3 fit the inverse reading for the regression variable. The panel labels its direction, so a reader is not misled about the data; the gap is between the caption/text and the plotted scale. The p.15 sigma is a separate HS8-level measure for the tariff analysis and is not in itself inconsistent.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Table 3 model (6): "Log likelihood −2,722.346" and "Akaike inf. crit. 5,540.692" give 48 parameters under AIC = −2LL + 2k, whereas models (1)-(5) give 24, 25, 10, 26, 29, matching listed coefficients plus year and industry dummies; model (6) has the same listed structure as model (5).
- p. 12 Table 3, last column, Log likelihood / Akaike inf. crit.
−2,722.346 ... 5,540.692
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Read the values from the p.12 image and recomputed. Columns (1)-(5) reconcile exactly with the listed coefficients plus 15 year dummies and 3 two-digit industry dummies where those are included. Column (6) lists the same number of coefficients and the same fixed effects as (5) yet gives k=48; with k=29 the AIC would be 5,502.692. A different fixed-effect specification in the Rauch model could account for it, but none is stated, so this is a query to the author rather than an evident misprint.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Equation (6): industry covariates enter the outcome mean ("Mijt η + Xjt ξ") and again the mean of the industry effect ("N(δ + Xjtγ, s²δ)"); γ is never defined, and δj has no time index although Xjt varies by year.
- p. 15 Equation (6), first and second lines
Mijt η + Xjt ξ
- p. 16 Paragraph after Table 4
assuming that the mean of industry random effects is a function of several industry level (NAICS6) covariates
- p. 15 Equation (6)
N (δ + Xjtγ, s2δ)
- p. 16 First paragraph under Table 4
assuming that the mean of industry random effects is a function of several industry level (NAICS6) covari-
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Read on the p.15 image. Line 1 has X_jt ξ in the mean of τ_ijt, and line 2 has δ_j ~ N(δ + X_jt γ, s_δ²). ξ is defined as a 5-vector; γ is not defined anywhere. The p.16 prose describes only the hierarchical channel ("mean of industry random effects is a function of several industry level (NAICS6) covariates"). As printed, ξ and γ are redundant and δ_j's mean depends on t. This is a notation ambiguity that only the author can resolve.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Subject-verb disagreement in the abstract: "High levels of product differentiation eliminates the collective action problem" (should be "eliminate").
- p. 1 Abstract
High levels of product differentiation eliminates
- p. 1 Abstract
High levels of product differentiation eliminates the collective action problem
Judge's note: Visible on the p.1 page image; the plural subject "levels" takes the singular verb "eliminates".
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Misspelling "politically active particuarly when they produce differentiated products" (should be "particularly"). Separately, the conclusion says productive firms lobby "only when they produce differentiated products", whereas the abstract says "especially when".
- p. 17 Left column, first paragraph
tive particuarly when they produce
- p. 17 Concluding Remarks, 1st paragraph
productive firms actively lobby on trade policy only when they produce differentiated products
- p. 1 Abstract
especially when their products are sufficiently differentiated
- p. 17 End of empirical section, top of left column
politically active particuarly when they produce differentiated prod-
Judge's note: The misspelling is visible on the p.17 image, left column; this is the confirmed defect. On the second point, p.17 says "only when" where the abstract (text layer, p.1) says "especially" and p.17 itself says "particularly". Figure 5(c) shows a near-zero predicted lobbying probability for high-productivity firms in the homogeneous industry, so "only" is loose but not clearly contradicted; with an interaction term in the model, the positive Productivity main effect in Table 3 does not settle it. I treat that wording difference as a minor observation, not an error.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Misspellings: "Stolper-Samuleson predicts" (p.4), "import-competiting domestic firms" (p.10), "politically active particuarly when they produce" (p.17).
- p. 4 Factor-based Model paragraph
Stolper-Samuleson predicts
- p. 17 Concluding remarks
particuarly when they produce
- p. 10 Data/Product differentiation paragraph
import-competiting
- p. 4
Stolper-Samuleson predicts that high-skilled labor will favor trade liberalization
Judge's note: All three are visible on the page images and are not extraction artefacts. "Stolper-Samuelson" is spelled correctly elsewhere on p.4.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Table 1 MFN tariff column mixes precision: "3.4%", "0.8%", "22.4%", "7.0%" beside "11.20%", "9.60%", "6.00%".
- p. 4 Table 1, MFN tariff column
11.20%
Judge's note: Seen on the p.4 image. This is a cosmetic formatting inconsistency; the values themselves are not in question.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Wrong word: "demonstrates that important role that reciprocity played" (should be "the important role").
- p. 6 Right column, before the Levin quotation
demonstrates that important role that reciprocity played
Judge's note: Visible on the p.6 image, right column, just before the Levin quotation.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Number disagreement: "particularly “loyal” to a certain products".
- p. 7 Left column, before equation (1)
“loyal” to a certain products
Judge's note: Visible on the p.7 image, left column, just before equation (1).
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Misspelling: "import-competiting domestic firms" should read "import-competing".
- p. 10 Left column, last paragraph
import-competiting domestic firms
- p. 10
also import-competiting domestic firms
Judge's note: Visible on the p.10 image, left column. The paper spells it "import-competing" elsewhere (p.14, p.17).
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Misspelling "countervaling" in Table 2 ("antidumping, countervaling duties") and on p.16 ("countervaling duties (CVD)"); should be "countervailing".
- p. 10 Table 2, TTBD row
antidumping, countervaling duties
- p. 16 Paragraph after Table 4
countervaling duties (CVD)
Judge's note: Both instances are visible on the p.10 and p.16 images. The p.10 body text spells it "counter-vailing" correctly.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Footnote 19 prints the package name as "concordance: Product Con-dordance for International Trade"; should be "Concordance".
- p. 11 Footnote 19
dordance for International Trade
- p. 11 Footnote 19
Product Con-dordance for International Trade
Judge's note: Visible on the p.11 image in footnote 19: "Product Con-" breaks to "dordance". The line-break hyphen is original; the "d" is a misspelling.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Table 3 row label "Mutinational" should be "Multinational" (text: "Multi-national is a binary variable").
- p. 12 Table 3, row label
Mutinational
- p. 11 text
Multi-national is a binary variable
Judge's note: The misspelt label is visible on the p.12 image; the p.11 text names the variable Multinational.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Text on p.13 paraphrases the Figure 7 bill summary as "reduce or eliminate trade and nontariff barriers"; the quoted CRS summary reads "reduction or elimination of tariff and nontariff barriers".
- p. 13 Right column, paragraph beginning 'This analysis is useful'
reduce or eliminate trade and nontariff barriers
- p. 14 Figure 7, top panel
obtained the reduction or elimination of tariff and nontariff barriers
Judge's note: Figure 7 top panel on the p.14 image reads "tariff and nontariff barriers". The p.13 wording was checked in the text layer only ("reduce or eliminate trade and nontariff barriers"); I did not open the p.13 image. This is a paraphrase slip, "trade" for "tariff", with no effect on data.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Wrong ordinal "33th percentile" (p.15 twice, p.16 once); should be "33rd".
- p. 15 Right column, first paragraph
less than the 33th percentile
- p. 16 Left column, Figure 9 paragraph
less than the 33th percentile
- p. 17 first paragraph
particuarly when they produce differentiated
- p. 16 text below Table 4
low (less than the 33th percentile)
Judge's note: Visible on the p.15 and p.16 images. "66th" is correct. The "particuarly" misspelling also listed in this cluster is handled under C030.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Figure 8 note: "The words inside parenthesis represents top seven words" has subject-verb disagreement, and "parenthesis" should be "parentheses".
- p. 15 Figure 8 Notes
The words inside parenthesis represents top seven words
Judge's note: Visible in the Figure 8 notes on the p.15 image.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Table 4, S3313 title: "a bill to reduce temporarily the duty certain color monitors video with a display diagonal" is missing "on" after "duty".
- p. 16 Table 4, last row
a bill to reduce temporarily the duty certain color monitors video
Judge's note: Visible in the last row of Table 4 on the p.16 image. The parallel rows read "the duty on certain ...". The phrase "monitors video with a display" in the same row also looks transposed. I did not check the bill's actual title, which is outside the files.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Lemma 1, condition 4 reads "for every j there exists τ ∈ that maximizes", with no set after the membership sign.
- p. 17 Appendix A, Lemma 1, item 4
there exists τ ∈ that maximizes
Judge's note: Viewed the C033-a crop of p17. Nothing follows ∈ before "that" in the image, so this is not an extraction artefact. The policy set is missing.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Misspelling: "productive exporting firms are politically active particuarly when they produce differentiated products" should read "particularly".
- p. 17 Top of left column
particuarly
- p. 17 first paragraph
particuarly when they produce differentiated products
Judge's note: Visible on the page 17 image (top of left column) and in the text layer at the same place. Not an extraction artefact.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Appendix B defines the benchmark as V_i in "L_i(τ, V_i) = max[0, Π_i(τ) − V_i]" but then refers to "a fixed level of B_i, which does not depend on τ_o". B_i is never defined; V_i is evidently meant.
- p. 18 Appendix B, Assumption 1 and following text
where Vi is an arbitrary benchmark level of welfare for firm i
- p. 18 Appendix B, paragraph after Assumption 1
given a fixed level of Bi , which does not depend on τo
- p. 18 Appendix B, text after Assumption 1
where Vi is an arbitrary benchmark level of welfare for firm
- p. 18 Appendix B, text after Assumption 1
with the truthful contribution given a fixed level of Bi, which
Judge's note: Viewed the C037-a crop and p18. The image shows V_i in Assumption 1 and B_i two sentences later. B_i is not defined anywhere in the appendix text, and the sentence describes the role of V_i.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo The Figure B.1 note reads "This figure shows the truth contribution schedules based on a simulation"; it should read "truthful contribution schedules", as in the figure title and Appendix B.
- p. 18 Figure B.1 notes
This figure shows the truth contribution schedules
- p. 18 Figure B.1 Notes
the truth contribution schedules
- p. 18 Figure B.1 notes
truth contribution schedules
- p. 18 Figure B.1 Notes
shows the truth contribution schedules
Judge's note: Viewed the crop and full page 18. The note prints "truth", while the figure title, the appendix heading and Assumption 1 all use "Truthful".
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo The left-hand sides of equations (12) and (13) are printed as "∂2/∂τ (τ°)" and "∂3/∂τ (τ°)", with the profit symbol Π missing; equation (11) prints ∂Π1/∂τ.
- p. 18 Appendix A, equation (12)
∂2
- p. 18 Appendix A, equation (13)
∂3
Judge's note: Viewed the full page 18 image and the C035 crop, which includes equation (12). Π is rendered in (8), (9), (10) and (11) but is absent in (12) and (13), leaving only the firm index after ∂. This is visible in the image itself, not only in the text layer. A font-rendering fault in this particular PDF cannot be fully excluded, but the defect is in the PDF as provided.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo The Kuno and Naoi 2015 reference title is printed "Framing Buisiness Interests: How Campaigns Affect Firms’ Positions on Preferential Trade Agreements"; "Buisiness" should be "Business".
- p. 20 References, Kuno and Naoi 2015
Framing Buisiness In-
- p. 20 References, Kuno and Naoi 2015
Framing Buisiness In-terests
- p. 20
Framing Buisiness Interests: How Campaigns Affect Firms’ Positions
Judge's note: Viewed the page 20 crop: "Buisiness" is clearly printed in the Kuno and Naoi entry. It is a misspelling as printed.
Second check: none (judge only)