470 International Organization respondents with the lowest levels of education.These findings are interpreted as strong support for the Stolper-Samuelson theorem,the classic economic treatment of the income effects of trade that predicts that trade openness benefits those own- ing factors of production with which their economy is relatively well endowed (those with high skill levels in the advanced economies)while hurting others (low- skilled and unskilled workers). However,the positive relationship between education and support for trade lib- eralization might also-and perhaps primarily-reflect the facts that more edu- cated respondents tend to be more exposed to economic ideas about the overall efficiency gains for the national economy associated with greater trade openness and tend to be less prone to nationalist and antiforeigner sentiments often linked with protectionism.2 Studies have shown that measures of economic knowledge are strongly associated with education levels among individuals,and exposure to economics at the college level has especially powerful effects.3 A large body of research also shows that increased education-and especially college education- tends to socialize students to have more tolerant,cosmopolitan views of the world.4 It thus seems quite possible that differences of opinion among more and less- educated voters over the trade issue may be shaped less by Stolper-Samuelson- style calculations about the expected distributional effects of trade than by competing ideational and cultural perspectives-that is,education may be impor- tant here primarily because it teaches students to think about trade and globaliza- tion in different ways and/or to evaluate it according to a different set of values. Which of these very different interpretations is more correct?The answer to this question is critical to our understanding of the political economy of trade and the nature of the political disagreements over globalization now taking place.Here we reexamine the available survey data on individual attitudes toward trade,con- ducting a simple test of the effects of education on support for trade that distin- guishes clearly between the Stolper-Samuelson interpretation of this relationship and alternative ideational and cultural accounts.We find that the impact of educa- tion on attitudes toward trade is almost identical among respondents currently in the active labor force and among those who are not (even those who are retired). That the effects of education on trade policy preferences are not mediated by whether or not individuals are actually being paid for the employment of their skills strongly suggests that it is not primarily a product of distributional con- cerns.The analysis also reveals clear nonlinearities in the relationship between education and trade preferences:while individuals who have been exposed to col- lege or university education are far more likely to favor trade openness than those who have not,other types of educational attainment have no significant effects on attitudes and some even reduce the likelihood that individuals support trade even 1.See,for example,Scheve and Slaughter 2001a and 2001b;Mayda and Rodrik 2005;and O'Rourke and Sinnott 2002. 2.See Bauer,Pool,and Dexter 1972,103;and Holsti 1996,87-88. 3.See Saunders 1980;and Gleason and van Scyoc 1995. 4.See for example,Campbell et al.1960,475-81;and Erikson,Luttbeg,and Tedin 1991,155-56.470 International Organization respondents with the lowest levels of education.' These findings are interpreted as strong support for the Stolper-Samuelson theorem, the classic economic treatment of the income effects of trade that predicts that trade openness benefits those own￾ing factors of production with which their economy is relatively well endowed (those with high skill levels in the advanced economies) while hurting others (low￾skilled and unskilled workers). However, the positive relationship between education and support for trade lib￾eralization might also-and perhaps primarily-reflect the facts that more edu￾cated respondents tend to be more exposed to economic ideas about the overall efficiency gains for the national economy associated with greater trade openness and tend to be less prone to nationalist and antiforeigner sentiments often linked with protectionism.2 Studies have shown that measures of economic knowledge are strongly associated with education levels among individuals, and exposure to economics at the college level has especially powerful effects.3 A large body of research also shows that increased education-and especially college education￾tends to socialize students to have more tolerant, cosmopolitan views of the world.4 It thus seems quite possible that differences of opinion among more and less￾educated voters over the trade issue may be shaped less by Stolper-Samuelson￾style calculations about the expected distributional effects of trade than by competing ideational and cultural perspectives-that is, education may be impor￾tant here primarily because it teaches students to think about trade and globaliza￾tion in different ways and/or to evaluate it according to a different set of values. Which of these very different interpretations is more correct? The answer to this question is critical to our understanding of the political economy of trade and the nature of the political disagreements over globalization now taking place. Here we reexamine the available survey data on individual attitudes toward trade, con￾ducting a simple test of the effects of education on support for trade that distin￾guishes clearly between the Stolper-Samuelson interpretation of this relationship and alternative ideational and cultural accounts. We find that the impact of educa￾tion on attitudes toward trade is almost identical among respondents currently in the active labor force and among those who are not (even those who are retired). That the effects of education on trade policy preferences are not mediated by whether or not individuals are actually being paid for the employment of their skills strongly suggests that it is not primarily a product of distributional con￾cerns. The analysis also reveals clear nonlinearities in the relationship between education and trade preferences: while individuals who have been exposed to col￾lege or university education are far more likely to favor trade openness than those who have not, other types of educational attainment have no significant effects on attitudes and some even reduce the likelihood that individuals support trade even 1. See, for example, Scheve and Slaughter 2001a and 2001b; Mayda and Rodrik 2005; and O'Rourke and Sinnott 2002. 2. See Bauer, Pool, and Dexter 1972, 103; and Holsti 1996, 87-88. 3. See Saunders 1980; and Gleason and van Scyoc 1995. 4. See for example, Campbell et al. 1960, 475-81; and Erikson, Luttbeg, and Tedin 1991, 155-56