2,426 rated or chosen profiles from 609 respondents, in up to 2 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 4 attributes.

About this table

Description	Representatives of 609 interest groups worldwide (business associations, citizen groups, labour unions; online survey) compared two proposed trade agreements in each of 2 tasks, varying whether the agreement includes provisions on services liberalisation, intellectual property, environment and labour rights; they chose one (or neither) and rated each 1-10.
Reference	Dür, A., Huber, R. A., Mateo, G., & Spilker, G. (2023). Interest group preferences towards trade agreements: Institutional design matters. Interest Groups & Advocacy, 12(1), 48-72.
DOI	10.1057/s41309-022-00174-z
Licence	CC0 1.0
Source data	https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/UJGMAW

Notes

Conjoint table (irw_conjoint). Paired choice between two trade agreements (Agreement A, Agreement B or Neither; Neither = opt-out, 411 tasks) and a rating of each agreement 1 (not favourably at all) to 10 (very favourably); wording paraphrased from the article. Respondents are interest groups, not individuals. 5 tasks with no answer omitted.

These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.

Size and shape

Respondents	609
Rows (one per respondent, task and profile)	2,426
Tasks per respondent (most)	2
Profiles per task	2
Attributes	4
Tasks with no profile chosen	411

Design

Topic	international economy
A profile represents	policy
Country	unknown
Language shown	unknown
Language of stored levels	en
Task order	recorded in the deposit
Profile position	recorded in the deposit

Outcomes:

choice	Which of the two trade agreements do you prefer? Agreement A / Agreement B / Neither (paraphrase) [choice, opt-out allowed]
rating	How favourably do you view this trade agreement? (paraphrase) [rating, 1 (not favourably at all) to 10 (very favourably)]

Columns

attr_environmentattr_iprattr_labourattr_serviceschoicecov_bus_sectorcov_export_orientationcov_focus_regioncov_general_businesscov_group_typecov_group_type3cov_knowledge_intensivecov_ngo_typecov_non_eu_oecd_focuscov_services_tradeableidprofileratingtask

The layout (one row per respondent, task and profile; choice/rating outcomes; attr_ columns holding each attribute level as displayed) is defined in the IRW conjoint standard. What the outcomes asked is under Design above.

Get the data

Download CSVno account needed Browse on Redivisexplore and query Croissant metadataHugging Face, Kaggle, OpenML

Or load it directly in R or Python (both need a free Redivis account; the first call opens a browser to sign in):

# R
install.packages("remotes")
remotes::install_github("itemresponsewarehouse/Rpkg")
library(irw)
df <- irw_fetch("dur_2023_trade_agreement_groups", source = "conj")

# Python
pip install irw

import irw
df = irw.fetch("dur_2023_trade_agreement_groups", source="conj")

How to cite

@article{D_r_2022, title={Interest group preferences towards trade agreements: institutional design matters}, volume={12}, ISSN={2047-7422}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41309-022-00174-z}, DOI={10.1057/s41309-022-00174-z}, number={1}, journal={Interest Groups &amp; Advocacy}, publisher={Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, author={Dür, Andreas and Huber, Robert A. and Mateo, Gemma and Spilker, Gabriele}, year={2022}, month=Nov, pages={48–72} }

Version and provenance

IRW version	v584
Redivis dataset	irw_conjoint v4.2
Redivis dataset DOI	10.57761/qkye-q530
Manifest pin for this IRW version	v4.2
Metadata source	irw_meta v44.0