Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-28T21:54:11.293Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Populism in Place: The Economic Geography of the Globalization Backlash

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2021

J. Lawrence Broz ,
Jeffry Frieden  and
Stephen Weymouth
Get access

Abstract

A populist backlash to globalization has ushered in nationalist governments and challenged core features of the Liberal International Order. Although startling in scope and urgency, the populist wave has been developing in declining regions of wealthy countries for some time. Trade, offshoring, and automation have steadily reduced the number of available jobs and the wages of industrial workers since at least the 1970s. The decline in manufacturing employment initiated the deterioration of social and economic conditions in affected communities, exacerbating inequalities between depressed rural areas and small cities and towns, on the one hand, and thriving cities, on the other. The global financial crisis of 2008 catalyzed these divisions, as communities already in decline suffered deeper and longer economic downturns than metropolitan areas, where superstar knowledge, technology, and service-oriented firms agglomerate. We document many of these trends across the United States and Europe, and demonstrate that populist support is strongest in communities that experienced long-term economic and social decline. Institutional differences in labor markets and electoral rules across developed democracies may explain some of the variation in populists’ electoral success. Renewed support for the Liberal International Order may require a rejuvenation of distressed communities and a reduction of stark regional inequalities.

Keywords

Populismliberal international orderglobalization backlash
Type
Internal Challenges to the Liberal International Order: Economic
Information
International Organization , Volume 75 , Special Issue 2: Challenges to the Liberal International Order: International Organization at 75 , Spring 2021 , pp. 464 - 494
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acemoglu, Daron, Autor, David, Dorn, David, Hanson, Gordon H., and Price, Brendan. 2016. Import Competition and the Great US Employment Sag of the 2000s. Journal of Labor Economics 34 (S1):S141–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler, David, and Ansell, Ben. 2020. Housing and Populism. West European Politics 43 (2):344–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adserá, Alicia, and Boix, Carles. 2002. Trade, Democracy, and the Size of the Public Sector: The Political Underpinnings of Openness. International Organization 56 (2):229–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alden, Edward. 2016. Failure to Adjust. Rowman and Littlefield. Kindle Edition.Google Scholar
Alesina, Alberto, Miano, Armando, and Stantcheva, Stefanie. 2019. Immigration and Redistribution. Working Paper No. 24733, National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, Benjamin, Glaeser, Edward, and Summers, Lawrence. 2018. Saving the Heartland: Place-Based Policies in Twenty-first Century America. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (Spring):1–96.Google Scholar
Autor, David H., Dorn, David, and Hanson, Gordon H.. 2013. The China Syndrome: Local Labor Market Effects of Import Competition in the United States. American Economic Review 103 (6):2121–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Autor, David, Dorn, David, Hanson, Gordon, and Majlesi, Kaveh. 2016a. Importing Political Polarization? The Electoral Consequences of Rising Trade Exposure. Working Paper No. 22637, National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Autor, David, Dorn, David, Hanson, Gordon, and Majlesi, Kaveh. 2016b. A Note on the Effect of Rising Trade Exposure on the 2016 Presidential Election. Working Paper, Massachusetts Institiute of Technology.Google Scholar
Baccini, Leonardo, and Weymouth, Stephen 2019. Gone for Good: Deindustrialization, White Voter Backlash, and US Presidential Voting. Working Paper, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Baldwin, Robert E. 1986. The New Protectionism: A Response to Shifts in National Economic Power. In The New Protectionist Threat to World Welfare, edited by Salvatore, Dominick, 95–112. North-Holland.Google Scholar
Ballard-Rosa, Cameron, Malik, Mashail, Rickard, Stephanie, and Scheve, Kenneth. Forthcoming. The Economic Origins of Authoritarian Values: Evidence from Local Trade Shocks in the United Kingdom. Comparative Political Studies.Google Scholar
Becker, Sascha, Fetzer, Thiemo, and Novy, Dennis. 2017. Who Voted for Brexit? A Comprehensive District-Level Analysis. Economic Policy 32 (92):601–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, David. 1978. The Expansion of the Public Economy: A Comparative Analysis. American Political Science Review 72 (4):1243–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cerrato, Andrea, Ferrara, Federico Maria, and Ruggieri, Francesco. 2018. Why Does Import Competition Favor Republicans? Localized Trade Shocks, Voting Behavior, and Scapegoating in the US. Working Paper (March). Available at SSRN <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3147169>.CrossRef.>Google Scholar
Chetty, Raj, Hendren, Nathaniel, Kline, Patrick, and Saez, Emmanuel. 2014. Where Is the Land of Opportunity? The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in the United States. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 129 (4):1553–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colantone, Italo, and Stanig, Piero. 2018a. Global Competition and Brexit. American Political Science Review 112 (2):201–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colantone, Italo, and Stanig, Piero. 2018b. The Trade Origins of Economic Nationalism: Import Competition and Voting Behavior in Western Europe. American Journal of Political Science 62 (4):936–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dal Bó, Ernesto, Finan, Frederico, Folke, Olle, Persson, Torsten, and Rickne, Johanna. 2018. Economic Losers and Political Winners: Sweden's Radical Right. Working Paper (August).Google Scholar
Dean, Adam. 2018. NAFTA's Army: Free Trade and US Military Enlistment. International Studies Quarterly 62 (4):845–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duverger, Maurice. 1954. Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. Wiley.Google Scholar
Ebenstein, Avraham, Harrison, Ann, and McMillan, Margaret. 2017. Why Are American Workers Getting Poorer? China, Trade and Offshoring. In The Factory-Free Economy: Outsourcing, Servitization, and the Future of Industry, edited by Fontagné, Lionel and Harrison, Ann, 222–56. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eichengreen, Barry. 2018. The Populist Temptation: Economic Grievance and Political Reaction in the Modern Era. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Feigenbaum, James, and Hall, Andrew. 2015. How Legislators Respond to Localized Economic Shocks: Evidence from Chinese Import Competition. The Journal of Politics 77 (4):1012–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feler, Leo, and Senses, Mine Z.. 2017. Trade Shocks and the Provision of Local Public Goods. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 9 (4):101–43.Google Scholar
Fetzer, Thiemo. 2019. Did Austerity Cause Brexit? American Economic Review 109 (11):3849–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flaherty, Thomas M., and Rogowski, Ronald. 2021. Rising Inequality as a Threat to the Liberal International Order. International Organization 75 (2). <https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818321000163>.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, Chase, and Frieden, Jeffry. 2017. Crisis of Trust: Socio-Economic Determinants of Europeans’ Confidence in Government. European Union Politics 18 (4):511–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, Chase, and Frieden, Jeffry. 2019. Compensation, Austerity, and Populism: Social Spending and Voting in 17 Western European Countries. Working Paper (December).Google Scholar
Freund, Caroline, and Sidhu, Dario. 2017. Manufacturing and the 2016 Election: An Analysis of US Presidential Election Data. Working Paper No. 17-7, Peterson Institute for International Economics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ganong, Peter, and Shoag, Daniel. 2017. Why Has Regional Income Convergence in the US Declined? Journal of Urban Economics 102:76–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gidron, Noam, and Hall, Peter A.. 2020. Populism As a Problem of Social Integration. Comparative Political Studies 53 (7):1027–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, Judith L., and Peters, Margaret E.. 2014. Nativism or Economic Threat: Attitudes Toward Immigrants During the Great Recession. International Interactions 40 (3):376–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groseclose, Tim, and Milyo, Jeffrey. 2005. A Measure of Media Bias. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 120 (4):1191–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guriev, Sergei. 2018. Economic Drivers of Populism. AEA Papers and Proceedings 108:200–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hays, Jude C. 2009. Globalization and the New Politics of Embedded Liberalism. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hays, Jude C., Ehrlich, Sean D., and Peinhardt, Clint. 2005. Government Spending and Public Support for Trade in the OECD: An Empirical Test of the Embedded Liberalism Thesis. International Organization 59 (2):473–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hays, Jude C., Lim, Junghyun, and Spoon, Jae-Jae. 2019. The Path from Trade to Right-wing Populism in Europe. Electoral Studies 60 (August):102038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inglehart, Ronald, and Norris, Pippa. 2018. Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit and the Rise of Authoritarianism-Populism. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jensen, J. Bradford, Quinn, Dennis, and Weymouth, Stephen. 2017. Winners and Losers in International Trade: The Effects on US Presidential Voting. International Organization 71 (3):423–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knowles, Eric, and Tropp, Linda. 2018. The Racial and Economic Context of Trump Support: Evidence for Threat, Identity, and Contact Effects in the 2016 Presidential Election. Social Psychological and Personality Science 9 (3):275–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krueger, Alan B., and Summers, Lawrence H.. 1988. Efficiency Wages and the Inter-Industry Wage Structure. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 56 (2):259–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krugman, Paul. 2008. Trade and Wages, Reconsidered. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1 (Spring):103–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dave, Leip. N.d. Dave Leip's Atlas of US Presidential Elections. County-Level Presidential General Election Results 2012 and 2016. Available at <http://uselectionatlas.org/>. Accessed 20 July 2018.. Accessed 20 July 2018.' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Dave,+Leip.+N.d.+Dave+Leip's+Atlas+of+US+Presidential+Elections.+County-Level+Presidential+General+Election+Results+2012+and+2016.+Available+at+.+Accessed+20+July+2018.>Google Scholar
Malgouyres, Clément. 2017. Trade Shocks and Far-Right Voting: Evidence from French Presidential Elections. Working Paper, European University Institute Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, 2017/21, Global Governance Programme-263, Global Economics, from Cadmus, European University Institute Research Repository. Available at <http://hdl.handle.net/1814/45886>. Accessed 13 April 2019..+Accessed+13+April+2019.>Google Scholar
Mansfield, Edward, and Nita, Rudra. 2021. Embedded Liberalism in the Digital Era. International Organization 75 (2). <https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818320000569>.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margalit, Yotam. 2011. Costly Jobs: Trade-related Layoffs, Government Compensation, and Voting in US Elections. American Political Science Review 105 (1):166–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayda, Anna Maria, Peri, Giovanni, and Steingress, Walter. Forthcoming. The Political Impact of Immigration: Evidence from the United States. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics.Google Scholar
Milner, Helen V. 2019. Voting for Populism in Europe: Globalization, Technological Change, and the Extreme Right. Working Paper.Google Scholar
Moretti, Enrico. 2012. The New Geography of Jobs. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
Morgan, Stephen. 2018 Status Threat, Material Interests, and the 2016 Presidential Vote. Socius (January). Available at <https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023118788217>. Accessed 20 February 2019.CrossRef.+Accessed+20+February+2019.>Google Scholar
Mutz, Diana C. 2018. Status Threat, Not Economic Hardship, Explains the 2016 Presidential Vote. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115 (19):E4330–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noland, Marcus. 2020. Protectionism Under Trump: The China Shock, Deplorables, and the First White President. Asian Economic Policy Review 15:31–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, Justin R., and Schott, Peter K. 2020. Trade Liberalization and Mortality: Evidence from US Counties. American Economic Review: Insights 2 (1):47–64.Google Scholar
Reeves, Andrew, and Gimpel, James G.. 2012. Ecologies of Unease: Geographic Context and National Economic Evaluations. Political Behavior 34 (3):507–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rho, Sungmin, and Tomz, Michael. 2017. Why Don't Trade Preferences Reflect Economic Self-Interest? International Organization 71 (S1):S85–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rickard, Stephanie. 2018. Spending to Win: Political Institutions, Economic Geography, and Government Subsidies. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rickard, Stephanie J. 2020. Economic Geography, Politics, and Policy. Annual Review of Political Science 23 (1):187–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, Melinda N., and You, Hye Young. Forthcoming. Trump and Trade: Protectionist Politics and Redistributive Policy. The Journal of Politics.Google Scholar
Rodden, Jonathan A. 2019. Why Cities Lose: The Deep Roots of the Urban–Rural Political Divide. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Rodrik, Dani. 1998. Why Do More Open Economies Have Bigger Governments? Journal of Political Economy 106 (5):997–1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rueda, David. 2007. Social Democracy Inside Out: Partisanship and Labour Market Policy in Industrialized Democracies. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruggie, John Gerard. 1982. International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order. International Organization 36 (2):195–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffer, Lena, and Spilker, Gabriele. 2016. Adding Another Level Individual Responses to Globalization and Government Welfare Policies. Political Science Research and Methods 4 (2):399–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheve, Kenneth F., and Slaughter, Matthew J.. 2001. What Determines Individual Trade-Policy Preferences? Journal of International Economics 54 (2):267–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheve, Kenneth F., and Slaughter, Matthew J.. 2007. A New Deal for Globalization. Foreign Affairs July/August:34–47.Google Scholar
Shambaugh, Jay, and Nunn, Ryan, eds. 2018. Place-Based Policies for Shared Economic Growth. Brookings Institution Report (September):1–215.Google Scholar
Weymouth, Stephen. 2017. Service Firms in the Politics of US Trade Policy. International Studies Quarterly 61 (4):935–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolff, Edward N. 2017 Household Wealth Trends in the United States, 1962 to 2016: Has Middle Class Wealth Recovered? Working Paper No. 24085, National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Broz et al. Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/H6AEVV
Link
Supplementary material: File

Broz et al. supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Broz et al. supplementary material(File)
File 360.2 KB