December 8, 2021


Only The Finest Women

The globalisation backlash

A lively discussion has flourished all around the current surge of populist parties across sophisticated democracies (Guriev and Papaioannou 2021). Quite a few contributions have been hosted on a dedicated VoxEU discussion (amid the earliest ended up Rodrik 2019, Tabellini 2019, Eichengreen 2019, Colantone and Stanig 2019, Pastor and Veronesi 2019, and Margalit 2019). Just one of the most salient phenomena related to the populist wave is the ‘globalisation backlash’. In our modern paper (Colantone et al. 2022), we characterise this phenomenon as the political change of voters and functions in a protectionist and isolationist path, with substantive implications for governments’ leaning and enacted policies. We offer descriptive proof on the backlash along these lines and go over its theoretical underpinnings in standard trade types. Lastly, we evaluate the proof on the motorists of the backlash. In this respect, globalisation emerges as a pertinent variable by usually means of the distributional effects entailed by climbing trade exposure. Yet, the backlash is only partly identified by intercontinental trade. Other factors – these as technological adjust, immigration, disaster-driven fiscal austerity, as nicely as cultural issues – are observed to engage in a comparable position in driving the noticed political change. Borrowing from the healthcare literature, we describe this multi-causal mother nature of the phenomenon via the thought of ‘co-morbidity’, by which diverse aspects compound to produce the backlash.

Documenting the backlash

To document the globalisation backlash, we use recently assembled facts for 23 industrialised, advanced democracies, spanning Europe, North The united states, and Asia. The assessment addresses the period 1980-2019. We start out by giving descriptive proof on the backlash in conditions of voting behaviour. Especially, Figure 1 shows the voters area in conditions of protectionism and isolationism. For every nation, in each and every nationwide election, this is acquired by combining two substances: (1) the vote share of just about every occasion and (2) an ideology score, termed Web Autarky (Burgoon 2009), which reflects the stance of just about every party with respect to trade coverage and multilateralism, dependent on get together manifesto facts (Volkens et al. 2020). The voters area is then computed as a weighted summation of celebration scores, making use of vote shares as weights. It is basically the ideological centre of gravity (COG) of the voters. The remaining panel stories all nations around the world (gray strains) alongside with the cross-nation common (darkish line). The ideal panel highlights certain nations around the world, these types of as the US, or teams of nations, these kinds of as southern, western, and northern Europe. Wanting at the grand mean, there is a seen drop from the starting of the 1980s until finally the early 1990s. This globalist wave is then adopted by a protectionist change from the mid-1990s onwards. These a sample is evidently detectable throughout most nations around the world. The only exceptions seem to be to be Australia and New Zealand, that get started from rather significant stages of net autarky, and screen a decrease in the latest several years. Incredibly very similar proof is obtained when searching at the ideological site of legislatures and executives. This suggests that the shift in voting conduct has been consequential for the composition of determination-creating bodies. 

Determine 1 Voters location


Note: The two panels report figures referring to the citizens centre of gravity in terms of web autarky scores. In the still left panel, the gentle gray traces refer to each individual one sample region the black line is the cross-state ordinary. In the suitable panel, we exhibit individually unique international locations and teams of countries in unique colors the black line is the cross-nation common.
Supply: Colantone et al. (2022).

A protectionist shift is also detectable in terms of trade coverage developments. In this respect, there are lots of current situations in stage, ranging from Brexit to the US-China trade war and the stall of the WTO Appellate Body. Extra systematic evidence is proven in Figure 2, primarily based on Worldwide Trade Inform facts, according to which protectionist trade plan interventions have been growing more rapidly than liberalizing kinds from the monetary crisis onwards. Nonetheless, aside from this kind of dynamics, more trade-friendly developments can also be observed. For occasion, the quantity of active regional trade agreements (RTAs), and primarily free of charge trade regions (FTAs), has stored developing even right after the fiscal crisis. In parallel, typical tariffs have kept declining above time. However, momentary defense measures these kinds of as anti-dumping and countervailing responsibilities have been increasingly activated, and with growing advert-valorem rates, entailing much better protectionist outcomes. All round, the evolution of trade coverage would seem constant with the political dynamics explained previously mentioned. The photograph receives as a substitute much more nuanced as we seem at individual attitudes. We do not uncover systematic proof of a generalised worsening in community feeling toward globalisation. Even so, huge minorities, and in some situations strong majorities, of study respondents think they are not essentially benefiting from international trade (e.g. 39{3a94529b2b68d99beac25dca5c1678936e723415472492fb18744b4f77d809a2} in the US and 60{3a94529b2b68d99beac25dca5c1678936e723415472492fb18744b4f77d809a2} in Italy). 

Determine 2 Increase in protectionist measures since the economic crisis

Observe: The inexperienced line displays liberalising interventions, the purple line protectionist interventions, the blue line is the sum of all interventions.
Supply: Figure taken from Colantone et al. (2022), centered on World Trade Warn information.

Economics of the backlash

From a theoretical standpoint, we discuss how the backlash may perhaps come up in normal trade products when getting into account the ‘social footprint’ of globalisation in phrases of trade-induced inequality and foregone good externalities from ‘strategic industries’. As for trade-induced inequality, the normal concept of the Ricardo-Viner and Heckscher-Ohlin products is that trade liberalisation produces winners and losers, whose identification could range in the quick compared to the prolonged run. Intuitively, in the lengthy operate, owners of components that are made use of reasonably intensively in shrinking import-competing things to do (e.g. very low-ability labour) shed from trade liberalisation. Conversely, owners of variables that are utilized comparatively intensively in expanding export functions (e.g. money or substantial skill labour) acquire. In the small run, even extensive-run winners could drop to the extent they are trapped in shrinking routines and the transition to expanding industries is not fast/costless. In light of these products, trade liberalization is possible to be opposed by the house owners of components who lose, so fuelling globalization backlash. 

Abstracting from inequality challenges, and adopting a Ricardian set up showcasing only just one factor of manufacturing, a globalisation backlash may well nevertheless emerge when trade liberalisation potential customers to shrinkage of strategic industries. These are industries that produce good economic climate-broad externalities, ranging from technological spillovers to use features, this sort of as people originating from industries that add to nationwide stability, and those resulting from cultural features these types of as workers’ identity and dignity. In the presence of externalities, a benevolent governing administration might not concentrate on free trade as the ideal final result therefore, if the inherited degree of trade freeness is better than the exceptional just one, a protectionist backlash in trade coverage might be observed. Also, a politically biased federal government may target a diploma of trade freeness that is dependent on an ‘unfair’ aggregation of specific attitudes with regard to trade, as relevant to most likely different personalized assessments of the pains from trade. If social teams that are far more negatively influenced by the reduction of externalities are weighted a lot less than proportionally by the authorities, a political backlash is likely to eventually emerge.

Drivers of the backlash

What are the motorists of the globalisation backlash? A massive literature has created in recent years all-around this wide research problem, investigating the two financial aspects and cultural determinants. A number of reports have emphasised the purpose of trade, focusing notably on exposure to surging imports from China among the early 1990s and the fiscal crisis. Regions more exposed to the ‘China shock’, owing to their historic industrial specialisation, have been revealed to be negatively impacted in quite a few means, ranging from bigger unemployment, decrease labour power participation, elevated use of disability and other transfer rewards, reduced wages, as nicely as reduce provision of community products and worsening overall health disorders (see Autor et al. 2013 for the first contribution). This phenomenon has experienced political repercussions as very well, top to growing guidance for protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist functions and candidates (e.g. Autor et al. 2020 for the US and Colantone and Stanig 2018 for Europe). The available proof lets one to conclude that the globalisation backlash is so endogenous to globalisation by itself. Having said that, other variables have been discovered to tilt electorates in comparable strategies. In particular, technological development, by suggests of automation of production by means of robots, has been shown to crank out distributional repercussions that are akin to those of trade, primary to related political responses (e.g. Frey et al. 2018 for the US and Anelli et al. 2021 for Europe). The exact retains true for crisis-pushed fiscal austerity as nicely as immigration, which acts the two as a catalyst of structural financial grievances, and as a direct determinant of political backlash.


Total, it looks that globalisation is at stake due partly to causes that are not strictly connected to trade. The political sustainability of globalisation – and arguably of the global liberal purchase – will count on how successful modern society is at managing in a much more inclusive way the distributional consequences of structural transform.


Anelli, M, I Colantone, and P Stanig (2021), “Individual vulnerability to industrial robotic adoption improves support for the radical right”, PNAS – Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, forthcoming.

Autor, D H, D Dorn, and G H Hanson (2013), “The China syndrome: Neighborhood labor current market effects of import competitiveness in the United States”, American Financial Critique 103(6): 2121-2168.

Autor, D H, D Dorn, G H Hanson, and K Majlesi (2020), “Importing political polarization? The electoral repercussions of soaring trade exposure”, American Economic Evaluation 110 (10): 3139-3183.

Burgoon, B (2009), “Globalization and backlash: Polanyi’s revenge?”, Overview of International Political Economy 16(2): 145–77.

Colantone, I and P Stanig (2018), “The trade origins of economic nationalism: Import competition and voting actions in Western Europe”, American Journal of Political Science 62: 936-953. 

Colantone, I and P Stanig (2019), “Heterogeneous drivers of heterogeneous populism”,, 10 December.

Colantone, I, G I Ottaviano, and P Stanig (2022), “The backlash of globalization”, CEPR Dialogue Paper 16521, forthcoming in G Gopinath, E Helpman, and K S Rogoff (eds), Handbook of Worldwide Economics 5, Elsevier.

Eichengreen, B (2019), “The Two Faces of Populism”,, 29 Oct.

Frey, C B, T Berger, and C Chen (2018), “Political equipment: Did robots swing the 2016 US presidential election?” Oxford Overview of Economic Coverage 34(3): 418-442.

Guriev, S and E Papaioannou (2021), “The political economy of populism”, Journal of Economic Literature, forthcoming.

Margalit, Y (2019), “Economic brings about of populism: Essential, marginally important, or critical on the margin”,, 20 December.

Pastor, L and P Veronesi (2019), “Populism: Why in loaded nations and in good times”,, 12 December.

Rodrik, D (2019), “Many kinds of populism”,, 29 Oct.

Tabellini, G (2019), “The increase of populism”,, 29 October.

Volkens, A, T Burst, W Krause, P Lehmann, T Matthiess, N Merz, S Regel, B Wessels, and L Zehnter (2020), “The Manifesto Information Collection”, Manifesto Venture (MRG/CMP/MARPOR), Version 2020b, WZB.