In this forlorn southern town whose once-humming factories were battered in recent years by a flood of Asian imports, Rhonda Hughes, 43, is a fervent supporter of Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump. Her 72-year-old mother is equally passionate about Democratic hopeful Bernie Sanders.
Disenchantment with the political mainstream is no surprise, but research to be unveiled this week by four leading academic economists suggests that the damage to manufacturing jobs from a sharp acceleration in globalization since the turn of the century has contributed heavily to the nation’s bitter political divide.
Hughes avoids discussing the election with her mother, but their neighbor, Benjamin Green, 83, knows just what Washington needs.
Illustration: Lance Liu
“It’ll take a junkyard dog to straighten this country out,” he said.
Cross-referencing congressional voting records and district-by-district patterns of job losses and other economic trends between 2002 and 2010, the researchers found that areas hardest hit by trade shocks were much more likely to move to the far right or the far left politically.
“It’s not about incumbents changing their positions,” said David Autor, an influential academic who studies labor economics and trade at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and one of the paper’s authors. “It’s about the replacement of moderates with more ideological successors.”
“In retrospect, whether it’s Trump or Sanders, we should have seen in it coming,” Autor added. “The China shock isn’t the sole factor, but it is something of a missing link.”
In addition to Autor, the research was conducted by David Dorn of the University of Zurich; Gordon Hanson, a professor at the University of California, San Diego; and Kaveh Majlesi of Lund University in Sweden.
“Exposure to import competition is bad for centrists,” Hanson said. “We’ve known that political polarization and income inequality track each other, but that pattern is simply a correlation. We’ve now found a mechanism for how economic changes create further political divisions.”
Parker Griffith experienced the move away from the political middle firsthand.
A so-called “Blue Dog Democrat” who represented Courtland and the rest of Alabama’s fifth congressional district, he switched to the Republicans in 2009 and metamorphosed into a moderate Republican, but that was not enough to save his seat.
Griffith was beaten in the Republican primary in 2010 by Morris Brooks Jr, who has emerged as one of the most right-wing members of US Congress.
“If you’re under economic stress and you can’t provide for your family, the easiest answer is to find someone to blame,” Griffith said. “Mexicans, illegal immigrants, [US President Barack] Obama.”
Brooks has said he would consider “anything short of shooting” illegal immigrants to get them out of the country and favors imposing heavy tariffs on China to “level the playing field” and punish Beijing for what he sees as currency manipulation.
In the case of the fifth district, which includes Huntsville and its space and defense-related industries, as well as more industrial Florence along the Tennessee River, the move has been to the right.
However, Autor and his colleagues found that in districts with heavy minority representation, similar shocks can push more Democratic districts in the opposite direction.
While whites hit hard by trade tend to move right, non-white voters move left, eroding support for moderates in both parties, the study concluded.
As the south industrialized in the second half of the 20th century, poor Alabamians who once toiled on farms were able to secure a toehold in the middle class. In the shadow of Tennessee Valley Authority dams that supplied cheap power, thousands of workers sewed jeans and T-shirts, and could earn upward of US$20 per hour in heavily unionized factories.
However, the collapse of the apparel industry in the first decade of the 21st century, following China’s entry into the WTO in 2001, reversed that process.
About 10,000 manufacturing jobs disappeared. At 7.4 percent, the regional unemployment rate is well below its peak of 12.8 percent in 2010, but remains far above the national average of 5 percent.
The new paper underscores a broader rethinking among economists of the costs and benefits of policies aimed at encouraging industrial competition across borders.
“There’s a deeper appreciation for the magnitude of the impact on workers who lose their jobs, but the nature of globalization changed after the end of the Cold War and it took a while for academics to catch up,” Hanson said.
Until the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico in 1994, and especially the entry of China into the WTO, trade deals were mostly multilateral and the rise in manufacturing imports to the US came primarily from other advanced industrial nations, like Germany and Japan.
“China and the WTO represented a shock that was way larger,” Autor said. “We hadn’t seen shocks like this, because we were trading with rich countries, not highly productive developing countries with enormous labor reserves.”
To understand the connection between imports from China and political polarization, the researchers focused on the fact that manufacturers tend to localize in a specific region.
“There are these concentrated pockets of hurt and we’re seeing the political consequences of that,” Autor said.
Autor and Hanson say that trade is only one factor among many that have contributed to a polarizing US Congress (income inequality is another, as are attitudes toward immigrants). However, it has been an important one, particularly over the past decade, when Chinese imports ramped up.
The authors found that voters in congressional districts hardest hit by Chinese imports tended to choose more ideologically extreme lawmakers.
Between 2002 and 2010, districts in the top fifth percentile of trade exposure, on average, experienced a 19 percent greater drop in manufacturing employment relative to districts at the other end of the spectrum. Those hard-hit districts became, on average, far more conservative: the ideological equivalent of moving from US Senator Marco Rubio to US Senator Ted Cruz.
Some very conservative members of US Congress have been sympathetic to free-trade arguments in the past, but Brooks, who has welcomed support from the Tea Party, does not mince words about where he stands.
“We’re going to have to do whatever is necessary to ensure that a foreign country isn’t able to successfully attack and destroy significant parts of the economy,” he said. “I was in China two weeks ago and they are going to clean our plow if we don’t act.”
Autor, like most economists, is still persuaded of the long-established benefits that global trade confers on the economy as a whole, but he recognizes that angry voters have valid reasons to be frustrated.
“It’s a matter of diffuse benefits and concentrated costs, but our political system hasn’t addressed those costs,” he said.
Some staunch defenders of globalization, like Gary Clyde Hufbauer, a senior fellow at the Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, also say that the federal government has failed to adequately address the needs of workers dislocated by lowered import barriers.
However, the benefit of free trade is “10 times the size of the losses,” he said. “Free trade really helps working-class people in terms of lower prices for products. The benefits are skewed toward people with lower income, because they spend a much larger fraction of their income on merchandise.”
Perhaps, but that is cold comfort to people in northern Alabama where wages are stagnant and manufacturing jobs are still disappearing.
In nearby Decatur, the big Nucor steel plant is hanging on, but it is under intense pressure from Asian imports, company chief executive John Ferriola said.
Nucor has a no-layoff policy, but pay and bonuses have been cut at the company’s five Alabama facilities.
Does the steel industry in Alabama have a future?
“Tell me what’s going to happen with imports,” Ferriola said.
And in 2014, the giant International Paper mill in Courtland closed abruptly, costing more than 1,000 people their jobs.
“Thirty years ago, it was booming,” Hughes said, pointing out where Courtland’s hardware store, the pharmacy and the five-and-dime used to be. “But those days are never coming back.”
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.