Search

Begin New Search Topic Deindustrialization Political Geography North America

1. Misconceptions about US Trade Deficits Muddy the Economic Policy Debate

Author:
Maurice Obstfeld
Publication Date:
08-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE)
Abstract:
The distrust of openness to the global economy shared by Republican and Democratic leadership derives in part from a faulty premise that persistent US trade deficits have been imposed on the United States by foreign countries and have contributed significantly to US deindustrialization. In fact, the deficits have important domestic sources, and the main drivers of US manufacturing employment decline lie elsewhere. Two theories that blame foreign countries for deficits hold that deficits arose from unfair competition by trade partners or from a “global savings glut.” The author says the first theory is wrong, the second is incomplete, and economic isolationism is not a solution. Trade and current account deficits result generally from an economy’s collective decisions to save and invest. Freer trade does not necessarily raise investment more than saving, and an investment-driven deficit is likely positive for the economy. The years 1998–2001 during and after the Asian financial crisis led to the dollar appreciating and a rise in the US deficit, consistent with the global saving glut theory. But subsequently in the 2000s, foreign capital was not pushed into the United States from abroad; rather it was pulled and the dollar depreciated. The causes were easy financial conditions, a housing bubble, and strong US consumption—trends that ended in a financial crisis. Understanding this history is essential if the United States is to avoid destructive protectionism and other harmful economic policies.
Topic:
Economy, Economic Policy, Free Trade, Trade Deficit, and Deindustrialization
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

2. Manufactured Crisis: “Deindustrialization,” Free Markets, and National Security

Author:
Scott Lincicome
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
The Cato Institute
Abstract:
Both the American left and right often use “national security” to justify sweeping proposals for new U.S. protectionism and industrial policy. “Free markets” and a lack of government support for the manufacturing sector are alleged to have crippled the U.S. defense industrial base’s ability to supply “essential” goods during war or other emergencies, thus imperiling national security and demanding a fundamental rethink of U.S. trade and manufacturing policy. The COVID-19 crisis and U.S.-China tensions have amplified these claims. This resurgent “security nationalism,” however, extends far beyond the limited theoretical scenarios in which national security might justify government action, and it suffers from several flaws. First, reports of the demise of the U.S. manufacturing sector are exaggerated. Although U.S. manufacturing sector employment and share of national economic output (gross domestic product) have declined, these data are mostly irrelevant to national security and reflect macroeconomic trends affecting many other countries. By contrast, the most relevant data—on the U.S. manufacturing sector’s output, exports, financial performance, and investment—show that the nation’s total productive capacity and most of the industries typically associated with “national security” are still expanding. Second, “security nationalism” assumes a need for broad and novel U.S. government interventions while ignoring the targeted federal policies intended to support the defense industrial base. In fact, many U.S. laws already authorize the federal government to support or protect discrete U.S. industries on national security grounds. Third, several of these laws and policies provide a cautionary tale regarding the inefficacy of certain core “security nationalist” priorities. Case studies of past government support for steel, shipbuilding, semiconductors, and machine tools show that security‐​related protectionism and industrial policy in the United States often undermines national security. Fourth, although the United States is not nearly as open (and thus allegedly “vulnerable”) to external shocks as claimed, global integration and trade openness often bolster U.S. national security by encouraging peace among trading nations or mitigating the impact of domestic shocks. Together, these points rebut the most common claims in support of “security nationalism” and show why skepticism of such initiatives is necessary when national security is involved. They also reveal market‐​oriented trade, immigration, tax, and regulatory policies that would generally benefit the U.S. economy while also supporting the defense industrial base and national security.
Topic:
Defense Policy, National Security, COVID-19, Free Market, and Deindustrialization
Political Geography:
China, North America, and United States of America

3. Voting Rights, Deindustrialization, and Republican Ascendancy in the South

Author:
Grant Wright
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET)
Abstract:
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 revolutionized politics in the American South. These changes also had economic consequences, generating gains for white as well as Black southerners. Contrary to the widespread belief that the region turned Republican in direct response to the Civil Rights Revolution, expanded voting rights led to twenty-five years of competitive two-party politics, featuring strong biracial coalitions in the Democratic Party. These coalitions remained competitive in most states until the Republican Revolution of the 1990s. This abrupt rightward shift had many causes, but critical for southern voters were the trade liberalization measures of 1994, specifically NAFTA and the phase-out of the Multi-Fiber Arrangement which had protected the textiles and apparel industries for decades. The consequences of Republican state regimes have been severe, including intensified racial polarization, loss of support for public schools and higher education, and harsh policies toward low-income populations.
Topic:
History, Minorities, Voting, Voting Rights, Deindustrialization, and African Americans
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America