What Is

Globalization?
After centuries of technological progress and advances in
internationalAnd How Has the
cooperation, theGlobal
worldEconomy Shaped than ever.
is more connected
But how much has the rise the
ofUnited States?
trade and the modern global economy
helped or hurt American businesses, workers, and consumers? Here
is a basic guide to the economic side of this broad and much
debated topic, drawn from current research.

G
lobalization is the word used to describe the growing interdependence of the
world’s economies, cultures, and populations, brought about by cross-border
trade in goods and services, technology, and ows of investment, people, and
information. Countries have built economic partnerships to facilitate these movements
over many centuries. But the term gained popularity after the Cold War in the early 1990s,
as these cooperative arrangements shaped modern everyday life. This guide uses the term
more narrowly to refer to international trade and investment among advanced economies,
mostly focusing on the United States.

The wide-ranging effects of globalization are complex and politically charged. As with
major technological advances, globalization bene ts society as a whole, while harming
certain groups. Understanding the relative costs and bene ts can pave the way for
alleviating problems while sustaining the wider payoffs.
 01:27

Today, Americans rely on the global economy for many of the things they buy and sell, expanding businesses, and
making investments. Many products and services have become affordable to the average American through the
coordination of production across countries.

THE HISTORY OF GLOBALIZATION IS DRIVEN BY TECHNOLOGY,

TRANSPORTATION, AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

Since ancient times, humans have sought distant places to settle, produce, and exchange
goods enabled by improvements in technology and transportation. But not until the 19th
century did global integration take off. Following centuries of European colonization and
trade activity, that rst “wave” of globalization was propelled by steamships, railroads, the
telegraph, and other breakthroughs, and also by increasing economic cooperation among
countries. The globalization trend eventually waned and crashed in the catastrophe of
World War I, followed by postwar protectionism, the Great Depression, and World War II.
After World War II in the mid-1940s, the United States led efforts to revive international
trade and investment under negotiated ground rules, starting a second wave of
globalization, which remains ongoing, though buffeted by periodic downturns and
mounting political scrutiny.
 1800
Tec
Ind
Steam
with
dema

adop
ofofgo
Rise
Automobiles
inves
and Airplanes
natur
econ

 Techn




1749 1755 1761 1766 1772 1777 1783 1788 1794 1799 1
1750
Timeline JS 1760 1770 1780 1790 1800

GLOBALIZATION IN CHARTS
 China, India, and Brazil dropped their rates to enter the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Global supply chains are production networks that assemble products using parts from around the world (known
as intermediate goods). Today, 80 percent of world trade (http://unctad.org/en/pages/newsdetails.aspx?
OriginalVersionID=411) is driven by supply chains run by multinational corporations. Trade in intermediate goods
is now nearly twice as large as trade in nal goods and is especially important in advanced manufacturing, like
autos.
 The surplus in services suggests the competitive strength of US services in the global market. The United States
had an overall trade de cit of $447 billion in 2017, according to the US International Trade Commission, as a result
of Americans spending more than they earn (https://piie.com/blogs/trade-investment-policy-watch/public-
comment-trump-administration-report-signi cant-trade) and nancing the difference with foreign credit. For
more, watch the video, “Is the US Trade De cit a Problem (https://piie.com/newsroom/short-videos/us-trade-
de cit-problem)?”
Countries gather at the 1944 Bretton Woods conference.

GLOBALIZATION AS A TOOL FOR PROSPERITY AND PEACE

After World War II, the United States helped build a global economic order governed by
mutually accepted rules and overseen by multilateral institutions. The idea was to create a
better world (https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2016-12-12/will-liberal-order-
survive) with countries seeking to cooperate with one another to promote prosperity and
peace. Free trade and the rule of law were mainstays of the system
(https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2018-02-13/post-american-world-
economy), helping to prevent most economic disputes from escalating into larger con icts.
The institutions established include:
EFFECTS OF GLOBALIZATION
MORE GOODS AT LOWER PRICES

Globalization encourages each country to specialize in what it produces best using the
least amount of resources, known as comparative advantage. This concept makes
production more ef cient, promotes economic growth, and lowers prices of goods and
services, making them more affordable especially for lower-income households.

01:51

Imagine if countries were like chefs, with different specialties. See how trade helps both sides be more productive.
For more information, see Increased Trade: A Key to Improving Productivity (https://piie.com/publications/policy-
briefs/increased-trade-key-improving-productivity).

SCALED UP BUSINESSES

Larger markets enable companies to reach more customers and get a higher return on the
xed costs of doing business, like building factories or conducting research. Technology
rms have taken special advantage of their innovations this way.

BETTER QUALITY AND VARIETY

Competition from abroad drives US rms to improve their products. Consumers have better
products and more choices as a result.
INNOVATION

Expanded trade spurs the spread of technology, innovation, and the communication of
ideas. The best ideas from market leaders spread more easily.

JOB CHURN

Globalization supports new job opportunities but also contributes to job displacement. It
does not signi cantly change the total number of positions in the economy, as job numbers
are primarily driven by business cycles and Federal Reserve and scal policies.
Nevertheless, a Peterson Institute study (https://piie.com/publications/policy-
briefs/payoff-america-globalization-fresh-look-focus-costs-workers) nds 156,250 US jobs
were lost on net each year between 2001 and 2016 from expanded trade in manufactured
goods, which represents less than 1 percent of the workers laid off in a typical year.1 Low-
wage workers in certain regions are most affected. Many of them also face lower earnings
or have dropped out of the workforce. Bigger factors than trade driving job displacements
are labor-saving technologies, like automated machines and arti cial intelligence. Better-
paying positions have opened up in manufactured exports—especially in high-tech areas,
such as computers, chemicals, and transportation equipment—and other high-skill work,
notably in business services, such as nance and real estate (see Jobs section).

DECLINE IN GAP BETWEEN RICH AND POOR GLOBALLY, BUT WIDER INEQUALITY
WITHIN UNITED STATES

Globalization has helped narrow inequality (https://academic.oup.com/cje/article-

abstract/28/2/229/1681251?redirectedFrom=fulltext) between the poorest and richest
people in the world, cutting the number living in extreme poverty by half
(http://blogs.worldbank.org/developmenttalk/trade-has-been-global-force-less-poverty-
and-higher-incomes) since 1990. But within many countries, including the United States,
inequality is rising. A consensus of scholarly work (https://piie.com/blogs/trade-
investment-policy-watch/has-global-trade-fueled-us-wage-inequality-survey-experts)
holds that globalization has contributed marginally to rising US wage inequality, putting
this factor at 10 to 20 percent. A leading explanation for rising US inequality [pdf]
(https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44705.pdf) is that technology is reducing demand for certain
low- and middle-wage workers and increasing demand for high-skilled, higher-paid
workers. Wages have also stagnated, though economists are still debating the exact causes.
Countries exposed to globalization have alleviated inequality to different degrees through
tax and welfare systems. The United States has done the least
(https://piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/tax-overhaul-risks-making-us-tax-and-
transfer-system-even-more-regressive) among advanced economies to mobilize
government policies to reduce inequality.

1
In 2016, 19.9 million workers [pdf]
(https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/jolts_03162017.pdf) were laid off or discharged
(i.e., involuntary separations).

GLOBALIZATION HAS DISPLACED SOME WORKERS, WHILE

SUPPORTING HIGH-SKILL JOBS

Globalization changes the types of jobs available but has little effect on the overall number
of jobs in the ever-changing US labor market. That being said, some workers have directly
bene ted from expanding global commerce, while others have not. Certain manufacturing
and industry workers in speci c geographic regions lost out, such as those in furniture,
apparel, steel, auto parts, and electrical equipment industries in Tennessee, Michigan, and
the mid-Atlantic states. A widely cited study [pdf] (https://www.ddorn.net/papers/Autor-
Dorn-Hanson-ChinaShock.pdf) shows that between 1991 and 2007, lower-wage
manufacturing workers within industries that faced import competition experienced large
and lasting earnings losses, while higher-wage workers in these industries did not. The
lower-wage workers may have lacked the skills and mobility to transition to other lines of
work, whereas higher-wage workers relocated to companies outside manufacturing. Studies
show (https://piie.com/bookstore/has-globalization-gone-too-far) that globalization has
also diminished US worker bargaining leverage to demand higher wages.
FAQ: What has happened to American manufacturing employment?
 The percent of US jobs in manufacturing has steadily declined since the 1940s, before
the rise of China, NAFTA, or the WTO, mainly because technology has made it easier
to produce goods. American industrial production is at historically high levels, but
fewer people are needed to achieve this success. Manufacturing employment share
has also declined because consumers are spending a smaller percent
(https://piie.com/publications/working-papers/recent-us-manufacturing-
employment-exception-proves-rule) of their incomes on manufactured goods and
more on services, which include housing, health care, dining out, travel, and legal
services. Employment in service industries has grown from about half to 84 percent of
all nonfarm, nongovernment employment.

Because US rms often beat international competitors at supplying high-skill services—like

engineering, legal, consulting, research, management, and information technology—
workers in these elds have bene ted the most from globalization.

Business-service employment expanded

(https://piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/how-offshoring-and-global-
supply-chains-enhance-us-economy) more than 20 percent between 2006
and 2016. These jobs pay more than 20 percent
(https://piie.com/bookstore/global-trade-services-fear-facts-and-offshoring)
higher wages than the average manufacturing job.

Foreign-owned companies that do business in the United States have hired Americans at a
faster rate than US private employers between 2007 and 2015. They also pay better
(http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/12/14/number-of-u-s-workers-employed-by-
foreign-owned-companies-is-on-the-rise/), do more research and development, export
more, and invest more than the average US rm. The same is true, by comparison with
local averages, of US rms that invest abroad. One in ve
(https://piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/how-offshoring-and-global-supply-chains-
enhance-us-economy) American manufacturing workers is now employed by a foreign-
owned company operating in the United States.
Demand will likely increase for more highly-skilled manufacturing workers, in areas such
as engineering, management, nance, computer and mathematical occupations, and sales.
The greatest areas of job growth (https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/employment-by-major-
industry-sector.htm) now in the United States are in professional and business services,
health care and social assistance, and educational services. More job training and
education is needed to prepare workers for these jobs.

WHY SUPPORT GLOBALIZATION IF IT DISPLACES JOBS?

Economists look at the effects of globalization across the entire economy to weigh the pros
vs. cons. Since the overall payoff is so much greater than the costs to individual workers or
groups who have lost out, nearly all economists support having an open global market
versus closing it off (see example (http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/steel-and-
aluminum-tariffs?
utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+igmforum+%28I
GM+Forum%29)).
 Note: Trade expansion refers to the effects caused by additional manufactured imports and exports. Source: Gary
Clyde Hufbauer and Zhiyao (Lucy) Lu, The Payoff to America from Globalization: A Fresh Look with a Focus on
Costs to Workers (https://piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/payoff-america-globalization-fresh-look-focus-
costs-workers). For chart sources, see Figure 3 in Policy Brief. Total manufacturing job separations from Job
Openings and Labor Turnover Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Other common arguments:

Globalization is like technological progress. Both disrupt some livelihoods while enlarging
the economic pie and opening up new and better-paying job opportunities. The internet,
for instance, made many jobs obsolete but also created new higher-paying jobs and
industries unheard of only a few decades ago.

Protectionism helps select groups but at a higher cost for everyone else. Imposing tariffs on
steel, for instance, helps certain domestic steel producers, but many more jobs depend
on businesses that need some imported steel to make goods that are affordable. US
 consumers end up paying more for foreign goods because of the tariff and more for
domestic goods because domestic producers often raise prices in the absence of foreign
competition. Damage worsens when trading partners retaliate with their own tariffs on
US exports. US agriculture is particularly vulnerable to retaliation.

One study (https://piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/us-tire-tariffs-saving-

few-jobs-high-cost) shows that US tariffs on Chinese tires under President
Barack Obama saved 1,200 tire manufacturing jobs. But US consumers paid
$900,000 per job saved and 3,700 retail jobs were lost as tires became more
expensive.

The United States must keep open markets to stay competitive globally. Other countries are
continuing to open their markets to each other, forming regional supply chains that
make production more ef cient and products more affordable within their trading blocs.
By not joining these deals, US exports have a dif cult time competing. US businesses
may also opt to move operations abroad to gain access to foreign markets.

US real income in 2030 is estimated to be $133 billion less

(https://piie.com/publications/working-papers/going-it-alone-asia-paci c-
regional-trade-agreements-without-united) than it would have been if
President Trump had remained in the Trans-Paci c Partnership (TPP) trade
deal. Other countries are proceeding on the deal without the United States,
giving them preferential access to each other’s markets.

Operating within a rules-based system allows for peaceful con ict resolution. There are
cases when unfair trade practices and abuses harm US producers. Maintaining
international systems to address those problems is key to preventing mutually
destructive trade wars—even real wars. Economic integration strengthens US security
alliances, while trade wars weaken the ability of the United States to collaborate with
allies.
FAQ: How can the United States help workers nd new jobs without sacri cing
trade gains?

In an ideal world, displaced workers from trade competition could nd new jobs,
sometimes by moving or gaining new skills. In reality, it has been very dif cult for
many of these workers to transition, with lasting effects on individuals and their
communities. Trade expert Gary Clyde Hufbauer points out
(https://piie.com/blogs/trade-investment-policy-watch/ivory-tower-economists-free-
trade-and-workplace-woes) that the national income gains from expanded trade are
at least 10 times greater than what is needed to meaningfully assist workers who
lose their jobs to import competition.

Instead of sacri cing trade gains, many economists recommend domestic policies like
wage insurance (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2718237),
expanded tax credits (https://piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/payoff-america-
globalization-fresh-look-focus-costs-workers), better unemployment bene ts, and
subsidies for health insurance (https://www.brookings.edu/research/a-prescription-
to-relieve-worker-anxiety/) for all displaced workers regardless of the cause. Such
policies could reduce worker anxiety about job turnover across the board, whether it
be from trade or other bigger factors. Currently, there is government support through
a program called Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), though it only helps workers
directly impacted by trade and the amounts paid are limited. The United States
spends only a fth (https://piie.com/publications/piie-brie ngs/us-china-
economic-relations-con ict-solutions-part-i) of what other advanced
economies spend on average to help people nd new jobs through education,
training, job search assistance, and other active labor market programs.

Broader domestic policies can also help workers adapt to the continuously changing
job market, such as access to higher education and health care, but Americans remain
con icted about the government’s role in these social safety net programs. Other
advanced economies have generally increased (https://piie.com/blogs/trade-
investment-policy-watch/us-trade-agenda-requires-greater-focus-social-concerns)
the size of government programs as they opened up to trade.
CHINA IS NOT PLAYING FAIRLY, BUT BACKPEDALING ON
GLOBALIZATION CREATES OTHER PROBLEMS

China’s rise has been one of the most dominant forces in the global economy. It entered
the World Trade Organization in 2001 and undertook many reforms, cutting tariffs and
other trade barriers. But it still has not completely transformed into a market-oriented
economy as its trading partners expected. Many big Chinese companies have close ties with
the government, and certain practices have skewed the playing eld in trade. For instance,
China unfairly demands that US intellectual property be handed over
(https://piie.com/commentary/op-eds/section-301-us-investigates-allegations-forced-
technology-transfers-china) in certain cases as the price of doing business there. These
practices discriminate against not only Americans but also US allies.

US administrations have taken different approaches to deal with these concerns.

Negotiated under President Obama, the Trans-Paci c Partnership (TPP) agreement was
intended to entice China to improve its practices by allowing the country in on the
lucrative deal only if it agreed to new rules, but President Trump withdrew from the deal.
Starting in March 2018, the Trump administration has imposed tariffs on China to change
its behavior. So far, the country has only responded by retaliating with tariffs on US goods.
There are ongoing efforts (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-23/europe-
eyes-longshot-talks-with-u-s-to-soften-trade-impasse) by the European Union, United
States, and Japan to negotiate new rules that would potentially be embedded within the
WTO, but these talks are only in the early stages.

In addition to tariffs against China for unfair trade practices, Trump has imposed tariffs on
almost all imported steel and aluminum after his administration identi ed those imports
as national security threats. Most US steel imports are from allies, such as Canada and the
European Union. Trump has also repeatedly threatened withdrawing from trade
agreements and the WTO, among other “anti-globalist” actions.
Globalization has become so widely entrenched in the US and world economies that
undoing its complicated web of activities—as the Trump administration's tariffs and other
barriers would do—could back re and damage economic growth and national security
alliances. Disrupting supply chains will likely hamper job growth, trade, and investment,
raising costs for consumers and harming US global competitiveness.

Trade actions Risks

Engaging in a trade war, Both countries lose economically when trade volumes decline
with escalating tit-for- Costs rise, harming US competitiveness and making it harder for
tat tariffs families to afford products
Retaliation hurts US exports

Withdrawing from free Disrupts global supply chains that domestic businesses, workers,
trade agreements, like and consumers rely on to hold costs and in ation down
NAFTA Can put the United States at a disadvantage since other countries
continue to strike their own deals with each other that improve
their competitiveness
Leads to higher tariffs on US exports, which would dampen sales
and hurt US businesses and workers
Jeopardizes role of the United States as a world leader in
international cooperation, making it more dif cult to achieve
solutions on national security, immigration, and the environment

Violating WTO rules or Weakens rules-based trading system that the United States and
circumventing much of the world relies on to keep foreign markets open and settle
established processes disputes.

Promoting “Buy Causes more lost jobs than they create as other countries retaliate
America” policies Makes government purchases more expensive
(https://piie.com/blogs/trade-investment-policy-watch/buy-
american-bad-taxpayers-and-worse-exports)

Imposing tariffs to save Saves few jobs at very high cost (https://piie.com/blogs/trade-
US manufacturing jobs investment-policy-watch/preserving-manufacturing-jobs-one-
at speci c companies company-time) to taxpayers and consumers
With global supply chains dominating world trade, it is dif cult to
hit another country and avoid hitting your own
(https://piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/trump-tariffs-primarily-
hit-multinational-supply-chains-harm-us) or your allies
Restricting imports
from speci c countries
to try to reduce bilateral
trade de cits
Does not improve (https://piie.com/blogs/trade-investment-policy-
watch/public-comment-trump-administration-report-signi cant-
trade) the overall US trade de cit
Bilateral trade de cits are not an appropriate measure
(https://piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/ ve-reasons-why-
focus-trade-de cits-misleading) for economic improvement
Not a successful negotiating strategy for trade deals
Countries can and will retaliate

Read more

Trump's Trade War Timeline: An Up-to-Date

Guide
Keep track of all of President Trump’s most pressing
trade con icts with links to the latest available data
and analysis.
 Trade War with China: Costs, Opportunities,
Challenges, and Bene ts
Trade experts give Congressional staff a rundown of
the US-China economic relationship and how the
situation could improve.

How the United States Should Confront

China Without Threatening the Global
Trading System
The Trump administration’s willingness to violate
trade rules to maximize its negotiating leverage is
undermining its important and legitimate objective to
persuade China to reform its problematic economic
system.

THE PUBLIC HAS MIXED VIEWS ON GLOBALIZATION

How do Americans feel about globalization? Listening to the debates can be confusing. Not
surprisingly, polls vary widely depending on how and when the question is posed.
 This Pew Research poll nds more support than not for free trade agreements. But a 2016 Bloomberg poll asked,
“Do you think US trade policy should have more restrictions on imported foreign goods to protect American jobs,
or have fewer restrictions to enable American consumers to have the most choices and the lowest prices?" This
resulted in 65 percent (https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/190427/american-public-opinion-
foreign-trade.aspx) of respondents wanting more restrictions, the opposite of the sentiment expressed in the Pew
poll.

Globalization can be a hard sell to the public

(https://piie.com/newsroom/short-videos/why-after-200-years-cant-
economists-sell-free-trade) because the bene ts are widely distributed and
not as easily understood, compared with the personal costs to very speci c
companies or workers.

The problem is compounded because policymakers have done little to help

(http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/dividedwestandwhyinequalitykeepsrising.htm) workers and
communities adjust at a time when the wealthiest Americans have gained the most in
recent years. In general, younger people are more supportive
(https://piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/protectionism-2016-election-causes-and-
consequences-truths-and- ctions) of free trade, as most have never known a world without
the current system.

Before 2016, Republicans generally favored US trade deals and Democrats generally voted
against them. President Trump canceled TPP and has threatened withdrawing from
NAFTA, the Korea-US Free Trade Agreement (KORUS) (later revised and signed), and the
WTO. His administration has negotiated the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement
(https://piie.com/experts/peterson-perspectives/trade-talks-episode-57-its-fun-discuss-
usmca-new-nafta) (USMCA) to replace NAFTA; the agreement now faces rati cation in
each country. Some GOP Congressional leaders have come out against Trump on certain
trade issues (see example (https://piie.com/newsroom/short-videos/senator-orrin-hatch-
argues-against-auto-tariffs)) but so far have not created legislation to oppose his policies.

SUSTAINING GLOBALIZATION THROUGH POLICY ACTION

The global economy has yielded enormous economic gains for the United States, but
problems undoubtedly remain. There are abuses within the system and rules need to be
updated (https://piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/dispute-settlement-crisis-world-
trade-organization-causes-and-cures). Trade agreements should account for the modern
digital age. Disputes continue on the trade of certain goods—whether items are ooding
other markets too much, how industries are being subsidized, lingering protections on
speci c goods or economic sectors, etc. Solving these types of issues, which will inevitably
arise and change over time, is best done through negotiation and coordination with trading
partners—applying due process—in order to prevent costly trade wars, where more and
more barriers end up hurting all sides.

But trade negotiations can only go so far. Not enough has been done to help those who
have lost out from trade competition. And the reality is that the problems people face
today go far beyond the effects of globalization. Manual work is increasingly being
automated, lowering demand for workers. Wages are stagnant (https://www.vox.com/the-
big-idea/2018/7/31/17632348/wages-lagging-inequality-income-recovery-recession-wage-
puzzle-economics), as health care and higher education costs rise. Inequality is widening.

Domestic policies that support not just those left behind because of trade
competition but all Americans will maximize gains while ensuring inclusive
growth critical for national well-being and preventing erosion of multilateral
systems that the United States helped build and that have served the country
—and the world—well for most of the last century.
The global market still has great potential for the US economy. With anyone in the world
now a text, click, call, or plane ight away, 95 percent of potential customers for goods and
services are outside the United States, ready to buy goods and services from other countries
if US producers are barred from their markets. If American producers want to reach those
consumers, the United States must let producers from overseas reach American consumers,
as they have over the years for cars, appliances, smartphones, and other products
Americans want. More open trade could add another $540 billion
(https://piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/payoff-america-globalization-fresh-look-
focus-costs-workers) to the US economy by 2025, equivalent to $1,600 a year in
income per person.

Here are some of the crucial areas that economists have proposed the United States should
focus on, as outlined in many studies at the Peterson Institute and other policy
organizations. While these goals are simply stated and obviously will pose challenges to
resolve, the stakes are high to rebuild trust in a global system that has helped secure
prosperity and peace.
GLOSSARY
Goods are physical, produced items traded between countries, like corn, machinery parts,
or chemicals.

Services are business activities conducted between countries, such as tourism, nance,
insurance, real estate, science exchanges, professional services, business management,
education, health care, arts, entertainment, accommodation, and food services.

Exports are goods and services that are sold to individuals or companies outside of their
country of origin.

Imports are goods or services purchased from outside the country.

A trade de cit occurs when spending on imports exceeds what is earned from selling
exports. A trade surplus is the opposite, when earnings from exports top spending on
imports. A country’s trade balance, either a surplus or de cit, is not affected by tariffs or
trade agreements but by larger economic factors, like government spending and monetary
policy.

Protectionism is the term for government restrictions on international trade aimed at

blocking foreign products and driving companies and consumers to purchase domestically
produced goods and services. The government may enact taxes on imports (called tariffs),
limits on the quantity of imports (called quotas), subsidies to domestic industries, or other
regulations. Tariffs are paid by domestic importers, not foreign governments or exporters.

Trade liberalization is the opposite of protectionism—when countries allow people and

businesses to buy and sell across borders with fewer restrictions. In this context, liberal
refers to more free or open trade.

CREDITS
Written by Melina Kolb
Edited by Madona Devasahayam, Helen Hillebrand, and Steven R. Weisman
Graphics by William Melancon
Videos by Daniel Housch
Chart data collected by Christopher G. Collins and Soyoung Han
Additional research by Anjali Bhatt, Cathleen Cimino-Isaacs, and Zhiyao (Lucy) Lu

Special thanks to C. Fred Bergsten, Chad P. Bown, Cullen S. Hendrix, Gonzalo Huertas, Gary
Clyde Hufbauer, Douglas A. Irwin, Fredrick Toohey, Jeffrey J. Schott, and Eitan Urkowitz for
their contributions.

This feature was last updated on October 29, 2018.

© 2018 Peterson Institute for International Economics. All rights reserved.

The Peterson Institute for International Economics is a private, nonpartisan nonpro t

institution committed to rigorous, intellectually open, and indepth study and discussion of
international economic policy. The Institute discloses all sources of funding, which comes
through donations and grants from corporations, individuals, private foundations, and
public institutions, as well as income on the Institute’s capital fund and from publishing
revenues. Donors do not in uence the conclusions or policy implications drawn from
Institute research. All Institute research is independent and held to strict standards of
replicability and academic integrity. Visit piie.com (http://piie.com) to learn more.

For more updates from the Peterson Institute, subscribe to the newsletter
(https://piie.com/subscribe).

PHOTOS

Associated Press/Abe Fox

Flickr/Levan Ramishvili and Leon Yaakov
Library of Congress
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Archives and Records Administration
Reuters/Daniel Acker, Russell Boyce, Marcos Brindicci, Larry Chan, Kevork Djansezian,
Regis Duvignau, Gary Hershorn, Leah Millis, Charles Platiau, John Sommers II, and
Piroschka van de Wouw
Senate of Berlin
US Air Force
US Army
US Census
US Marine Corps
William Henry Fox Talbot, Public Domain (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?
curid=8271736)
World Trade Organization
WTO/Jay Louvion, Studio Casagrande
(https://www. ickr.com/photos/world_trade_organization/4681137921/in/album-
72157624105220133/)

SOURCES

Autor, David H., David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson. 2016. The China Shock: Learning
from Labor-Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade [pdf]
(https://www.ddorn.net/papers/Autor-Dorn-Hanson-ChinaShock.pdf). Annual Review of
Economics 8: 205–240.

Bartley Johns, Marcus, Paul Brenton, Massimiliano Cali, Mombert Hoppe, and Roberta
Piermartini. 2015. The Role of Trade in Ending Poverty
(http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/726971467989468997/The-role-of-trade-in-
ending-poverty). Geneva: World Trade Organization.

Baschuk, Bryce. 2018. Europe’s Talks With U.S. to Soften Trade Impasse Are a ‘Longshot.’
(https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-23/europe-eyes-longshot-talks-with-
u-s-to-soften-trade-impasse) Bloomberg (September 23).

Bergsten, C. Fred. 2017. Trade Balances and the NAFTA Renegotiation

(https://piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/trade-balances-and-nafta-renegotiation). PIIE
Policy Brief 17-23. Washington: Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Bergsten, C. Fred. 2018. How Not to Mobilize Against China (https://piie.com/blogs/trade-
investment-policy-watch/how-not-mobilize-against-china). Trade and Investment Policy
Watch (March 6). Washington: Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Bialik, Kristen. 2017. Number of U.S. workers employed by foreign-owned companies is on

the rise (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/12/14/number-of-u-s-workers-
employed-by-foreign-owned-companies-is-on-the-rise/). Pew Research Center (December
14).

Blinder, Alan. 2017. Why, After 200 Years, Can’t Economists Sell Free Trade?
(https://piie.com/newsroom/short-videos/why-after-200-years-cant-economists-sell-free-
trade) Interview given at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, May 25.

Bown, Chad P. 2016. The Truth about Trade Agreements—and Why We Need Them
(https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/column-truth-trade-agreements-need). PBS
News Hour (November 21).

Bown, Chad P., and Melina Kolb. 2018. Trump’s Trade War Timeline: An Up-to-Date Guide
(https://piie.com/blogs/trade-investment-policy-watch/trump-trade-war-china-date-
guide). Trade and Investment Policy Watch (September 24). Washington: Peterson Institute
for International Economics.

Bradford, Scott C., Paul L. E. Grieco, and Gary Clyde Hufbauer. 2005. Chapter 2 [pdf]
(https://piie.com/publications/chapters_preview/3802/2iie3802.pdf) of The United States
and the World Economy: Foreign Economic Policy for the NextDecade
(https://piie.com/bookstore/united-states-and-world-economy-foreign-economic-policy-
next-decade). Washington: Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Cimino-Isaacs, Cathleen. 2016. Preserving Manufacturing Jobs One Company at a Time

(https://piie.com/blogs/trade-investment-policy-watch/preserving-manufacturing-jobs-
one-company-time). Trade and Investment Policy Watch (December 2). Washington:
Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Congressional Research Service. 2016. The U.S. Income Distribution:Trends and Issues [pdf]
(https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44705.pdf). Washington.
Desilver, Drew. 2018. For most U.S. workers, real wages have barely budged in decades
(http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-
barely-budged-for-decades/). Pew Research Center (August 7).

Freund, Caroline. 2017. Public Comment on Trump Administration Report on Signi cant
Trade De cits (https://piie.com/blogs/trade-investment-policy-watch/public-comment-
trump-administration-report-signi cant-trade). Trade and Investment Policy Watch (May
8). Washington: Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Freund, Caroline. 2017. Three Ways to Reduce a Trade De cit (https://piie.com/blogs/trade-

investment-policy-watch/three-ways-reduce-trade-de cit). Trade and Investment Policy
Watch (November 6). Washington: Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Furman, Jason. 2015. Trade, Innovation, and Economic Growth [pdf]

(https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/ les/docs/20150408_trade_innovatio
n_growth_brookings.pdf). Speech given at the Brookings Institution, April 8.

Furman, Jason. 2018. The real reason you’re not getting a pay raise
(https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/7/31/17632348/wages-lagging-inequality-
income-recovery-recession-wage-puzzle-economics). Vox (August 11).

Ghose, Ajit K. 2004. Global inequality and international trade

(https://academic.oup.com/cje/article-abstract/28/2/229/1681251?
redirectedFrom=fulltext). Cambridge Journal of Economics Volume 28, Issue 2 (March): 229–
52.

Hendrix, Cullen S. 2016. Protectionism in the 2016 Election: Causes and Consequences, Truths
and Fictions (https://piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/protectionism-2016-election-
causes-and-consequences-truths-and- ctions). PIIE Policy Brief 16-20. Washington:
Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Hendrix, Cullen S. 2016. US Trade Agenda Requires Greater Focus on Social Concerns
(https://piie.com/blogs/trade-investment-policy-watch/us-trade-agenda-requires-greater-
focus-social-concerns). Trade and Investment Policy Watch (November 7). Washington:
Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Hufbauer, Gary Clyde. 2016. Ivory Tower Economists, Free Trade, and Workplace Woes
(https://piie.com/blogs/trade-investment-policy-watch/ivory-tower-economists-free-
trade-and-workplace-woes). Trade and Investment Policy Watch (June 14). Washington:
Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Hufbauer, Gary Clyde, and Euijin Jung. 2017. “Buy American” Is Bad for Taxpayers and
Worse for Exports (https://piie.com/blogs/trade-investment-policy-watch/buy-american-
bad-taxpayers-and-worse-exports). Trade and Investment Policy Watch (September 5).
Washington: Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Hufbauer, Gary Clyde, and Sean Lowry. 2012. US Tire Tariffs: Saving Few Jobs at High Cost
(https://piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/us-tire-tariffs-saving-few-jobs-high-cost).
PIIE Policy Brief 12-9. Washington: Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Hufbauer, Gary Clyde, and Zhiyao (Lucy) Lu. 2016. Increased Trade: A Key to Improving
Productivity (https://piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/increased-trade-key-improving-
productivity). PIIE Policy Brief 16-15.Washington: Peterson Institute for International
Economics.

Hufbauer, Gary Clyde, and Zhiyao (Lucy) Lu. 2017. The Payoff to America from Globalization:
A Fresh Look with a Focus on Costs to Workers (https://piie.com/publications/policy-
briefs/payoff-america-globalization-fresh-look-focus-costs-workers). PIIE Policy Brief 17-
16. Washington: Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Hull, Cordell. 1948. The Memoirs of Cordell Hull, Volume 1. New York: Macmillan.

Initiative on Global Markets. 2018. Steel and Aluminum Tariffs

(http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/steel-and-aluminum-tariffs?
utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+igmforum+%28I
GM+Forum%29). IGM Forum (March 12). University of Chicago Booth School of Business.

Irwin, Douglas A. 2011. Peddling Protectionism

(https://press.princeton.edu/titles/9430.html). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Irwin, Douglas A. 2017. Clashing over Commerce
(https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/C/bo24475328.html). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Jensen, J. Bradford. 2011. Global Trade in Services: Fear, Facts, and Offshoring
(https://piie.com/bookstore/global-trade-services-fear-facts-and-offshoring). Washington:
Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Keynes, Soumaya, and Chad P. Bown. 2018. It's Fun to Discuss the USMCA—the New
NAFTA (https://piie.com/experts/peterson-perspectives/trade-talks-episode-57-its-fun-
discuss-usmca-new-nafta). Trade Talks Episode 57 (October 5). Washington: Peterson
Institute for International Economics.

Kirkegaard, Jacob Funk. 2017. Tax Overhaul Risks Making the US Tax and Transfer System
(Even) More Regressive (https://piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/tax-overhaul-risks-
making-us-tax-and-transfer-system-even-more-regressive). PIIE Policy Brief 17-28.
Washington: Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Kirkegaard, Jacob Funk. 2018. Prospects for Economic Reform and Medium-Term Growth in
the United States. Chapter 7 of US-China Economic Relations: From Con ict to Solutions
(https://piie.com/publications/piie-brie ngs/us-china-economic-relations-con ict-
solutions-part-i). PIIE Brie ng 18-1. Washington: Peterson Institute for International
Economics.

Kletzer, Lori G., and Robert E. Litan. 2001. A Prescription to Relieve Worker Anxiety
(https://piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/prescription-relieve-worker-anxiety). PIIE
Policy Brief 01-2. Washington: Peterson Institute for International Economics and
Brookings Institution.

Lawrence, Robert Z. 2017. Recent US Manufacturing Employment: The Exception that Proves
the Rule (https://piie.com/publications/working-papers/recent-us-manufacturing-
employment-exception-proves-rule). Working Paper 17-12. Washington: Peterson Institute
for International Economics.
Lawrence, Robert Z. 2018. Five Reasons Why the Focus on Trade De cits Is Misleading
(https://piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/ ve-reasons-why-focus-trade-de cits-
misleading). PIIE Policy Brief 18-6. Washington: Peterson Institute for International
Economics.

Lawrence, Robert Z., and Tyler Moran. 2016. Adjustment and Income Distribution Impacts of
the Trans-Paci c Partnership (https://piie.com/publications/working-papers/adjustment-
and-income-distribution-impacts-trans-paci c-partnership). PIIE Working Paper 16-5.
Washington: Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Lovely, Mary E., and Yang Liang. 2018. Trump Tariffs Primarily Hit Multinational Supply
Chains, Harm US Technology Competitiveness (https://piie.com/publications/policy-
briefs/trump-tariffs-primarily-hit-multinational-supply-chains-harm-us). PIIE Policy Brief
18-12. Washington: Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Lu, Zhiyao (Lucy), and Gary Clyde Hufbauer. 2017. Has Global Trade Fueled US Wage
Inequality? A Survey of Experts (https://piie.com/blogs/trade-investment-policy-
watch/has-global-trade-fueled-us-wage-inequality-survey-experts). Trade and Investment
Policy Watch (August 30). Washington: Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Lu, Zhiyao (Lucy), and Gary Clyde Hufbauer. 2017. Section 301: US investigates allegations
of forced technology transfers to China (http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2017/10/03/section-
301-us-investigates-allegations-of-forced-technology-transfers-to-china/). East Asia
Forum (October 3).

Moran, Theodore H., and Lindsay Oldenski. 2016. How Offshoring and Global Supply Chains
Enhance the US Economy (https://piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/how-offshoring-and-
global-supply-chains-enhance-us-economy). PIIE Policy Brief 16-5. Washington: Peterson
Institute for International Economics.

Newport, Frank. 2016. American Public Opinion on Foreign Trade

(https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/190427/american-public-opinion-
foreign-trade.aspx). Gallup (April 1).
Nye Jr., Joseph S. 2017. Will the Liberal Order Survive? The History of an Idea
(https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2016-12-12/will-liberal-order-survive). Foreign
Affairs (January/February).

Oldenski, Lindsay, and Theodore H. Moran. 2016. Misconceptions on the Campaign Trail:
US Manufacturing (https://piie.com/blogs/trade-investment-policy-watch/misconceptions-
campaign-trail-us-manufacturing). RealTime Economic Issues Watch (April 11).
Washington: Peterson Institute for International Economics.

OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). 2011. Divided We Stand:
Why Inequality Keeps Rising
(http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/dividedwestandwhyinequalitykeepsrising.htm). OECD
Publishing.

Ortiz-Ospina, Esteban, and Max Roser. 2018. International Trade

(https://ourworldindata.org/international-trade). Published online at OurWorldInData.org
(accessed on October 4, 2018).

Payosova, Tetyana, Gary Clyde Hufbauer, and Jeffrey J. Schott. 2018. The Dispute Settlement
Crisis in the World Trade Organization: Causes and Cures
(https://piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/dispute-settlement-crisis-world-trade-
organization-causes-and-cures). PIIE Policy Brief 18-5. Washington: Peterson Institute for
International Economics.

Petri, Peter A., Michael G. Plummer, Shujiro Urata, and Fan Zhai. 2017. Going It Alone in the
Asia-Paci c: Regional Trade Agreements Without the United States
(https://piie.com/publications/working-papers/going-it-alone-asia-paci c-regional-trade-
agreements-without-united). PIIE Working Paper 17-10. Washington: Peterson Institute
for International Economics.

Posen, Adam S. 2018. The Post-American World Economy: Globalization in the Trump Era
(https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2018-02-13/post-american-world-
economy). Foreign Affairs (March/April).
Results of Pew Research Center’s Global Trade Survey (https://piie.com/events/results-
pew-research-centers-global-trade-survey). Event held at the Peterson Institute for
International Economics, September 27, 2018.

Revenga, Ana. 2017. Trade has been a global force for less poverty and higher incomes
(http://blogs.worldbank.org/developmenttalk/trade-has-been-global-force-less-poverty-
and-higher-incomes). Let’s Talk Development (February 2). Washington: World Bank.

Rodrik, Dani. 1997. Has Globalization Gone Too Far (https://piie.com/bookstore/has-

globalization-gone-too-far)? Washington: Peterson Institute of International Economics.

Schott, Jeffrey J., and Melina Kolb. 2017. Nearly All US Trade Deals Were Negotiated,
Signed, and Implemented by Republicans (https://piie.com/research/piie-charts/nearly-all-
us-trade-deals-were-negotiated-signed-and-implemented-republicans). PIIE Chart
(August 16). Washington: Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Senator Orrin Hatch Argues Against Auto Tariffs (https://piie.com/newsroom/short-

videos/senator-orrin-hatch-argues-against-auto-tariffs). Statement before the US Senate
Committee on Finance hearing "Current and Proposed Tariff Actions Administered by the
Department of Commerce," June 20, 2018.

Thompson, Robert L. 2007. Globalization and the Bene ts of Trade

(https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/chicago-fed-letter/2007/march-236). Chicago
Fed Letter, No. 236. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.

UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development). 2013. Global Value
Chains and Development: Investment and Value Added Trade in the Global Economy
(http://unctad.org/en/pages/newsdetails.aspx?OriginalVersionID=411). New York: United
Nations.

Wandner, Stephen A. 2016. Wage Insurance as a Policy Option in the United States
(https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2718237). Washington: Urban
Institute.
Weisman, Steven R. 2016. The Great Tradeoff: Confronting Moral Con icts in the Era of
Globalization (https://piie.com/bookstore/great-tradeoff-confronting-moral-con icts-era-
globalization). Washington: Peterson Institute for International Economics.

US Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2017. Employment Projections Program

(https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/employment-by-major-industry-sector.htm). Accessed on
October 4, 2018.