Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
  • “Unintended Consequences provides a provocative interpretation of the causes of the global financial crisis and the policies needed to return to rapid growth. Whether you agree or not, this analysis is well worth reading.” - Nouriel Roubini, New York University; Chairman, Roubini Global Economics
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “Unintended Consequences represents the most cogent and persuasive analysis of the Financial Crisis to date.” - Andrei Shleifer, 1999 John Bates Clark Medal Winner
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
  • “Unintended Consequences is far smarter and more thought-provoking than most economics written for the general public” - Greg Mankiw, Harvard University, Former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors
  • “Unintended Consequences is full of substance, it is one of the must-read books of the year, and once I finish it I will be giving it a second read through right away.” - Tyler Cowen, Professor, George Mason University
  • “There are an amazing number of good ideas and interesting points made in Unintended Consequences. The thinking underlying it, and the obvious depth of understanding of the author, are very impressive.” - Steven Levitt, coauthor of Freakonomics; 2004 John Bates Clark Medal
  • “Unintended Consequences offers deep and well-argued analyses on almost every issue.” - The New York Times
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences

AI Summary. The authors find that the combined effect of U.S.-China trade war import tariffs, retaliatory tariffs, and farm subsidies on employment in exposed U.S. locations was at best a wash and possibly mildly negative, while residents of tariff-protected areas became less likely to identify as Democrats and more likely to vote Republican.

David Autor, Anne Beck, David Dorn, and Gordon Hanson National Bureau of Economic Research
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

Tariffs implemented during the 2018-2019 trade war were “at best a wash, and may have been mildly negative” in terms of employment, but increased political support for Trump in the 2020 election. @davidautor

Do tariffs boost employment and political support in protected areas?

Core argument: The authors estimate the combined predicted employment effect of import tariffs, retaliatory tariffs, and farm subsidies from the 2018–2019 U.S.-China trade war ranged from a 0.2% loss to a 0.2% gain in the employment rate across most commuting zones.

We evaluate whether the U.S.-China tariff war of 2018–2019 succeeded in meeting then-President Trump’s stated goal of bringing back jobs to America and generating support for Trump and the Republican party. We find consistent evidence on both questions. The net effect of import tariffs, retaliatory tariffs, and farm subsidies on employment in locations exposed to the trade war was at best a wash, and it may have been mildly negative. Conversely, the trade war appears to have been successful in strengthening support for the Republican party. Residents of tariff-protected locations became less likely to identify as Democrats and more likely to vote for President Trump. Figure 4 plots the predicted employment effects of tariffs and subsidy variables against their predicted impacts for the GOP vote share in the presidential election, with commuting zones (CZ) aggregated into 40 bins based on their x-axis values. The figure indicates that the combined predicted employment effect of import tariffs, retaliatory tariffs and agricultural subsidies is small, ranging from a 0.2% loss to a 0.2% gain in the employment rate in most CZs. Conversely, predicted Republican vote share gains are more sizable, reaching values of 0.5% to 1.0% for most CZs. A striking pattern in Figure 4 is that local exposure to the trade war appears to have benefited the Republican party even in regions where the combined effect of tariffs and subsidies predicts no employment gain or even a modest employment loss. Voters thus appear to have responded favorably to the extension of tariff protections to local industries, even though the ensuing retaliatory measures were economically damaging.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. The authors estimate the combined predicted employment effect of import tariffs, retaliatory tariffs, and farm subsidies from the 2018–2019 U.S.-China trade war ranged from a 0.2% loss to a 0.2% gain in the employment rate across most commuting zones.
  2. Predicted Republican presidential vote share gains reached 0.5% to 1.0% for most commuting zones, and residents of tariff-protected locations became less likely to identify as Democrats and more likely to vote for Trump.
  3. The authors find that trade-war exposure appears to have benefited the Republican party even in regions where tariffs and subsidies predict no employment gain or a modest employment loss, suggesting voters responded favorably to tariff protections for local industries.

Related Articles:

  • The World’s Rust Belts: The Heterogeneous Effects of Deindustrialization on 1,993 Cities in Six Countries — A study of 1,993 cities in France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK and the US finds former manufacturing hubs lost employment on average after each country's manufacturing peak, though a large share fully recovered. After the peak, hubs with a higher initial share of college-educated workers grew significantly faster.
  • Labor Market Conflict and the Decline of the Rust Belt — The authors argue that persistent labor market conflict in the Rust Belt's main industries lowered investment and productivity growth, shifting employment to the rest of the country, and estimate it accounts for roughly half the decline in the region's share of US manufacturing employment. Rising foreign competition plays a more modest quantitative role.
  • Are Manufacturing Jobs Still Good Jobs? An Exploration of the Manufacturing Wage Premium — Manufacturing average hourly wages, once about 3% above private-sector wages, have grown more slowly than private-sector wages, erasing the manufacturing wage premium for most manufacturing jobs. The authors estimate that declining unionization accounts for more than 70% of that drop, an effect that remains significant after controlling for worker and sector characteristics.
Showing 56 database articles primarily about Trade (not deficits)