Why do most Economists oppose Trump’s Nationalism? – Part Two

This second section to my essay addresses why the majority of economist’s oppose nationalism, and how this is reflected in their views of migration and labour mobility.

Economic Nationalism is further viewed cynically by economists due to its implications for international labour mobility. The basis of economic nationalism is its prioritisation of domestic socioeconomic interests over foreign interests. To this extent, increased regulation of inward immigration to a country is under the umbrella of economic nationalist policy. However, most economists view this branch of economic nationalism to again be harmful to the country’s overall development. Theoretically, as labour is a factor of production, increasing its supply would increase the country’s productive potential, therefore allowing for more short term economic growth with reduced threat of demand-pull inflationary pressures. On the reverse, reducing a country’s immigration would mean a reduction in labour supply and the labour market skill pool. The country equally loses out on potential entrepreneurial individuals, who could have been greatly advantageous to the economy in the long run.


Another economic nationalist argument supporting immigration restriction would be that increased immigrant density within an area pushes down wages, as labour supply increases relative to labour demand. However, counterintuitively, Professor Jonathan Wadsworth of Royal Holloway found “no distinct correlation between local average wage growth and share of immigrants in a local workforce.” This suggests that inward immigration does not impact local wage growth, but rather positively contributes to the labour skill set and entrepreneurial value of the area.

no borders.jpeg

Populists may claim that nationalist economic policies solve the problems of globalisation, however these so called problems can be solved through other means that are mutually beneficial to other economies also. For instance, in order to increase employment from jobs that are lost to more efficient foreign producers, rather than increasing import tariffs to protect infant industries and create jobs, the policy makers can instead subsidise research and development for infant industries so that they develop more efficiently and become internationally competitive, without increasing import tariffs and  threatening protectionist retaliation.

In summary, in order to deviate from the negative connotations of “nationalism”, certain enthusiasts of the populist policy have opted instead to call it “economic rationalism”. However, the majority of economists would agree that the counterproductive nature of anti-globalisation and anti-migration policies should deem the practice to be “economic irrationalism.” The devolution of globalism towards isolationism disregards the importance of specialisation within economies, which can lead to maximisation of output, competition and consumer choice when combined with free trade. The consequent retaliation of foreign markets to economic nationalism is in itself detrimental to export led growth. In terms of migration, expansion of the labour market is fundamental to improving labour skills and productivity, whilst having no recorded negative impact on local wages.

Ultimately, Economic Nationalism is a branch of political Populism that is not grounded by economic theory, but rather intended to appeal to the “ordinary person,” parallel to the intended demographic of Populism. However the majority of economists understand that, contrary to the flawed basis of economic nationalism, modern economies are intertwined such that creating inclusively beneficial policies that generate international prosperity, such as free trade and movement of people, does not come at the trade off of sacrificing your own nations welfare.

Why do most Economists oppose Trump’s Nationalism? – Part One

This essay originally was entitled “Why do almost all economists oppose economic nationalism and how is this reflected in their views of trade and migration?”, but I have adapted it to focus also look at political nationalism’s impact on economic nationalism. To be published in 2 parts: the former focusing on trade, and the sequel focusing on immigration.

“Nothing, however, can be more absurd than this whole doctrine of the balance of trade, upon which, not only these restraints, but almost all the other regulations of commerce are founded.” (Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations – 1776).

“We don’t have victories anymore. We used to have victories, but we don’t have them. When was the last time anybody saw us beating, let’s say, China in a trade deal? They kill us. I beat China all the time. All the time.”  (Donald Trump, Campaign Speech – 2016)

Despite the Economic Nationalism is a blanket term for the selection of economic policies that prioritise the prosperity and interests of one nation, over the interests of other nations. Generally, this comprises of the withdrawal from free trade agreements, and increased restriction on the movement of factors of production (labour, enterprise, capital and land). The rise in Populism has given impetus to the ideology that economic nationalism is the solution to the social backlash of globalisation, and the loss of local manufacturing jobs is a direct consequence of asymmetrically beneficial free trade agreements. In America, driven by the Trump administration, globalisation has become the scape-goat for the decline of industry and the deterioration of the balance of payments. However, despite the retreat of globalism, the majority of economists still choose to oppose its ideological antithesis- economic nationalism. To economists, the rise in economic nationalism represents a devolution of economic thought, such that by adopting nationalism, nations would not be maximising output, or designing a policy climate that best encourages prosperity through promotion of international competition and utilisation of inward immigration.

America Right wing

Indeed, David Ricardo’s Principle of Comparative Advantage states that even if one country has the absolute advantage in production of every good/service, the fact that other countries will have the comparative advantage in terms of production means that it is most beneficial for economies to specialise production, and then work in free trade agreements in order to maximise collective output. This would be the more effective alternative compared to functioning in a closed economy and attempting to domestically produce the entire spectrum of consumer demanded goods. The adoption of nationalist policies would naturally curtail trade due to increased tariffs. This would consequently reduce the ability to trade with countries who have a comparative advantage, and hence the reduction of consumer choice within a market will translate to reduced consumer utility.

Moreover, a politician may be attracted to the allure of nationalism as it stifles foreign market competition. By removing the more efficient overseas opposition, domestic firms and consumers are forced to purchase goods and services from domestic industries, rather than their cheaper overseas counterparts. This would supposedly lead to a subsequent increase in production for domestic industry, hence derived manufacturing employment would increase, and derived political support for said politician would presumably increase simultaneously. However, whereas the politician may revere the myopic social advantages to employment, economists must look to the long term implications for that country’s prosperity. By removing international competition through tariffs, there no longer exists incentive nor necessity for the domestic suppliers to invest in improving productivity, as the consumers have no choice but to purchase from the domestic suppliers. In terms of competitiveness, the country will then lag even further behind its foreign competition in terms of quality and efficiency. Hence, quality of good may fall, whereas price will rise unheeded. The curtailing of foreign competition through economic nationalist policies also makes the good’s demand more inelastic, which creates an economic climate more susceptible to potential cartelisation and ensuing market failure within an economy.

Trump appeal of nationalism

Furthermore, the trade restrictive nature of economic nationalism may have unintended consequences in terms of retaliation from other like-minded economies. If history does indeed repeat itself, then the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 is a menacing indicator of the consequences of overly-nationalist economic policies. The 1930 bill raised tariffs on over 20,000 US imports, in order to discourage economic leakages and encourage domestic industry. However, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff soon became dubbed as the Act that “intensified nationalism all over the world” (Lamont, T of J.P Morgan, 1930), and thrust America once more into isolationism. Foreign countries responded to American protectionism with their own tariffs aimed at American exports. In 1930 Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King imposed extra duties on American goods, whilst actually simultaneously cutting import tariffs for British Empire exports. By 1934, as many other developed economies followed suit, international trade had fallen by 66%, and the worldwide retaliation against American import tariffs meant that American export value fell from $5.2 billion to $1.7 billion per year. This global retaliation against nationalism was destructive to the American manufacturing industry, to the extent that even domestic demand could not maintain production levels, which combined with the impact of the 1929 Stock Market Crash, saw industrial unemployment increase by 4.3 million (35%) by 1933.

(Part 2 of this essay will be published in the coming days, and will focus on the impact of nationalism on border control and immigration)

Dealing with Trade – What Trump and Brexit mean for American and British Trade Deals

Trump and Brexit. “Make America Great Again” and “Take Back Control”. In 2016, both Britain and America took great steps against the development of modern trade norms. Trump wants wants to redesign the bulk of America’s trade deals, from South Korea to NAFTA, increasing import tariffs to encourage domestic industry and derived job creation. Whereas a hard Brexit’s promise to leave the European single market contradicts the economic principle that Free Trade is vital to sustain the theory of comparative advantage.

This is not to say that America and Britain have now entered a period of mercantilism, but rather the rejection of globalisation for a more economic nationalist approach is telling that Trump wishes to “Put America First.” Therefore, both nations must now act quickly to strike preferential trade deals in order to maintain trade and therefore justify their nationalist deviations. Who better to strike a trade deal with than each other?

At the G20 summit in July, Trump spoke of a “powerful deal” in development between Britain and America, stressing that it would be completed “very, very quickly.”

May and Trump

However, the spontaneity of these kind of trade deals may have long term repercussions for Britain’s feasibility to trade with Europe in the future. For instance, currently in the UK, the EU laws and regulations on financial and business services’ export potential has a “trade dampening effect equivalent of a tariff of 30%” (The Economist). Indeed, the recent controversy over American farmers’ potential to export chickens washed in chlorinated water to Britain is also symbolic of the bilateralism between the two nations. The conflicting laws and regulations between America and Britain gives Britain two options. Either, during Brexit negotiations, new British trade regulations can be more weighted towards EU legislation, or American legislation. Either way, this comes at the trade off of sacrificing potential trade for whoever Britain does not align with, as increased border checks and security reduces the attractiveness and ease of trade between nations.

Therefore, it is too simple to say that Brexit and Trump represent a return to isolationism. However, Britain should think carefully of the terms of trade it wishes to conduct with America, as this may come at the cost of losing out in European trade. Currently, British-EU trade accounts for 44% of British exports, whereas British-America exports accounts for 19%. Economists estimate that if Britain were to leave the European single market, then American trade would have to increase by 58% to make up for lost European trade. This is an improbable increase in trade, regardless of whether or not Britain ultimately agrees to allow the import of chlorinated chicken.

The Cost of Economic Growth- Trump’s Environmental Legacy- CURRENT AFFAIRS

It seems that environmental protection is not part of the recipe for Making America Great Again. 

The Environmental Protection Agency. Established in 1970, the EPA was born out of the wake of growing concern for the ever worsening impact of the United States on the environment. From banning DDT, to limiting SO2 pollution in factories meaning reduce acidity in rain by 89%, the ecological fragility of the Land of the Free would be in a much more dire state if it weren’t for this organisation’s hard approach to reducing the negative impacts of economic development. 

However, President Trump seems to disagree. To him, the regulatory measures of the EPA are “clogging up the veins of the country with the environmental impact statements and all of the rules and regulations.” According to the President, a new man must head-up EPA “Trump-style”. Someone who can restrict this heinous abusive agency from their commie prevention of good old American industry. Trump’s man? Scott Pruitt. Ex-attorney-general of Oklahoma- he has sued the EPA 14 times before for their “abuses”…  Indeed, the new head man for environmental protection said that “we don’t know” how much of an impact that humans had on climate change, and is likely to replace Obama’s Clean Power Plan (which reduces greenhouse gas emissions from thermal power stations), with a new plan that works in accordance to Trump’s plan to revive the coal industry. It seems that for the new head of the Environmental Protection Agency, the protection of the environment does not seem to be too much of an issue. 

What does this means for America economics wise? With reduced taxation and increased subsidies towards polluting industries, the cost of production of these goods will fall. This will cause an extension in demand, which will cause an increase in real GDP, hence an increase in short-run economic growth. 

However on the other hand, for a good such as coal, it is overproduced such that its Marginal Private Cost > Marginal Social Cost, meaning that the cost of cleaning up emissions, purchasing air filters etc, is greater than the private cost to the firm. If the firm is therefore able to produce coal at a reduced cost, it will increase the distance between the MPC and the MSC curves, hence overall welfare loss will increase. This translates into a worsening negative production externality, which will lead to further damaging of environmental welfare as the market failure worsens. 

Effectively, there is a policy conflict between economic growth and environmental protection. It is pretty much impossible to maintain strong economic growth in a capitalist system without subsequent environmental damage. A trade off must be made, as an administration must choose to sacrifice a proportion of their real GDP growth, if they are to encourage environmental protection. The Obama administration chose to make this sacrifice, epitomised by Obama’s 2015 rejection of a 1,200 mile Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to Texas, which may well have increased production capabilities/RNO, but also would have encouraged use of non-renewable oil over clean energy sources. The Trump administration has been clear with their intentions, and has already green-lit the Dakota pipeline and the Keystone XL Pipeline. Within one month, Trump has showcased a clear prioritisation of economic growth over environmental protection- ultimately a decision that will cause worsening market failures and increased negative externalities, as society must adapt to absorb the burden of increasing environmental deterioration. It seems that environmental protection is not part of the recipe in Making America Great Again.