What Is Globalization?

And How Has the Global Economy Shaped the United States?

After centuries of technological progress and advances in international cooperation, the world is more connected than ever. But how much has the rise of 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.

Globalization 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 flows 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 benefits society as a whole, while harming certain groups. Understanding the relative costs and benefits can pave the way for alleviating problems while sustaining the wider payoffs.

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.


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 first “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.


Trade has skyrocketed in the past century.
Trade grew to a third of the US economy and over half of the world's economy.
Investments coming into the United States and going abroad have grown.
US import taxes dropped considerably post-World War II.
Major economies dropped tariff rates and kept them low.

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

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

Global supply chains dominate world trade.

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 is driven by supply chains run by multinational corporations. Trade in intermediate goods is now nearly twice as large as trade in final goods and is especially important in advanced manufacturing, like autos.

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 is driven by supply chains run by multinational corporations. Trade in intermediate goods is now nearly twice as large as trade in final goods and is especially important in advanced manufacturing, like autos.

China has become the biggest source of US imports.
Canada and Mexico remain best customers of US exports, with Chinese market growing.
The surplus in services suggests the competitive strength of US services in the global market. The United States had an overall trade deficit of $447 billion in 2017, according to the US International Trade Commission, as a result of Americans spending more than they earn and financing the difference with foreign credit. For more, watch the video, “Is the US Trade Deficit a Problem?”

The surplus in services suggests the competitive strength of US services in the global market. The United States had an overall trade deficit of $447 billion in 2017, according to the US International Trade Commission, as a result of Americans spending more than they earn and financing the difference with foreign credit. For more, watch the video, “Is the US Trade Deficit a Problem?”

The surplus in services suggests the competitive strength of US services in the global market. The United States had an overall trade deficit of $447 billion in 2017, according to the US International Trade Commission, as a result of Americans spending more than they earn and financing the difference with foreign credit. For more, watch the video, “Is the US Trade Deficit a Problem?”

“I saw that you could not separate the idea of commerce from the idea of war and peace. ... [and] that wars were often largely caused by economic rivalry conducted unfairly. ...I embraced the philosophy that…unhampered trade dovetailed with peace; high tariffs, trade barriers, and unfair economic competition, with war. ...[I]f we could get a freer flow of trade—freer in the sense of fewer discriminations and obstructions—so that one country would not be deadly jealous of another and the living standards of all countries might rise, thereby eliminating the economic dissatisfaction that breeds war, we might have a reasonable chance for lasting peace.”

Cordell Hull, Secretary of State under
President Franklin D. Roosevelt, written in his memoirs in 1948

Countries gather at the 1944 Bretton Woods conference.

Countries gather at the 1944 Bretton Woods conference.

Countries gather at the 1944 Bretton Woods conference.


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 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, helping to prevent most economic disputes from escalating into larger conflicts. The institutions established include:



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 efficient, promotes economic growth, and lowers prices of goods and services, making them more affordable especially for lower-income households.

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.


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


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


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


Globalization supports new job opportunities but also contributes to job displacement. It does not significantly change the total number of positions in the economy, as job numbers are primarily driven by business cycles and Federal Reserve and fiscal policies. Nevertheless, a Peterson Institute study finds 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 artificial 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 finance and real estate (see Jobs section).


Globalization has helped narrow inequality between the poorest and richest people in the world, cutting the number living in extreme poverty by half since 1990. But within many countries, including the United States, inequality is rising. A consensus of scholarly work 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] 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 among advanced economies to mobilize government policies to reduce inequality.

1In 2016, 19.9 million workers [pdf] were laid off or discharged (i.e., involuntary separations).


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 benefited from expanding global commerce, while others have not. Certain manufacturing and industry workers in specific 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] 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 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 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 firms often beat international competitors at supplying high-skill services—like engineering, legal, consulting, research, management, and information technology—workers in these fields have benefited the most from globalization.

Business-service employment expanded more than 20 percent between 2006 and 2016. These jobs pay more than 20 percent 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, do more research and development, export more, and invest more than the average US firm. The same is true, by comparison with local averages, of US firms that invest abroad. One in five 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, finance, computer and mathematical occupations, and sales. The greatest areas of job growth 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.


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).

Between 1950 and 2016, trade expansion increased the size of the US economy by $2.1 TRILLION, the equivalent to $7,000 per person or $18,000 per household every year. Effects on US manufacturing jobs (2001–16): 100,000 jobs gained every year, including shifts from other industries; 200,000 jobs lost, moved elsewhere, or replaced by other jobs every year; out of 4 million manufacturing job separations for all reasons. Trade did not contribute to increased manufacturing unemployment. In fact, when manufactured imports rose relative to GDP, the manufacturing unemployment rate declined. This demonstrates how the overall state of the economy is more important in determining job numbers than trade factors. 51 to 1: Payoff to US GDP compared with wage losses of affected workers, end of World War II to 2016. Wage losses are TEMPORARY, limited in time to each cohort of affected workers. Gains are PERMANENT, recurrent and accumulating year after year on a national scale.

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. For chart sources, see Figure 3 in Policy Brief. Total manufacturing job separations from Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

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. 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 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 efficient and products more affordable within their trading blocs. By not joining these deals, US exports have a difficult 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 than it would have been if President Trump had remained in the Trans-Pacific 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 conflict 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 find new jobs without sacrificing trade gains?

In an ideal world, displaced workers from trade competition could find new jobs, sometimes by moving or gaining new skills. In reality, it has been very difficult for many of these workers to transition, with lasting effects on individuals and their communities. Trade expert Gary Clyde Hufbauer points out 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 sacrificing trade gains, many economists recommend domestic policies like wage insurance, expanded tax credits, better unemployment benefits, and subsidies for health insurance 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 fifth of what other advanced economies spend on average to help people find 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 conflicted about the government’s role in these social safety net programs. Other advanced economies have generally increased the size of government programs as they opened up to trade.


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 field in trade. For instance, China unfairly demands that US intellectual property be handed over 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-Pacific 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 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 identified 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 backfire 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
Engaging in a trade war, with escalating tit-for-tat tariffs
  • Both countries lose economically when trade volumes decline
  • Costs rise, harming US competitiveness and making it harder for families to afford products
  • Retaliation hurts US exports
Withdrawing from free trade agreements, like NAFTA
  • Disrupts global supply chains that domestic businesses, workers, and consumers rely on to hold costs and inflation down
  • 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 difficult to achieve solutions on national security, immigration, and the environment
Violating WTO rules or circumventing established processes
  • Weakens rules-based trading system that the United States and much of the world relies on to keep foreign markets open and settle disputes.
Promoting “Buy America” policies
  • Causes more lost jobs than they create as other countries retaliate
  • Makes government purchases more expensive
Imposing tariffs to save US manufacturing jobs at specific companies
  • Saves few jobs at very high cost to taxpayers and consumers
  • With global supply chains dominating world trade, it is difficult to hit another country and avoid hitting your own or your allies
Restricting imports from specific countries to try to reduce bilateral trade deficits
  • Does not improve the overall US trade deficit
  • Bilateral trade deficits are not an appropriate measure for economic improvement
  • Not a successful negotiating strategy for trade deals
  • Countries can and will retaliate


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 finds 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 of respondents wanting more restrictions, the opposite of the sentiment expressed in the Pew poll.

Globalization can be a hard sell to the public because the benefits are widely distributed and not as easily understood, compared with the personal costs to very specific companies or workers.

The problem is compounded because policymakers have done little to help 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 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 (USMCA) to replace NAFTA; the agreement now faces ratification in each country. Some GOP Congressional leaders have come out against Trump on certain trade issues (see example) but so far have not created legislation to oppose his policies.


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. Trade agreements should account for the modern digital age. Disputes continue on the trade of certain goods—whether items are flooding other markets too much, how industries are being subsidized, lingering protections on specific 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, 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 flight 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 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.

Invest in better and more inclusive education to prepare people for tomorrow’s economy.

Give all displaced workers sufficient financial and administrative support to find new jobs and some compensation for lost income.

Address growing income inequality through the tax system and spending programs.

Make sure the healthcare system does not impede workers from finding new jobs or cause significant financial hardship.

Use free trade agreements to improve the competitiveness of US businesses, increase total trade, and boost overall economic growth.

Work within the WTO and various free trade agreements to settle disputes, ensure fairness, protect intellectual property and investment rights, and promote reciprocity and growth. Improve the rules of the system rather than abandoning the rules.

Coordinate with allies to confront trade abuses.


Goods are physical, produced items traded between countries, like corn, machinery parts, or chemicals.

Services are business activities conducted between countries, such as tourism, finance, 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 deficit 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 deficit, 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.


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 first published on October 29, 2018 and last updated on November 9, 2018.

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

The Peterson Institute for International Economics is a private, nonpartisan nonprofit 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 influence 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 to learn more.

For more updates from the Peterson Institute, subscribe to the newsletter.


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
World Trade Organization
WTO/Jay Louvion, Studio Casagrande


Autor, David H., David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson. 2016. The China Shock: Learning from Labor-Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade [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. Geneva: World Trade Organization.

Baschuk, Bryce. 2018. Europe’s Talks With U.S. to Soften Trade Impasse Are a ‘Longshot.’ Bloomberg (September 23).

Bergsten, C. Fred. 2017. Trade Balances and the NAFTA Renegotiation. PIIE Policy Brief 17-23. Washington: Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Bergsten, C. Fred. 2018. How Not to 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. Pew Research Center (December 14).

Blinder, Alan. 2017. Why, After 200 Years, Can’t 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. PBS News Hour (November 21).

Bown, Chad P., and Melina Kolb. 2018. Trump’s Trade War Timeline: An Up-to-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] of The United States and the World Economy: Foreign Economic Policy for the NextDecade. Washington: Peterson Institute for International Economics.

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

Desilver, Drew. 2018. For most U.S. workers, real wages have barely budged in decades. Pew Research Center (August 7).

Freund, Caroline. 2017. Public Comment on Trump Administration Report on Significant Trade Deficits. Trade and Investment Policy Watch (May 8). Washington: Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Freund, Caroline. 2017. Three Ways to Reduce a Trade Deficit. Trade and Investment Policy Watch (November 6). Washington: Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Furman, Jason. 2015. Trade, Innovation, and Economic Growth [pdf]. Speech given at the Brookings Institution, April 8.

Furman, Jason. 2018. The real reason you’re not getting a pay raise. Vox (August 11).

Ghose, Ajit K. 2004. Global inequality and international trade. 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. PIIE Policy Brief 16-20. Washington: Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Hendrix, Cullen S. 2016. US Trade Agenda Requires Greater Focus on 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. IGM Forum (March 12). University of Chicago Booth School of Business.

Irwin, Douglas A. 2011. Peddling Protectionism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Irwin, Douglas A. 2017. Clashing over Commerce. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Jensen, J. Bradford. 2011. Global Trade in 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. 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. 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 Conflict to Solutions. PIIE Briefing 18-1. Washington: Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Kletzer, Lori G., and Robert E. Litan. 2001. A Prescription to 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. Working Paper 17-12. Washington: Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Lawrence, Robert Z. 2018. Five Reasons Why the Focus on Trade Deficits Is 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-Pacific 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. 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. 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. East Asia Forum (October 3).

Moran, Theodore H., and Lindsay Oldenski. 2016. How Offshoring and Global Supply Chains Enhance the US Economy. PIIE Policy Brief 16-5. Washington: Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Newport, Frank. 2016. American Public Opinion on Foreign Trade. Gallup (April 1).

Nye Jr., Joseph S. 2017. Will the Liberal Order Survive? The History of an Idea. Foreign Affairs (January/February).

Oldenski, Lindsay, and Theodore H. Moran. 2016. Misconceptions on the 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. OECD Publishing.

Ortiz-Ospina, Esteban, Diana Beltekian, and Max Roser. 2018. Trade and Globalization. Published online at OurWorldInData.org (accessed on November 7, 2018).

Payosova, Tetyana, Gary Clyde Hufbauer, and Jeffrey J. Schott. 2018. The Dispute Settlement Crisis in the 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-Pacific: Regional Trade Agreements Without the United States. 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. Foreign Affairs (March/April).

Results of Pew Research Center’s 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. Let’s Talk Development (February 2). Washington: World Bank.

Rodrik, Dani. 1997. 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. PIIE Chart (August 16). Washington: Peterson Institute for International Economics.

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 Benefits of Trade. 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. New York: United Nations.

Wandner, Stephen A. 2016. Wage Insurance as a Policy Option in the United States. Washington: Urban Institute.

Weisman, Steven R. 2016. The Great Tradeoff: Confronting Moral Conflicts in the Era of Globalization. Washington: Peterson Institute for International Economics.

US Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2017. Employment Projections Program. Accessed on October 4, 2018.