What explains the backlash against the liberal international order? Are its causes economic or cultural? We argue that while cultural values are central to understanding the backlash, those values are, in part, endogenous and shaped by long-run economic change. Using an original survey of the British population, we show that individuals living in regions where the local labor market was more substantially affected by imports from China have significantly more authoritarian values and that this relationship is driven by the effect of economic change on authoritarian aggression. This result is consistent with a frustration-aggression mechanism by which large economic shocks hinder individuals’ expected attainment of their goals. This study provides a theoretical mechanism that helps to account for the opinions and behaviors of Leave voters in the 2016 UK referendum who in seeking the authoritarian values of order and conformity desired to reduce immigration and “take back control” of policymaking.
AdlerD.AnsellB. (2019). Housing and populism (pp. 1-22). West European Politics.
2.
AdornoT. W.Frenkel-BrunswikE.LevinsonD. J.StanfordN. R. (1950). The authoritarian personality. Harper.
3.
AltemeyerB. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. University of Manitoba Press.
4.
AutorD. H.DornD.HansonG. H. (2013). The China syndrome: Local labor market effects of import competition in the United States. American Economic Review, 103(6), 2121-2168.
5.
AutorD.DornD.HansonG.MajlesiK. (2016). Importing political polarization? The electoral consequences of rising trade exposure. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research.
CarrerasM.CarrerasY. I.BowlerS. (2019). Long-term economic distress, cultural backlash, and support for brexit. Comparative Political Studies, 0010414019830714.
8.
ColantoneI.StanigP. (2018a). Global competition and Brexit. American Political Science Review, 112(2), 201-218.
9.
ColantoneI.StanigP. (2018b). The trade origins of economic nationalism: Import competition and voting behavior in Western Europe. American Journal of Political Science, 62(4), 936-953.
10.
DippelC.GoldR.HeblichS. (2015). Globalization and its (dis-) content: Trade shocks and voting behavior. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research.
11.
DollardJ.MillerN. E.DoobL. W.MowrerO. H.SearsR. R. (1939). Frustration and aggression. Yale University Press.
12.
DotyR. M.PetersonB. E.WinterD. G. (1991). Threat and authoritarianism in the United States, 1978-1987. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(4), 629-640.
13.
DuckittJ.BizumicB.KraussS. W.HeledE. (2010). A tripartite approach to right-wing authoritarianism: The authoritarianism-conservatism-traditionalism model. Political Psychology, 31(5), 685-715.
14.
DuckittJ.FisherK. (2003). The impact of social threat on worldview and ideological attitudes. Political Psychology, 24(1), 199-222.
15.
DunwoodyP. T.FunkeF. (2016). The aggression-submission-conventionalism scale: Testing a new three factor measure of authoritarianism. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 4(2), 571-600.
16.
FeigenbaumJ. J.HallA. B. (2015). How legislators respond to localized economic shocks: Evidence from Chinese import competition. The Journal of Politics, 77(4), 1012-1030.
17.
FeldmanS. (2003). Enforcing social conformity: A theory of authoritarianism. Political Psychology, 24(1), 41-74.
18.
FrommE (1941). Escape from freedom. Farrar & Rinehart.
19.
GidronNHallP. A (2017). The politics of social status: Economic and cultural roots of the populist right. The British Journal of Sociology, 68(Suppl 1), S57.
20.
HaysJ.LimJ.SpoonJ.-J. (2019). The path from trade to right-wing populism in Europe. Electoral Studies, 60, 102038.
21.
HetheringtonM.SuhayE. (2011). Authoritarianism, threat, and Americans’ support for the war on terror. American Journal of Political Science, 55(3), 546-560.
22.
HetheringtonM. J.WeilerJ. D. (2009). Authoritarianism and polarization in American politics. Cambridge University Press.
23.
IversenT.SoskiceD.XuA. (2018). Transition to a knowledge economy and the rise of populism: A human capital perspective. Technical report, Harvard University Working Paper.
24.
JedingerA.BurgerA. M. (2020). The ideological foundations of economic protectionism: Authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and the moderating role of political involvement. Political Psychology, 41(2), 403-424.
25.
JensenJ. B.QuinnD. P.WeymouthS. (2017). Winners and losers in international trade: The effects on US presidential voting. International Organization, 71(3), 423-457.
26.
JohnstonC. D. (2013). Dispositional sources of economic protectionism. Public Opinion Quarterly, 77(2), 574-585.
27.
KimS. E.PelcK. (2021). The politics of trade adjustment vs. trade protection. Comparative Political Studies, 54(13), 2354–2381.
28.
LaneR. E. (1962). Political ideology: Why the American common man believes what he does. Free Press of Glencoe.
29.
LavineH.LodgeM.FreitasK. (2005). Threat, authoritarianism, and selective exposure to information. Political Psychology, 26(2), 219-244.
30.
LipsetS. M. (1959). Political man: The social bases of politics. Vakils, Feffer and Simons Private.
31.
LubbersM.ScheepersP. (2000). Individual and contextual characteristics of the German extreme Right-Wing vote in the 1990s. A test of complementary theories. European Journal of Political Research, 38(1), 63-94.
32.
MansfieldE.MilnerH.RudraN. (2021). The backlash against globalization: Introduction. Comparative Political Studies, 24, 421-442.
33.
MargalitY. (2019). Political responses to economic shocks. Annual Review of Political Science, 22(1), null.).
34.
MilnerH. (2021). Voting for populism in Europe: Globalization, technological change, and the extreme right. Comparative Political Studies, 54(13), 2286–2320.
35.
NorrisP.InglehartR. (2019). Cultural backlash: Trump, Brexit, and authoritarian populism. Cambridge University Press.
36.
O’RourkeK. H. (2019). Economic history and contemporary challenges to globalization. The Journal of Economic History, 81(2), 1-27.
37.
OwenE.WalterS. (2017). Open economy politics and Brexit: Insights, puzzles, and ways forward. Review of international political economy, 24(2), 179-202.
38.
PerrinA. J. (2005). National threat and political culture: Authoritarianism, antiauthoritarianism, and the September 11 attacks. Political Psychology, 26(2), 167-194.
39.
PettigrewT. F. (2016). In pursuit of three theories: Authoritarianism, relative deprivation, and intergroup contact. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 1-21.
40.
PierceJ. R.SchottP. K. (2016). Trade liberalization and mortality: Evidence from US counties. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research.
41.
RicheyS. (2012). Campaign advertising and the stimulation and activation of the authoritarian personality. Political Communication, 29(1), 24-43.
42.
RodrikD. (2017). Populism and the economics of globalization. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research.
43.
RokeachM. (1960). The open and closed mind: Investigations into the nature of belief systems and personality systems. Martino Fine Books.
44.
SalesS. M. (1973). Threat as a factor in authoritarianism: An analysis of archival data. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28(1), 44-57.
45.
ScheveK. F.SlaughterM. J. (2001). What determines individual trade-policy preferences?Journal of International Economics, 54(2), 267-292.
46.
SnidermanP. M.PeriP.de FigueiredoR. J.Jr (2002). The outsider: Prejudice and politics in Italy. Princeton University Press.
47.
StennerK (2005). The authoritarian dynamic. Cambridge University Press.
48.
WalterS. (2021). Contagious disintegration? How Brexit reverberates in other countries. Comparative Political Studies.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
