Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorNELSON, Douglas R.
dc.contributor.authorHOEKMAN, Bernard M.
dc.date.accessioned2019-01-24T13:48:32Z
dc.date.available2019-01-24T13:48:32Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.identifier.citationJournal of international business policy, 2018, Vol. 1, No. 1–2, pp. 34–43en
dc.identifier.issn2522-0691
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1814/60576
dc.descriptionFirst Online: 06 April 2018en
dc.description.abstractIn this commentary, we take up two key elements of Dani Rodrik’s analysis of the economic underpinnings of populist politics. We focus on the links between globalization (especially trade integration) and populism and the role of global institutions (notably trade agreements) in both generating the economic pressures to which populist politicians are responding and in constraining the ability of governments to deal with adverse distributional effects of these pressures. We argue that it is important to distinguish between trade shocks and trade agreements; that the role of both is given too much weight relative to the effects of financialization and international capital flows, migration, and technological change; and that deepening international cooperation (global governance) can – and should – be part of the supply response to populism.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherPalgrave Macmillanen
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of international business policyen
dc.titleReflecting on populism and the economics of globalizationen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.doi10.1057/s42214-018-0003-2
dc.identifier.volume1en
dc.identifier.startpage34en
dc.identifier.endpage43en
eui.subscribe.skiptrue
dc.identifier.issue1-2en


Files associated with this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record