1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Political Science
  4. Volume 23, 2020
  5. Article

Annual Review of Political Science

Volume 23, 2020

Economic Geography, Politics, and Policy

Abstract

Globalization has reduced the importance of distance between countries. Yet, within countries, geography matters now more than ever. Economic activities, including production and employment, occur unevenly across space within countries, and globalization consequently impacts various regions differently. Some areas benefit from international economic integration while others lose, and as a result, economic geography shapes citizens’ experience of globalization. Economic geography also influences governments’ responses to globalization and economic shocks. Economic geography consequently merits the attention of political scientists. By examining economic geography, researchers will find new traction on long-standing theoretical debates and valuable insights on recent developments, including the growing backlash against globalization. The challenges of studying economic geography include causal complexity and measurement issues.

Keyword(s): economic geography, electoral institutions, geography of discontent, globalization, left-behind places, populism
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-033649
2020-05-11
2024-04-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/polisci/23/1/annurev-polisci-050718-033649.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-033649&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Algan Y, Beasley E, Cohen D, Foucault M, Péron M 2019. Qui sont les Gilets jaunes et leurs soutiens? Note de l'Observatoire du Bien-être n°2019-03. http://www.cepremap.fr/2019/02/note-de-lobservatoire-du-bien-etre-n2019-03-qui-sont-les-gilets-jaunes-et-leurs-soutiens/
  2. Ardelean A, Evans CL. 2013. Electoral systems and protectionism: an industry‐level analysis. Can. J. Econ./Rev. Can. D'écon. 46:2725–64
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Autor D, Dorn D, Hanson GH 2013. The China syndrome: local labor market effects of import competition in the United States. Am. Econ. Rev. 103:62121–68
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Autor D, Dorn D, Hanson G, Majlesi K 2016. Importing political polarization? The electoral consequences of rising trade exposure NBER Work. Pap 22637
  5. Ballard-Rosa C, Malik M, Rickard S, Scheve K 2017. The economic origins of authoritarian values: evidence from local trade shocks in the United Kingdom Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Political Economy Society Austin, TX: Nov 17–18
  6. BBC 2009. Saab board ends emergency meeting. BBC News Feb. 19. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7899244.stm
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Beramendi P, Jensen J. 2018. Economic geography, political inequality, and public goods in the original 13 US states. Comp. Political Stud. 52:13–142235–82
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Beramendi P, Rogers M. 2018. Disparate geography and the origins of tax capacity. Rev. Int. Organ. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-018-9319-2
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bermeo N. 2002. A new look at federalism: the import of institutions. J. Democracy 13:296–110
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bleakley H, Lin J. 2012. Portage and path dependence. Q. J. Econ. 127:587–644
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Brady D, Mo J. 1992. Electoral systems and institutional choice: a case study of the 1988 Korean elections. Comp. Political Stud. 24:4405–29
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Branch J. 2016. Geographic information systems (GIS) in international relations. Int. Organ. 70:4845–69
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Brülhart M. 1998. Economic geography, industry location and trade: the evidence. World Econ 21:775–801
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Brülhart M, Traeger R. 2005. An account of geographic concentration patterns in Europe. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 35:597–624
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Bueno de Mesquita B, Smith A, Morrow JD, Siverson RM 2005. The Logic of Political Survival Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  16. Busch ML, Reinhardt E. 2000. Geography, international trade, and political mobilization in US industries. Am. J. Political Sci. 44:4703–19
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Cairncross F. 1997. The Death of Distance: How the Communications Revolution Will Change Our Lives Boston: Harvard Bus. School Press
  18. Campos C. 2012. The geographical concentration of industries Rep. Office for National Statistics London/Newport, UK:
  19. Carnegy H. 2013. France defends cultural barricades in digital era. Financ. Times May 13. https://www.ft.com/content/b60f4182-bbea-11e2-a4b4-00144feab7de
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Chang EC, Kayser MA, Rogowski R 2008. Electoral systems and real prices: panel evidence for the OECD countries, 1970–2000. Br. J. Political Sci. 38:4739–51
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Chang EC, Kayser MA, Linzer DA, Rogowski R 2010. Electoral Systems and the Balance of Consumer-Producer Power New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  22. Chase KA. 2015. Domestic geography and policy pressures. The Oxford Handbook of the Political Economy of International Trade L Martin 316–36 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Che Y, Lu Y, Pierce JR, Schott PK, Tao Z 2016. Does trade liberalization with China influence US elections? NBER Work. Pap. w22178
  24. Colantone I, Stanig P. 2018a. Global competition and Brexit. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 112:2201–18b
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Colantone I, Stanig P. 2018b. The trade origins of economic nationalism: import competition and voting behavior in Western Europe. Am. J. Political Sci. 62:936–53
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Dale M. 2015. French Equipment Manufacturer Association—AFFECT—attends the AFC micro-salon. Variety Feb. 5. https://variety.com/2015/film/news/french-equipment-manufacturer-association-affect-attends-the-afc-micro-salon-1201426072/
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Davis CL. 2012. Why Adjudicate? Enforcing Trade Rules in the WTO Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  28. Devereux MP, Griffith R, Simpson H 2007. Firm location decisions, regional grants and agglomeration externalities. J. Public Econ. 91:3–4413–35
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Donaldson D, Storeygard A. 2016. The view from above: applications of satellite data in economics. J. Econ. Perspect. 30:171–98
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Dumais G, Ellison G, Glaeser EL 2002. Geographic concentration as a dynamic process. Rev. Econ. Stat. 84:2193–204
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Economist 2017. Once again, China's richest region is pulling ahead of the others. Economist Oct. 21. https://www.economist.com/china/2019/06/08/once-again-chinas-richest-region-is-pulling-ahead-of-the-others
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Economist 2019. Globalisation has marginalised many regions in the rich world. Economist Jun. 8. https://www.economist.com/briefing/2017/10/21/globalisation-has-marginalised-many-regions-in-the-rich-world
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Ekeland A. 2015. Employment in the Petroleum Industry and Related Industries 2014 Rep. 2015/48, Statistics Norway Oslo, Norway: http://www.ssb.no/en/arbeid-og-lonn/artikler-og-publikasjoner/_attachment/245120?_ts=150d1fc6ac0. In Norwegian
  34. Ellison G, Glaeser EL. 1997. Geographic concentration in US manufacturing industries: a dartboard approach. J. Political Econ. 105:889–927
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Evans CL. 2009. A protectionist bias in majoritarian politics: an empirical investigation. Econ. Politics 21:2278–307
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Feigenbaum JJ, Hall AB. 2015. How legislators respond to localized economic shocks: evidence from Chinese import competition. J. Politics 77:41012–30
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Findley MG, Powell J, Strandow D, Tanner J 2011. The localized geography of foreign aid: a new dataset and application to violent armed conflict. World Dev 39:111995–2009
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Gervais A, Jensen JB. 2019. The tradability of services: geographic concentration and trade costs. J. Int. Econ. 118:331–50
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Grossman GM, Helpman E. 2005. A protectionist bias in majoritarian politics. Q. J. Econ. 120:1239–82
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Hendrickson C, Muro M, Galston WA 2018. Countering the Geography of Discontent: Strategies for Left-Behind Places Washington, DC: Brookings Inst.
  41. Jensen NM. 2018. Bargaining and the effectiveness of economic development incentives: an evaluation of the Texas chapter 313 program. Public Choice 177:1–229–51
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Kies U, Mrosek T, Schulte A 2009. Spatial analysis of regional industrial clusters in the German forest sector. Int. For. Rev. 11:38–51
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Kim IS. 2017. Political cleavages within industry: firm-level lobbying for trade liberalization. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 111:11–20
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Kim IS, Milner HV, Bernauer T, Spilker G, Tingley D, Osgood I 2019. Firms and global value chains: identifying firms’ multidimensional trade preferences. Int. Stud. Q. 63:1153–67
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Krugman P. 1990. Increasing returns and economic geography NBER Work. Pap3275
  46. Krugman P. 1991. Geography and Trade Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  47. Lee DW, Rogers M. 2019. Measuring geographic distribution for political research. Political Anal 1:18
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Lichfield J. 2019. Just who are the gilets jaunes?. The Guardian Feb. 9. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/09/who-really-are-the-gilets-jaunes
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Maloney WF, Nayyar G. 2017. Industrial policy, information, and government capacity Work. Pap. 8056, World Bank Washington, DC: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/26735
  50. Mansfield ED, Busch ML. 1995. The political economy of nontariff barriers: a cross-national analysis. Int. Organ. 49:4723–49
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Margalit Y. 2011. Costly jobs: trade-related layoffs, government compensation, and voting in US elections. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 105:1166–88
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Marshall A. 1920. Principles of Economics London: Macmillan http://www.econlib.org/library/Marshall/marP.html
  53. McCann P. 2016. The UK Regional-National Economic Problem: Geography, Globalisation and Governance London: Routledge
  54. McGillivray F. 1997. Party discipline as a determinant of the endogenous formation of tariffs. Am. J. Political Sci. 41:2584–607
     [Google Scholar]
  55. McGillivray F. 2004. Privileging Industry: The Comparative Politics of Trade and Industrial Policy Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  56. Midelfart-Knarvik KH, Overman HG. 2002. Delocation and European integration: Is structural spending justified?. Econ. Policy 17:35321–59
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Milner HV. 2019. Voting for populism in Europe: globalization, technological change, and the extreme right Paper presented at the Conference on Frontiers in Comparative and Political Economy, London School of Economics and Political Science London, UK:
  58. Milner HV, Kubota K. 2005. Why the move to free trade? Democracy and trade policy in the developing countries. Int. Organ. 59:1107–43
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Olson M. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  60. Osgood I. 2016. Differentiated products, divided industries: firm preferences over trade liberalization. Econ. Politics 28:161–80
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Persson T, Roland G, Tabellini G 2007. Electoral rules and government spending in parliamentary democracies. Q. J. Political Sci. 2:155–88
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Persson T, Tabellini G. 2004. Constitutions and economic policy. J. Econ. Perspect. 18:75–98
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Pezzini M, Byrne E. 2007. Globalisation and Regional Economies: Can OECD Regions Compete in Global Industries? Paris: OECD Publ.
  64. Rickard SJ. 2009. Strategic targeting: the effect of institutions and interests on distributive transfers. Comp. Political Stud. 42:5670–95
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Rickard SJ. 2010. Democratic differences: electoral institutions and compliance with GATT/WTO agreements. Eur. J. Int. Relat. 16:711–29
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Rickard SJ. 2012. Electoral systems, voters interests and geographic dispersion. Br. J. Political Sci. 42:855–77
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Rickard SJ. 2015. Compensating the losers: an examination of Congressional votes on trade adjustment assistance. Int. Interact. 41:146–60
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Rickard SJ. 2018. Spending to Win: Political Institutions, Economic Geography, and Government Subsidies New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  69. Rodden J. 2010. The geographic distribution of political preferences. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 13:321–40
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Rodden J. 2019. Why Cities Lose New York: Basic Books
  71. Rogowski R. 1987. Trade and the variety of democratic institutions. Int. Organ. 41:2203–23
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Rogowski R, Kayser MA. 2002. Majoritarian electoral systems and consumer power: price-level evidence from the OECD countries. Am. J. Political Sci. 46:3526–39
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Schonfeld B. 2018. Trading platforms: the geography of realignment Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the International Political Economy Society, Cambridge MA, Nov:2–3
  74. Shelburne RC, Bednarzik RW. 1993. Geographic concentration of trade-sensitive employment. Mon. Lab. Rev. 116:3–13
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Simmons J, Hicken A, Kollman K, Nooruddin I 2016. Party system structure and its consequences for foreign direct investment. Party Politics 24:2141–53
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Stasavage D. 2010. When distance mattered: geographic scale and the development of European representative assemblies. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 104:4625–43
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Stolper WF, Samuelson PA. 1941. Protection and real wages. Rev. Econ. Stud. 9:158–73
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Venables AJ. 2008. Economic geography. The Oxford Handbook of Political Economy DA Wittman, BR Weingast 739–54 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Ward A. 2009. Sweden rules out state bail-out for Saab. Financ. Times Nov. 27. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3aca2404-db7b-11de-9424-00144feabdc0.html#axzz4EsFLCp33
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Wibbels E. 2000. Federalism and the politics of macroeconomic policy and performance. Am. J. Political Sci. 44:4687–702
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Wong D. 2009. The modifiable Areal Unit Problem. The SAGE Handbook of Spatial Analysis AS Fotheringham, P Rogerson 105–23 London: SAGE Publications
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-033649
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error