Hostility towards globalization and dislike of large corporations is nothing new, but Americans’ dissatisfaction with large businesses has grown considerably over the past 20 years. In new research, Anil Menon and Iain Osgood examine how the public’s dislike of big business and the sense that globalization benefits them the most in turn influences opinions on international trade. Through survey research, they find that when large businesses are stated to be the biggest winners from international trade, public support for free trade declines. They write that the future of globalization may depend on articulating and making real the benefits of international trade for workers, consumers, and the public.

A large and growing segment of the American public dislikes big business. The share of Americans dissatisfied by the “size and influence of major corporations” shot up from 48 percent to 74 percent between 2001 and 2022. At the same time, scholars in international economics have shown that large businesses disproportionately benefit from international trade and globalization because they are better able to export, import, and invest overseas. Versions of this idea are also common in political debates and among the public, where many believe that globalization mostly benefits big companies or multinational firms.

We argue that the public may combine these two beliefs – a dislike of big business and a sense that globalization benefits big corporations – and form negative attitudes toward international trade. If the public believes that small businesses don’t benefit from globalization, and are even harmed, this may further reinforce hostility towards trade since small businesses are generally viewed very sympathetically. If these arguments are correct, then increasing hostility towards corporations as a group may help to explain recent increases in trade protectionism and declining support for trade cooperation and the international trading system.

Assessing attitudes towards globalization, international trade and big business

In new research we tested this argument using several surveys fielded on representative samples of the American population. To ensure that we upheld the highest standards for research transparency and best practices in social science research, all our studies were registered on the Open Science Framework website (Registration 1, Registration 2, Registration 3).

What did we find in our surveys?

First, we found that much of the public agrees that big businesses are the main winners from globalization while small businesses are among the main losers. Roughly equal numbers of respondents felt that exporting industries as a whole were the winners, while industries facing import competition were the losers. Among those who feel that big business wins and small businesses loses from trade, we found significantly more negative attitudes toward international trade and trade agreements.

“Amazon blue delivery van in Ballard” (CC BY-NC 2.0) by Seattle Department of Transportation

Next, we conducted a survey experiment: a randomly selected half of the participants were informed that big business is “the winner” from globalization and the other half were informed that companies in industries that export are “the winners” from globalization. We examined support for free trade and free trade agreements between the two groups and found that support for both was lower among those individuals who were informed that big businesses are “the winners” of globalization. We got very similar results when we fielded the same survey experiment on two independent samples of Americans.

We then wanted to know if this decline in support for free trade and free trade agreements is stronger among those individuals who reported more dislike for big business. To find out, we asked our respondents to rate their feelings toward “Corporate America” on a scale ranging from 0 – 100, where 0 means strong dislike, 50 means neutral, and 100 means a strong liking. We found that support for free trade and free trade agreements declined more among those who expressed stronger dislike for “Corporate America”.

Finally, we set out to understand why informing our participants that big business is “the winner” from globalization decreased support for international trade. Specifically, we wanted to know if concerns regarding either the outsized influence of corporations in politics and society or their impact on economic inequality might be driving this reaction. We find that informing people that big business is the “winner” of globalization increased worries about their outsized influence in politics and society but did not increase concerns regarding economic inequality.

Rejecting the “winners” of globalization

What does all this tell us? Simply put, voters don’t like the most prominent “winners” of globalization – big companies – and consequently they lash out. Given that a large majority of Americans dislike big business, opposition to trade has a broad reach, both geographically and ideologically. Indeed, trade and globalization have come under criticism from the political left, right, and center, and from workers employed in all kinds of industries.

Such politicized discourse about trade – with big business featuring as the villain – has the potential to further intensify existing hostility towards international trade. To a public that views multinational corporations in an increasingly poor light, the current globalization regime means concentrating profit and power among an unpopular group. This belief, our findings suggest, can further damage the prospects for international cooperation. The future of globalization may depend on envisioning, articulating, and actualizing the benefits of international trade for workers, consumers, and the public. 

• This article is based on the paper, ‘The Wrong Winners: Anti-Corporate Animus and Attitudes Towards Trade’, in the British Journal of Political Science. 
• Please read our comments policy before commenting. 
• Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of USAPP – American Politics and Policy, nor the London School of Economics. 
• Shortened URL for this post: https://wp.me/p3I2YF-dYR