Justin Pierce (Federal Reserve Board) and Peter Schott (Yale School of Management) have come up with research that shows that US manufacturing employment declined after the United States conferred Permanent Normal Trade Relations status on China at the turn of the millennium. They account for other factors. The same thing did not happen in Europe. But, Europe had conferred PNTR in the 1980s itself. It would have given their conclusions a huge boost if they had data that showed that Europe too witnessed a swift decline in manufacturing employment after the conferment of PNTR on China in the 1980s. They have an updated version of their paper here.
As one visited the research page of Justin Pierce, one came across couple of other interesting titles: ‘Does Trade Liberalisation with China influence U.S. elections?’ and ‘Trade liberalisation and mortality: evidence from U.S. counties’. The abstracts are, sure, interesting. In fact, their conclusions do logically lead to the conclusion that Donald Trump has got it right.
Sample this from the paper on mortality and trade liberalisation (updated November 2016):
We investigate the impact of a large economic shock on mortality. We find
that counties more exposed to a plausibly exogenous trade liberalization exhibit
higher rates of suicide and related causes of death, particularly among whites.
These trends are consistent with our finding that more-exposed counties experi-
ence relative decreases in manufacturing employment a sector in which whites
are disproportionately employed and relative increases in the unemployment
Or, this from their paper on trade liberalisation and U.S. elections (April 2016):
This paper examines the impact of trade liberalization on U.S. Congressional
elections. We find that U.S. counties subject to greater competition from China
via a change in U.S. trade policy exhibit relative increases in turnout, the share
of votes cast for Democrats and the probability that the county is represented by
a Democrat. We find that these changes are consistent with Democrats in office
during the period examined being more likely than Republicans to support legis-
lation limiting import competition or favoring economic assistance.
I had also stumbled upon another research paper (again from the Federal Reserve Board published in 2009 (or, 2010?) on the impact of immigration on youth employment in the United States:
Aggregating these counterfactual employment rates in 2005 up to the national
level implies that the fraction of teens employed in the previous week would have been about 6.5 (males) and 7.1 (females) percentage points higher in 2005 had immigration remained at its 1990 levels. Of course, this calculation is derived from average immigration effects estimated over 5-to-10 year intervals, so it’s possible that the true contribution of immigration to declining youth employment between 1990 and 2005 may be somewhat larger or smaller.
Growth in immigration appears to have reduced youth employment-population
ratios over the past few decades. Though the slight increase in enrollment rates in
response to immigration suggests that some youth are induced to substitute their time from work to schooling, I find little support for the hypothesis that an
immigration‐induced decline in employment has large positive effects on employment 10 years later. As a whole, these findings constitute suggestive evidence that the recent decline in youth employment is not entirely driven by an increased emphasis on educational and extracurricular activities and that at least part of the decline reflects increased labor market competition from substitutable labor. More work is needed to fully account for the recent employment trends and to explore the welfare consequences of employment declines for which immigration is not directly responsible.
This paper also highlights variation in the effects of immigration by age, echoing
recent papers in the immigration literature which characterize the heterogeneity of
immigration effects throughout the native population. By focusing only on adults,
earlier research may have ignored the subset of the population that appears to be most affected by recent immigration growth. Future immigration studies may wish to take into account the effects on younger individuals as well.