Copyright: Public Domain / Used With Permission

This is definitely pinch of salt time but foreigners are so disapproving of Trump that they’re buying fewer American exports. MKy own best guess is that the result could well be driven by sanctions being imposed upon certain countries. But that is a guess:

The economic cost of repellent leadership: Losing soft power lowers exports
Andrew Rose 18 September 2018

The export consequences of a country’s leadership style are one manifestation of ‘soft power’. This column uses Gallup’s World Poll data and a gravity model of trade to examine the link between the attractiveness of the US to foreigners under the Trump administration and US exports. The results suggest a decline in foreign approval of US leadership between 2016 (Obama’s last year) and 2017 (Trump’s first year) may have lowered US exports by at least 0.2% or, over $3 billion.

Donald Trump is a controversial and divisive figure within the US; he is even more so outside of the US.  Part of this comes from his ideological and political incoherence; perhaps the only belief Trump has held consistently is that exports are good while imports are bad. Part of Trump’s unpopularity stems from his volatile and poisonous style of leadership. But are these two phenomena linked? Might Trump’s nativist style affect US exports? In this column, I argue that a strong linkage exists – Trump’s unpleasantness lowers US exports since foreigners choose to purchase imports from countries they prefer.

The export consequences of a country’s leadership style are one manifestation of ‘soft power’. Soft power is a term first used by Joseph Nye (1990) to describe the ability of a country to do what it wants by means of persuasion rather than means of force (Nye 2004 provides more detail). ‘Hard power’ is the ability to coerce, and grows out of a country’s military or economic might; soft power arises from the attractiveness of a country’s culture, political ideals, and policies. “Soft power is … the ability to attract, [since] attraction often leads to acquiescence … soft power uses a different type of currency (not force, not money) to engender cooperation – an attraction to shared values …” (Nye 2004: 6-7). With an enormous economy and the most powerful military in the world, the US currently has plenty of hard power. But what of US soft power, especially of late?

One way to measure soft power is via surveys.  Since 2006, Gallup’s World Poll has annually asked about a thousand survey participants in each of over a hundred countries a series of questions: “Do you approve or disapprove of the job performance of the leadership of China/Germany/ Russia/the United Kingdom/ the United States?” The Gallup data give a clear and intuitive picture of a country’s soft power, that is, its attractiveness to foreigners.

Figure 1 Average foreign views about the US

The popularity of the Obama presidency outside the US appears clearly in Figure 1. The plots presents average views of non-Americans about US leadership between 2006 and 2017.  Approval of US leadership has swung dramatically – it improved substantially between 2006 and 2012, and declined markedly between 2012 and 2017. Obama was a popular president, especially by way of comparison with both his predecessor (George W. Bush) and his successor (Donald Trump). Job approval of US leadership jumped from less than 40% under Bush in 2008 to over 50% under Obama in 2009; similarly, it declined by over ten percentage points when Trump succeeded Obama in 2017. Consistently, average disapproval of US leadership fell sharply with Obama’s accession 2009 before rising sharply in 2017, as shown in the middle panel.

The data in Figure 1 present averages across countries, and conceal considerable dispersion since different countries have different views of foreign leadership. I show this variation more effectively in Figure 2. The top-left panel of Figure 2 scatters foreign job approval ratings of US leadership averaged over 2009-16 (Obama’s presidency, on the y-axis) against the analogue for 2017 (Trump’s presidency so far, on the x-axis). The areas of the circles that portray individual country responses are proportional to (American) exports to that country.  A 45° line (with slope of one) is provided for guidance; the data lie mostly above this line, indicating that countries tended to approve of Obama’s job performance more than Trump’s. Importantly, large US export destinations (observations with large circles) tend to be towards the top-left of the graph; these countries are not only important US export markets but approve little of Trump, especially compared to Obama. Similarly, the top-right panel of Figure 2 portrays foreign job disapproval ratings of US leadership. The fact that most of the observations lie in the bottom-right of the graph indicate that many US export destinations disapprove strongly of Trump’s leadership, though they disapproved little of Obama.

Figure 2 Views of US and German leadership

Subscribe to The CT Mailer!

Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
3 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
3 Comment authors
MoosealotSpikeRhoda Klapp Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Rhoda Klapp
Rhoda Klapp

Or maybe US tariffs are causing goods to be sucked back into the US economy. Or maybe something else. A couple of Boeings can make a big difference. A bit more analysis is required to find the truth. But this farrago is not about finding the truth, it’s about making a dodgy correlation to prove a point you were aiming to prove.


So I decline a Cherry Bakewell out of disdain for Theresa May? Apart from Americans with too much time on their hands jumping onto boycotts because of a Facebook page, this doesn’t happen. Buyers are as willing to embrace good business deals from an America with a troll as President as they were from an America with an incompetent Community Activist as President.

The Dow Jones, the first-time unemployment claims, or take-home pay, correlate prosperity with an unfashionable (NOT unpopular) President, if only because business-friendly Presidents are unfashionable at the networks that conduct the polls.


The issue quoted in the article talked about investment flows into/out of the US. Given the balance of payments does indeed always balance — as Tim is so keen on telling us — the reduction in capital inflows would be balanced by an increase in exports of goods and services. The increase in tariffs is likely to have the opposite effect: allowing US corporations to gouge US consumers increases their stock’s attractiveness as capital assets to foreign investors while the more expensive manufactured goods made of more expensive input material will decrease theirs.