Skip to main content

Who wins and who loses in the age of globalisation?

Globalisation has created enormous wealth—global GDP tripled from 1990–2020, lifting 1.2 billion people out of poverty, and expanding consumer choice and innovation dramatically. But those gains are unequally distributed. Some countries, industries, and workers have thrived while others have seen wages stagnate, communities collapse, and opportunity disappear. An assembly-line worker in Ohio faces competition from a $3-per-hour worker in Vietnam. A rural farmer in India gains access to world markets but faces price competition from giant industrial operations in North America. A software engineer in San Francisco captures global wealth; a garment worker in Bangladesh works for subsistence wages despite global demand for their product. Understanding who benefits from globalisation and who bears the costs is essential to understanding modern economic inequality, political backlash against free trade, and pressure for policies like protectionism and wealth redistribution.

Quick definition: Globalisation creates winners (high-skill workers, consumers, export-oriented businesses, developing-country manufacturers) and losers (low-skill workers in high-wage countries, import-competing industries, subsistence farmers facing competition).

Key takeaways​

  • Wealthy consumers globally win through lower prices, wider product choice, and access to global innovation
  • High-skill, internationally mobile workers (engineers, finance professionals, academics) win through access to global markets and talent mobility
  • Countries with export advantages win—Germany (manufacturing), Vietnam (textiles), India (services) gain export revenue and employment
  • Developing countries lifted 1.2 billion out of poverty through export-driven growth; China alone saw average wages rise from $2,000 (1990) to $10,000+ (2020)
  • Manufacturing workers in high-wage countries lose—U.S. manufacturing employment fell 35% (1990–2020) as production moved overseas
  • Small farmers in developing countries often lose because they cannot compete with industrial-scale global competition
  • The gains from globalisation far exceed the losses economically (~$200 trillion in added global wealth) but are concentrated geographically and by skill level

The winners: consumers and high-skill workers​

Consumers in wealthy nations have won substantially. A $20 t-shirt is possible because textile production is in Bangladesh, not Connecticut. An iPhone costs $800 instead of $4,000 because assembly is in China. A doctor's average income is roughly 40% higher in real terms than it was in 1990, despite stagnating nominal wages, because healthcare goods and equipment are cheaper. Consumer price indices in the U.S. and Europe rose far more slowly (2–3% annually) than they would have without cheap imported goods (estimated ~5% annually without imports). That price moderation translates to real purchasing power gains for everyone—especially lower-income households where spending on traded goods (clothing, electronics, appliances) is a larger share of the budget.

Quantitatively, the average American household captured roughly $10,000 in annual gains from globalisation through lower prices, according to a 2016 National Bureau of Economic Research study. A British household captured roughly £8,000 annually. These gains are real and substantial, even if not equally distributed.

High-skill workers—software engineers, financiers, management consultants, doctors, researchers—have won dramatically. Globalisation enabled talent mobility. A software engineer from India can work for a U.S. tech company earning $200,000+ annually and remit savings home. A Japanese researcher can access global research networks and collaborate with peers worldwide. High-skill labor faces less import competition than low-skill labor (you cannot offshore a surgeon's job overseas as easily as a garment factory) and benefits from access to larger markets. Executive salaries and professional incomes rose 100–300% in real terms from 1990–2020, far outpacing median wage growth.

Capital owners—shareholders, investors, business owners—have won substantially. Globalisation expanded investment opportunities and enabled profit arbitrage. A U.S. company could manufacture in China and sell in the U.S., capturing the entire margin. Returns on capital rose relative to wages. The capital-to-labor income ratio shifted markedly in favor of capital from 1990–2020.

The winners: developing-country manufacturers​

China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, and other developing countries became manufacturing superpowers. China's manufacturing output grew from roughly $100 billion in 1990 to <$3 trillion in 2020. Vietnam's clothing exports grew from nearly zero in 1995 to $40+ billion by 2020. These exports generated employment and wage growth. A Chinese factory worker earned $2,000 annually in 1990; by 2015, roughly $8,000; by 2023, <$10,000. That's poverty-level by American standards but a vast improvement for rural Chinese and massive gains in purchasing power.

Bangladesh's garment industry employs 4 million workers directly and 12 million indirectly, none of which would exist without global demand. Wages are low (<$5 per day), but in a country where agricultural labor earned <$2 per day, garment work represents major improvement. The industry generated roughly $40 billion in annual exports and lifting millions toward the middle class.

India's IT services sector—software, business process outsourcing, IT consulting—became a <$200+ billion industry by 2020, largely because globalisation enabled Indian firms to serve global clients. Infosys, TCS, and Wipro became multinational giants, and India captured a significant share of global software development and maintenance work. That concentration created high-skill jobs (software architects earning $50,000–100,000 annually in India) impossible without globalisation.

Export-oriented economies won spectacularly. Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and Ireland all transformed from low-income agricultural societies to high-income developed nations through export-driven growth. South Korea's average per-capita income rose from <$1,000 in 1960 to <$31,000 in 2020, driven by automobile and electronics exports. Taiwan's went from <$1,500 to <$33,000 in the same period. Globalisation did not cause this growth—investments in education, infrastructure, and governance mattered—but trade openness enabled these countries to fully realize their comparative advantages.

The losers: manufacturing workers in high-wage countries​

The most visible losers are manufacturing workers in the U.S., Europe, and Japan. U.S. manufacturing employment fell from 19.5 million workers in 1990 to 12.8 million in 2023—a loss of 6.7 million jobs. Many were high-wage, unionized factory positions. A steelworker earning $60,000+ annually in 1990 might have been laid off as steel production moved to lower-wage countries; rehiring often came in service-sector jobs paying $20,000–30,000 annually. The income loss was catastrophic for individuals and communities.

Geographically, the losses concentrated in regions dependent on manufacturing: the Rust Belt (Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Michigan), textile regions (North Carolina), and steel towns (Pennsylvania, Indiana). As factories closed or downsized, entire communities deteriorated. Property values collapsed; retail districts emptied; tax bases eroded; schools and civic infrastructure deteriorated. A small Ohio town with one steel mill as the primary employer saw massive population loss when the mill relocated to Mexico in 2005.

The human cost cannot be quantified easily. Job displacement triggered depression, alcoholism, opioid addiction, suicide, and domestic instability. A 2015 study in Social Science & Medicine found that prime-age male mortality in manufacturing-dependent communities rose after 2000—the "deaths of despair" phenomenon.

However, the scale is important: 6.7 million manufacturing job losses over 33 years is significant but represents <5% of total U.S. employment. Globalisation contributed to job losses, but automation was equally or more responsible. A steel mill that shrank from 5,000 workers in 1990 to 500 in 2020 did not move all 4,500 jobs overseas—automation eliminated most. Still, the perception and political salience of overseas manufacturing is outsized.

The losers: subsistence farmers in developing countries​

Small-scale subsistence farmers in developing countries often lose. A farmer in India growing wheat for local markets faces competition from U.S. industrial wheat exports. U.S. wheat is cheaper (large-scale efficiency) and is exported globally. The Indian farmer cannot compete and shifts to even-lower-margin crops or abandons farming. A farmer who might have earned $3 per day in local markets earns <$1 per day in a globalized market.

However, the picture is mixed. Some small farmers gain access to global export markets. Coffee farmers in Ethiopia, cocoa farmers in Côte d'Ivoire, and shrimp farmers in Bangladesh all benefit from export markets (even if prices are volatile and power is concentrated among global buyers). But subsistence farmers growing staple crops (wheat, corn, rice) in developed countries often lose.

Agricultural subsidies in wealthy countries exacerbate this. The U.S. and EU subsidize domestic farmers, artificially lowering export prices, making it harder for farmers in developing countries to compete. A Zambian cotton farmer cannot compete with heavily-subsidized U.S. cotton exports. This is globalisation with unfair rules, and it harms developing-country farmers.

The losers: low-skilled workers in high-wage countries​

Beyond manufacturing, low-skilled workers in wealthy countries face increased competition from immigration and labor mobility. A high school-educated American worker in 1990 could earn middle-class wages in manufacturing, construction, or routine service work. By 2020, those jobs paid less in real terms and faced competition from immigrants willing to work for lower wages. Wage growth for workers without college degrees stagnated from 1990–2020 while college-educated worker wages rose 30–40%.

This is not solely a globalisation effect—technological change and skill-biased demand also play roles—but trade openness contributed. An American construction worker faces competition from immigrant labor; an American warehouse worker faces competition from imported logistics technology and low-wage countries' manufacturing.

Regional unevenness: the developed-country divide​

Within wealthy countries, globalisation winners and losers are unevenly distributed. Coastal cities and tech hubs benefit (software engineers in Silicon Valley, finance professionals in New York, biotech workers in Boston). Interior manufacturing-dependent regions lose (Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Manchester). The result is rising regional inequality within countries. Median household income in coastal Metro areas (Bay Area, NYC, Boston) has grown 30–50% in real terms since 1990; in manufacturing-dependent Midwest towns, it has stagnated or fallen.

Politically, this divide drives backlash. Communities that lost manufacturing jobs view globalisation as a failure and vote for protectionist policies. The rise of Trump in 2016, Brexit in 2016, and various populist parties across Europe and the U.S. are partly responses to uneven globalisation gains.

Overall wealth gains, uneven distribution​

Economically, the wins far outweigh the losses. Global GDP grew from roughly $21 trillion in 1990 to <$100 trillion in 2023 (nominal). Even accounting for inflation, real growth was <3x. That's roughly $200+ trillion in added wealth globally. The beneficiaries (consumers, high-skill workers, developing-country manufacturers) captured far more in gains than the losers lost.

But here is the crucial point: gains are concentrated and losses are concentrated, geographically and by skill level. A Chinese factory worker moved from $2,000 to $10,000 annually (a 400% gain). An American factory worker moved from $60,000 to $35,000 in real terms (a 40% loss). Globally, the math is positive; locally, for specific people, it is catastrophic.

The political backlash​

The distributional unevenness of globalisation gains has driven political backlash. Voters in communities that lost manufacturing jobs elected Trump (2016, 2024), voted for Brexit (2016), and supported protectionist parties. These voters perceive globalisation as unfair—their pain is visible and concentrated; the gains to consumers from lower prices are diffuse and taken for granted.

In response, policymakers have adopted protectionist measures (tariffs, local-content requirements) or redistributive policies (retraining programs, wage insurance, universal basic income proposals). However, protectionism reduces overall gains; tariffs increase prices for all consumers and may eliminate more jobs than they save (retaliatory tariffs hurt export sectors).

Common mistakes​

Assuming all losers can retrain. Retraining programs assume a 45-year-old steelworker can become a software engineer or nurse. In reality, retraining success rates are low; age, aptitude, and local opportunity constraints make rapid reskilling unrealistic. Some workers simply cannot transition and face permanent wage loss.

Ignoring distributional unevenness. "Globalisation is good overall" is true in aggregate but misses that specific communities face catastrophic losses. Policy must address distribution, not just aggregate gains.

Conflating recent trade policy with globalisation's full effects. Some recent losses are from trade policy shifts (tariffs, supply-chain diversification) rather than globalisation per se. Decoupling from China affects different winners and losers than broad globalisation.

Assuming developing-country gains are sustainable. As wages rise in manufacturing hubs (China, Vietnam, Mexico), their comparative advantage erodes. Nearshoring and automation will shift manufacturing again, creating new losers in these countries. Gains are not permanent unless followed by skill upgrading and industrial diversification.

Underestimating cultural and social impacts. Economic losers also experience cultural loss—the erosion of community identity, civic institutions, and social fabric. A factory closure affects more than income; it disrupts social networks and community pride.

FAQ​

Did globalisation cause all manufacturing job losses?​

No. Automation accounts for roughly 60–70% of manufacturing job losses in wealthy countries; trade accounts for 30–40%. A factory with 5,000 workers in 1990 might have 500 in 2020 due to productivity gains (automation) and 20% to trade (relocation). Both matter.

Can we have the benefits of globalisation without the losses?​

Not fully. Trade-offs exist. Lower prices for consumers come from cheaper production (often in lower-wage countries). Protectionism preserves jobs but raises prices. The goal is to mitigate losses through retraining, wage insurance, and local investment, not to eliminate trade.

Are developing countries better off from globalisation?​

On average, yes. China, Vietnam, India, and others saw wage growth and poverty reduction. However, within those countries, inequality rose. Factory workers in cities benefited; subsistence farmers faced competition. Uneven gains are a global phenomenon.

Why don't workers just move to where the jobs are?​

Labor mobility is limited by language, family ties, housing costs, and cultural barriers. An Ohio steelworker cannot easily relocate to San Francisco—housing costs $2 million for a home that cost $100,000 in Ohio. Geographic immobility concentrates losses locally.

Is deglobalisation possible?​

Partial deglobalisation is happening (nearshoring, decoupling from China), but complete reversal is impractical. Supply chains took decades to build and are deeply embedded. Reversing them would be very costly and disruptive.

Should the U.S. pursue protectionist policies?​

Protectionism preserves jobs in protected sectors but raises prices and invites retaliation. A tariff on Chinese goods increases prices for all consumers and may eliminate jobs in export sectors (farmers, software companies selling abroad). Better policies are targeted retraining, regional investment, and tax redistribution.

Real-world examples​

The Rust Belt collapse. From 1990–2010, steel mills, auto plants, and other manufacturing facilities closed across Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Youngstown, Ohio had 115,000 residents and thriving steel mills in 1977; by 2020, 65,000 residents and few major employers. The population loss, social deterioration, and addiction crisis were directly tied to manufacturing losses.

Bangladesh's garment boom and pressure. Bangladesh became a garment superpower through globalisation—4 million direct workers, $40+ billion in exports, lifting millions toward middle-class status. However, workers face subsistence wages, unsafe conditions, and commodity-like competition. The 2013 Rana Plaza factory collapse killed 1,100+ workers, illustrating the human cost of low-wage global manufacturing. Wages remain <$5 per day despite global demand.

China's manufacturing ascent. China captured 30% of global manufacturing by 2020, lifting 800 million out of poverty. Average wages rose from $2,000 to $10,000 annually. However, this created winners (factory owners, skilled workers, investors) and losers (subsistence farmers losing local markets, low-skill workers in rich countries). China itself is now facing wage competition from Vietnam and India.

India's IT services triumph. India's IT sector grew from near-zero in 1990 to <$200 billion by 2020. Companies like TCS, Infosys, and Wipro created high-skill jobs paying $50,000–100,000 annually. Millions of Indians benefited. However, this success created pressure on Western IT workers' wages and accelerated offshore outsourcing of software development.

Summary​

Globalisation created enormous aggregate wealth—roughly $200 trillion in additional global GDP from 1990–2020—and lifted 1.2 billion out of poverty. Consumers in wealthy nations captured benefits through lower prices; high-skill workers benefited from access to global markets; developing-country manufacturers transformed from subsistence to middle-class incomes. However, gains are unevenly distributed. Manufacturing workers in wealthy countries lost jobs and wage power; subsistence farmers in developing countries faced competition; low-skilled workers everywhere faced rising competition. This distributional unevenness has driven political backlash (protectionism, populism) and rising inequality. The challenge ahead is capturing globalisation's aggregate benefits while mitigating losses through targeted retraining, regional investment, and redistribution policies.

Next​

→ The deglobalisation trend