Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-x2lbr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T21:01:51.718Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Geography of Grievance: Industrial Hubs Magnify Political Discontent

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 February 2026

Sung Eun Kim
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science and International Relations, Korea University, Seoul, South Korea
Krzysztof Pelc*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science and International Relations, Korea University, Seoul, South Korea Department of Politics and International Relations, Oxford University, UK
*
*Corresponding author: Email: krzysztof.pelc@politics.ox.ac.uk

Abstract

Why do some economic shocks have political consequences, upturning elections and ushering in radical candidates, while others are brushed off as structural change? We address this puzzle by looking to geographically concentrated industries, and how they relate to regional identity. While most often presented as a source of regional strength, we show that industrial hubs in the United States have accounted for more job losses than gains over the last twenty years. We then show how this matters through three original survey studies. Workers in geographically concentrated industries belong to denser, more deeply-rooted peer networks; these are associated with a stronger view that politicians are responsible for preventing layoffs. Those same individuals also perceive economic shocks of equal magnitude as more damaging to their region’s standing, compared to the rest of the country. Perceptions of lost regional standing, in turn, are associated with greater demand for populist leadership traits. Finally, we show how these individual attitudes translate into aggregate political behavior. Employment losses in industrial hubs are tied to greater support for Republican candidates, while equivalent losses in non-hubs show no analogous effect. Our account presents a competing picture to the dominant narrative of industrial hubs as founts of innovation and productivity. When threatened by structural forces, such hubs can turn instead into founts of political resentment.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The IO Foundation
Figure 0

Figure 1. Percentage change in commuting zone employment in industrial hubs and non-hubs between 2000 and 2016Notes: For each commuting zone and industry group, we first determine whether a given commuting zone-by-industry group cell qualifies as an industrial hub (see section “Data: Industry Hubs and Labor Market Changes” for details). We then calculate the percentage change in employment for the industry classified as hub (top) between 2000 and 2016, relative to their initial employment in 2000, and do the same for the rest of industries not considered hub (bottom). In the top panel, gray areas indicate regions with no industrial hubs under our definition.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Location quotient (LQ) across commuting zones in 2000Notes: The figures illustrate the geographical distribution of LQ scores for two selected industry groups—automotive and textile manufacturing. Darker (lighter) colors indicate higher (lower) LQ scores for each commuting zone in the respective industry. Commuting zones where the LQ score falls above the 90th percentile for a given industry and where that industry has the highest LQ among all industry groups are outlined in yellow. These yellow-highlighted areas represent hubs for each industry, defined as regions where the LQ exceeds the 90th percentile across all regions in that industry (indicating regional specialization) and where the industry has the highest LQ among all industry groups in the region (signifying its distinctiveness to the region’s economic identity)

Figure 2

Figure 3. TAA-related shocks to industrial hubs across commuting zonesNotes:The figure illustrates the geographical distribution of TAA-related shocks to industrial hubs across commuting zones. The measure is calculated as the cumulative number of TAA-affected workers in hub industries within each commuting zone from 2000 to 2016, relative to the region’s employment size in 1999 (per 1,000 workers). The break values in the legend—1.3, 4.9, 13.2, and 170.5—correspond to the 20th, 40th, 60th, 80th, and 100th percentiles among nonzero values

Figure 3

Table 1. Trade shocks to industrial hubs, peer networks, and political responsibility

Figure 4

Table 2. Trade shock to industrial hubs and individual perception of regional status

Figure 5

Figure 4. Coefficient plots: trade shocks and perception of regional statusNotes: The plot presents the estimated coefficient from model 5 (base model) and model 6 (base model + additional control) from Table 2 and their variations. While we use the threshold of 90th percentile for determining a hub for a region, we vary this threshold from 95th to 80th percentile and estimate the same models

Figure 6

Table 3. Perceptions of regional standing and populist attitudes

Figure 7

Table 4. Trade shock to industrial hubs and support for the Republican Party

Supplementary material: File

Kim and Pelc supplementary material

Kim and Pelc supplementary material
Download Kim and Pelc supplementary material(File)
File 308.3 KB