Economy and Nationalism as Political Movement and Ideology

In the classic understanding of nationalism as a political ideology and movement, researchers focus on comprehensive political agendas informed by a nationalist doctrinal core, which may be narrowly conceived as political self-rule (e.g., Gellner Reference Gellner1983) or posited in broader terms that include concerns with national culture and community (e.g., Smith Reference Smith2010). The analysis of nationalist ideologies and movements requires distinct methodological tools, but empirically the two are often closely tied together (Smith Reference Smith2010, 8–9). To structure the literature review, it is useful to draw on Breuilly’s distinction between (1) those whose activities are directed against a state they do not consider their own and (2) those intent on reforming their state in a nationalist direction (Breuilly Reference Breuilly1993, 9–10).Footnote ¹ Moreover, the analysis needs to include state-driven agendas of “nation building” (and “nation rebuilding”) that derive from assumptions about territorial sovereignty (or autonomy) as being just a first step in the creation of national communities (Wimmer Reference Wimmer2018).

So far, mainstream nationalism studies have paid little attention to the insights generated by scholarship concerned with the economic dimensions of nationalist political agendas. Historical studies of separatist movements in Central and Eastern Europe, for example, have highlighted the importance of economy-related campaigns for nationalist mobilization, institutionally anchored in the cooperative movement with its ideals of mutuality and “self-help” (Schultz and Kubu Reference Schultz and Kubu2006; Lorenz Reference Lorenz and Lorenz2006). Likewise, anti-colonialist mobilization in India drew strongly on the impulse to contain the imports of British goods and capital, and campaigns for economic “self-reliance” (swadeshi) became closely connected to demands for home rule (Goswami Reference Goswami1998). Such campaigns could achieve a significant mobilization effect, not least because they gave nationalist demands a tangible everyday meaning and thus helped to reach out to broader segments of the population (Trivedi Reference Trivedi2003).

Economic autonomy agendas have also been demonstrated to be of crucial importance for many historical cases of post-independence “nation building.” In particular, scholars have highlighted how economic development policies of newly independent states were tied to notions of economic sovereignty, most significantly expressed in programs of land reform and the “nostrification” of foreign property, which were implemented at a significant scale in countries across Eastern Europe, Africa, and Asia (Burnell Reference Burnell1986; Szlajfer Reference Szlajfer2012).

Today, economic autonomy agendas appear to have less salience in certain respects, such as, for example, currency management (Helleiner Reference Helleiner, Helleiner and Pickel2005). Yet, such agendas still help to inspire separatist movements and “nation-building” programs—witness the prominent emphasis on fiscal policy autonomy in Scotland, Catalonia, and elsewhere (Boylan Reference Boylan2015; Beland and Lecours Reference Beland and Lecours2008; Herrera Reference Herrera2004). Moreover, such agendas are now frequently associated with broader identity concerns at the heart of nationalist mobilization. Movements like those in Scotland and Quebec, for example, seek to justify separatist aspirations in part in terms of their communities’ alleged greater propensity for economic redistribution (Beland and Lecours Reference Beland and Lecours2008). At the same time, questions related to a country’s adherence to regional and international economic frameworks have also become part of separatist “nation-building” agendas. Abdelal (Reference Abdelal2001), for example, highlights the urge of governments in several post-Soviet republics to secure membership in European trade arrangements to economically move away from what they considered to be the “imperial” space they had overcome.

Compared to the literature on separatism, scholarship concerned with nationalist reform movements is less extensive, though it equally points to the significance of economic agendas. Gerth (Reference Gerth2003), for example, highlights the importance of consumer mobilization for early 20th century reform movements in China. Others, drawing on the conceptualization of interwar fascism as palingenetic nationalism (Griffin Reference Griffin1991), have examined the extent to which German and Italian fascism espoused a distinct “third way” economics between capitalism and socialism (Baker 2006). Historical research on populist national renewal movements in Latin America points to the significance of an anti-imperialist agenda to struggle against economic dependence on the United States (Germani Reference Germani1978), which has recently been revitalized by “Bolivarianism” (de la Torre Reference De la Torre2017). Studies of contemporary right-wing populist movements in Europe identify supranational economic integration as one of the core contentious issues for these movements (Mudde and Kaltwasser Reference Mudde and Kaltwasser2017, 32–37).

The case of the United States most dramatically highlights the political salience of economically-driven, right-wing populism today. Crucially, to comprehend this salience, it is insufficient to follow the traditional approach of economic nationalism research, such as examining “America First” policies related to trade protectionism, the rejuvenation of manufacturing in the United States, and the associated international consequences of these policies, especially new trade wars with China (Noland Reference Noland2018).

Instead, these policies are best conceptualized as themselves derived from a much wider agenda based on notions of “producerism,” which have a political lineage going back to the late nineteenth century and whose contemporary revival started with the Tea Party movement in the late 2000s (Ivaldi and Mazzoleni Reference Ivaldi and Mazzoleni2019). “Producerism” essentially posits a dichotomy between the national core of the hard-working “people” whose needs and interests have been betrayed by a corrupt and parasitic political and economic elite working alongside hostile foreign powers, and whose productive resources have been additionally “squeezed” by what many populist nationalists consider an ‘undeserving’ underclass (Ivaldi and Mazzoleni Reference Ivaldi and Mazzoleni2019). In other words, the US case demonstrates that economic agendas of populist movements, rather than an issue-specific policy program, directly speak to the cultural and political core of the populist cause.

This example highlights that scholarship concerned with the nexus between the economy and nationalist movements and ideologies does not just provide rich empirical detail but addresses broader themes of the nationalism studies field. Thus, economically-focused studies also relate to the long-standing debate about nationalist boundary drawing and exclusion, as economic agendas of nationalist movements and state-driven nation-building have frequently included campaigns against “internal outsiders,” such as ethnic and national minorities (Chua Reference Chua2003; Lorenz Reference Lorenz and Lorenz2006). From a different perspective, the emphasis on the theme of “completing nationhood” through economic means speaks to the broader literature concerned with the process of nation formation (Smith Reference Smith2002). Moreover, while there are few attempts to relate economic analyses to comparative typologies of nationalism (Maxwell, Reference Maxwell2010), Greenfeld’s (Reference Greenfeld2001) work highlights the potential to develop such a research agenda in the future.

Economy and Nationalism as Political Discourse

Compared to an understanding of nationalism as political movement and ideology, a political discourse approach relies on very different conceptual assumptions. Nationalism is here not conceived as a political doctrine carried forward by specific, ideologically committed groups, movements, or parties, but rather it is conceived as a discursive repertoire available to any political actor (Brubaker Reference Brubaker1996; Wodak Reference Wodak, Flowerdew and Richardson2017). Researchers in this tradition seek to understand the ways in which nationalism helps political actors—beyond ideologically committed nationalists—to frame their agendas and strategies. They are particularly interested in how different actors appropriate national categories and compete with each other by invoking national frames to legitimize contrasting political strategies (Verdery Reference Verdery1993).

Recent research from a variety of disciplines has highlighted the significance of nationalist political discourse in many economic policy debates. This ranges from studies about mundane contexts, such as the debates about foreign takeovers of domestic firms (Callaghan and Hees Reference Callaghan and Hees2013), to scholarship concerned with the most exceptional circumstances, such as the deployment of national rhetoric of solidarity and sacrifice to justify wartime tax policies (Mehrotra Reference Mehrotra2010).

National framing dynamics are perhaps most obvious when policy agendas frequently display references to alleged national values or narratives about the national past, such as debates about the management of major economic crises or transformations (e.g., Eichler Reference Eichler, Helleiner and Pickel2005; Sheppard Reference Sheppard2011). Moreover, national framing related to economic crisis management is regularly employed to discredit political opponents. This is especially relevant when foreign countries or international economic institutions are actively involved in the management of economic crises or transformations. In such cases, national framing becomes associated with arguments about the loss of national dignity and independence as well as denunciations of domestic opponents as “traitors” of the national cause (Michailidou Reference Michailidou2017).

Beyond its relevance for economic crisis narratives, nation-centered discursive framing has also been identified in a number of other contexts, such as in debates about regulatory reforms. Studies concerned with the significance of debates about the Confucian heritage for the regulation of capitalism in 20th century Japan (Conrad Reference Conrad and Kocka2010) or the controversy about the decline of national industrial culture at the heart of regulatory debates in the UK in the 1970s and 1980s (Tomlinson Reference Tomlinson2000) provide good illustrations in this respect. Here, national framing is driven by the question of whether regulatory patterns should be considered part of a distinct national tradition and whether such a national “heritage” ought to be protected (Bond, McCrone, and Brown Reference Bond, McCrone and Brown2003).

Although less frequently researched, discourses of national solidarity have also been demonstrated as relevant for a range of economic policy debates. At the broadest level, this applies to discourses associated with policy agendas to foster economic ties between homeland and diaspora communities (e.g., Nyìri Reference Nyìri2001). Domestically, the significance of national solidarity discourses is highlighted in studies concerned with welfare policies as well as labor relations (Fetzer Reference Fetzer2012, 51–105).

For further empirical illustration of the fruitfulness of a political discourse approach, it is instructive to again briefly look at the case of the contemporary United States and the recurrent debates about “economic patriotism.” These debates have involved a range of political actors far beyond ideological nationalists, and their political salience is easily understood by considering that they have accompanied major electoral campaigns throughout the 2010s—from the Obama-Romney clash in 2012 to the recent controversies about Bernie Sanders’ “corporate patriotism” campaign and Elizabeth Warren’s pledge for a new patriotically inspired industrial policy (Obama Reference Obama2012; Warren Reference Warren2019).

While different in focus—compare Sanders’ emphasis on tax morale as a patriotic duty with Warren’s broader economic development agenda—these debates highlight the importance of conflict in the study of nationalism as a political discourse, as republicans and libertarians have continuously contested notions of a state-driven “economic patriotism,” drawing on traditional tropes of American identity, such as skepticism of “big government” (Campbell Reference Campbell1998, 395–398). Overall, this entailed a situation where a wide range of actors were engaged in either seeking to capture the legitimating power of nationalist discourse or to deny these legitimating effects to their political opponents.

To date, much of the economy-related research on nationalist discourse has a rather strong descriptive focus. In the future, more efforts are needed to relate case study findings to the more general questions of nationalism studies scholars as to when, how, under what conditions, and with what results nationalist discursive frames acquire political salience. For example, as for the “when,” recent work on UK parliamentary debates about foreign takeovers of domestic firms highlights the change in the relative salience of “nation” to frame policy positions since the 1950s (Callaghan and Hees Reference Callaghan and Hees2013). Likewise, regarding results, the impact of national framing on audiences and on policy outcomes requires more sustained and systematic inquiry, including particular attention to cases where national framing fails to achieve its intended effects (e.g., Callaghan and Lagneau-Ymonet Reference Callaghan and Lagneau-Ymonet2012).

Economy and Everyday Nationalism

The “everyday nationalism” approach moves beyond elite politics, exploring quotidian notions of national identity and belonging among the population at large (Deloye Reference Deloye and Breuilly2013). For the purpose of review, it is useful to draw a distinction between two different approaches. One of them is based on Billig’s Banal Nationalism (1995). It is concerned with the analysis of a variety of routinized and institutionally entrenched discourses and practices, which recurrently “flag” nationhood in structured patterns on an everyday basis. The other takes a bottom-up approach to examine the variety of ways in which ordinary people use “nation talk” in their everyday lives (Fox and Miller-Idriss Reference Fox and Miller-Idriss2008).

Starting with the former approach, there is already a rich body of scholarship demonstrating that notions of national belonging can be powerfully nurtured by representations of the national economy as a distinct space (Mitchell Reference Mitchell1998). Economic statistics, for example, continuously reproduce the idea of a measurable national economic space (Tooze Reference Tooze and Cubitt1998) while currencies can help individuals to situate themselves as part of a bounded community of everyday experience (Helleiner Reference Helleiner1998, 1414–1323). Importantly, economic globalization appears to reinforce, rather than weaken, these notions—witness the ubiquitous presence of “nation branding” to attract foreign investors and tourists in the contemporary global economy (Aronczyk Reference Aronczyk2013).

Beyond providing continuous reminders of the existence of a distinct national space, economic life also reproduces banal notions of uniqueness. For example, economic events or processes may shape memory narratives of the “national” past. As references to the “economic miracles” in post-1945 Germany and Japan indicate, rapid and unexpected economic success may even be remembered in quasi-religious terms of salvation and redemption (Müller Reference Müller, Helleiner and Pickel2005, 144–146).

Imagined national economic “cultures” provide another interesting field of analysis. At the macro level, this relates to the ways in which notions of banal national uniqueness can be constructed through pride in specific economic practices and institutions, as illustrated, for example, in discourses about the uniqueness of “national work” and the patriotic elevation of “Made in” labels (Conrad Reference Conrad2006). At the micro level, specific firms and products may become national icons associated with imagined national economic cultures (e.g., Rieger Reference Rieger2013).

Consumption is the realm in which notions of national culture routinely acquire an economic dimension. Numerous authors have investigated the discourses and practices through which specific consumer goods become “nationalized”—from food and drink (Wilson, Reference Wilson2006) to various industrial goods, such as furniture, clothes, household design, and automobiles (Edensor Reference Edensor2002; Kühschelm, Eder, and Siegrist Reference Kühschelm, Eder and Siegrist2012). Emphasis has been placed on the crucial role played by corporate marketing in the reproduction of such banal notions of national uniqueness, highlighting how advertising frequently seeks to create or conserve images of products as national brands (e.g., Prideaux Reference Prideaux2009).

Research is much less extensive if we shift from top-down to bottom-up approaches to everyday nationalism. Still, some sociologists and anthropologists have examined how ordinary people use national framing to articulate everyday concerns, such as in workplaces (Nyìri Reference Nyìri2001; Fox Reference Fox2007). Other work has adopted a bottom-up approach to the study of consumption practices, highlighting the various ways through which people “nationalize” products on an everyday basis (Castello and Mihelj Reference Castello and Mihelj2018).

Based on very different methodological assumptions, there is also a body of scholarship by economists, which can be related to what Fox and Miller-Idriss (Reference Fox and Miller-Idriss2008, 542–545) call everyday “national choices.” The key question here is how to explain the so-called “home bias” (i.e., the fact that there is statistically significant evidence that individual consumers prefer to buy products they think were made in their own countries [Lewis Reference Lewis1999]). Much of the “home bias” is usually explained by transaction costs and barriers, but, to some extent, everyday national loyalty appears to matter too. Similarly, investment decisions may reflect “patriotism in the portfolio” (Morse and Shive Reference Morse and Shive2011).

As with the previous sections on nationalism as ideology and political discourse, the contemporary United States further illustrates the usefulness of an economic focus in relation to everyday nationalism. On the one hand, the economy can be considered a crucial realm to highlight the salience of institutionally rooted, everyday “nation talk” in the USA since the 2008 crisis. This is particularly expressed in “Buy American” and “Made in America” discourses in the media and in corporate advertising, which, while having a long historical tradition (Frank Reference Frank1999), have recently experienced a major upsurge (Elliott Reference Elliott2012).

On the other hand, the post-2008 USA case also points to interesting “bottom-up” dynamics of everyday nationalism. For example, in the field of housing policy, the sub-prime crisis witnessed popular mobilization drawing on notions of American identity to fight against evictions and defend the access to mortgage credit for low-income groups (Seabrooke Reference Seabrooke2012).

While scattered across disciplines and often driven by divergent research agendas, the literature reviewed in this section has the potential to further enrich everyday nationalism scholarship. Indeed, it could make useful contributions to some of the core debates in the field. For example, a focus on workplace contexts provides insights on the widely debated question about the saliency and consistency of national reference frames and how they interact with other discursive repertoires (Knott Reference Knott2015, 8–9). From a different perspective, exploring the links between everyday consumer patriotism and more overt political “buy national” campaigns can shed new light on the relationship between everyday and “hot” nationalism (Knott Reference Knott2015, 3–4). And, perhaps most importantly, there is reason to believe that a stronger focus on the economy could also help develop the comparative dimension of everyday nationalism scholarship (Bonikowski Reference Bonikowski, Skey and Antonsich2017).