Article content continued

The greatest threat the anti-globalization movement poses is to the people in the lower- and middle-income classes. In his book, Global Inequality, Branko Milanovic shows it is this group that has benefited the most from economic growth over the past few decades. The global income distribution used to have two peaks: one with a large number of people with very low incomes and another with a smaller number of people with developed-world incomes. Hundreds of millions of people — mainly in China and India — have since caught up to the global middle class and the global income distribution now has a single peak.

This reduction in global inequality and the establishment of a global middle class is a significant achievement. But there are still hundreds of millions more people for whom access to work markets is their best hope for an escape from poverty. To return to Harberger’s analogy, that’s a pretty big mushroom. Another, smaller mushroom is the global elite, who have also seen strong income growth.

But there is one segment of the global income distribution that has not benefited: those with incomes equivalent to those in the lower- and middle-income classes in rich countries. Globalization has exposed this group to competition from low-wage workers in emerging markets and their income growth has been sluggish at best.

For politicians in the developed world, these people form a potentially powerful voting bloc, and campaign strategists throughout the industrialized world have been grappling with how to address middle-class resentment. The British Conservatives’ strategy of offering a referendum on the EU probably seemed like clever idea to them at the time: the Leave side would lose, but at least the referendum would let people blow off a little steam. The Tories could then continue with the rest of their mandate with no further distractions. Or not, as it turned out.