Framing Layoffs: Media Coverage, Blame Attribution, and Trade-Related Policy Responses

Abstract

Abstract Who is blamed when factories close or when there are mass layoffs? Whether it be the closing of an auto plant or the threatened off-shoring of the Carrier furnace factory, media reports frequently incorporate justifications—or frames—that provide context about the closure or layoffs. We conduct an analysis of media coverage of factory layoffs in the United States and Canada, and find that the most common frames often include foreign competition and trade policy, changing market conditions, or exogenous shocks, such as the pandemic. We argue that such frames alter who the public holds responsible and thus affects the public’s preferred policy responses. We test the effect of media frames on the public’s blame attribution and subsequent policy preferences using a survey experiment about General Motors factory closings. The results from a sample of almost 6,000 respondents in the US and Canada show that the public is quick to shift blame to the government, reducing blame to the company, and shifting attention to particular government responses. We find that the most common media frames significantly shift support for trade policy in both countries, but have no effect on domestic public assistance programs such as unemployment benefits or retraining and education programs. Notably, most treatment effects are similar across ideological types. The results hold practical implications in terms of the incentives of politicians to promote specific explanations of factory closings and theoretical implications in terms of moderating the highly partisan expectations within the current literature on economic blame attribution.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 8 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.