As a keynote speaker at the 2025 Heckscher-Ohlin Conference, Pol Antràs joins us to reflect on how trade research is – or is not – feeding into today’s policymaking. With a background at the forefront of international trade theory, Antràs offers unique insights into the state of research, the legacy of Heckscher and Ohlin, and the road ahead for more evidence-based policy.

One of the goals is to connect trade policymaking more closely with contemporary trade research. Without revealing too much of your keynote, what would you say are the key policy insights emerging from today’s trade research?

I would highlight two broad areas. First, I think contemporary research has made a lot of progress in understanding how global value chains emerge and how they respond to changes in policy. This sometimes leads to more subtle or unexpected effects than in traditional conceptualisations of international trade. Second, a lot of recent work has shed light on how large and fast trade liberalisation episodes affect some vulnerable groups in society, so this should shed light on policymakers attempting to cushion the negative aspects of trade opening.

A central premise of the conference is that trade policy is increasingly disconnected from what we know about international trade and the effects of different types of trade reform. In your view, what can be done – beyond attending this conference – to close that gap?

Speaking for the research community, perhaps we should devote more efforts to making the lessons of our work more digestible to policymakers. Modern economics research is mathematically complex, and technical aspects often make research’s lessons unnecessarily obscure. There is a good reason why economics turned mathematical, and I am not suggesting turning back the clock, but we have plenty of tools at our hand to produce more digestible versions of our work that may help policymakers better understand certain trade-offs.

Swedish trade scholars Eli Heckscher and Bertil Ohlin are widely recognised for shaping 20^th-century trade theory. To what extent do you think their ideas still matter in the current global economic context?

Absolutely, their ideas still matter a lot. Modern trade theories emphasise many aspects that were not necessarily salient in Heckscher and Ohlin’s theories, but their core ideas – and especially their formalisation by Paul Samuelson – continue to be of first-order for understanding the causes and consequences of globalisation. Modern trade theory has expanded and generalised the work of Heckscher and Ohlin, much like modern physics expanded and generalised Newtonian physics.

Finally, what are your expectations for the conference?

I look forward to fruitful interactions with other academics and, especially, with policymakers. I am sure I will learn a lot!

As one of the keynote speakers, Arancha González Laya brings deep experience from the United Nations (UN), the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the European Union (EU). We spoke to her ahead of the conference about the complex relationship between research and policymaking, and the role of trade scholars and institutions in bridging that gap.

Policymakers often face the difficult task of balancing research insights with political realities. With your experience at the UN, the WTO and the EU, what advice would you offer to those navigating this tension?

Engage, discuss, debate. Do not shy away. These are often complicated matters, so invest in making them accessible. Do not sugar-coat the difficulties, but show that you understand them and that you are also ready to address them. In the past, we have tended to only focus on the positive messages, leaving the public to discover the downside – thus appearing disconnected.

One of the main premises of this conference is that trade policy has become increasingly disconnected from the insights provided by international trade research. In your view, what can be done to help bridge that gap?

I would suggest ensuring a better connection between the micro and the macro dimensions of trade: the aggregate impacts, but also the sector, country, grouping specificities.

What are your expectations for the conference?

The conference needs to help keep the lights on the importance of an international rules-based order, on open markets, but also on disciplines – especially in new areas such as digital, sustainability, and the resilience of value chains.

Iana Dreyer joins us to reflect on lessons from history and to share her perspective on the current climate among trade policymakers around the world. With her background in journalism, she offers unique insight into how media can help build a bridge between those who make trade policy and those who analyse it.

What important challenges in EU trade policy do you think are often overlooked or misunderstood?

The key challenge is to have the general public and politicians who decide on trade policy understand why trade matters. Relatedly, there is a general challenge for vast audiences and stakeholders in trade policy to understand the virtues of international cooperation.

More recently I have been surprised at how little memory there seems to be – in the general public but also in the trade policy field in Europe – of the geopolitical dimension of trade and trade policy and how it relates to old-fashioned but fundamental issues of war and peace in this world.

Let us hope the current crisis we are witnessing under the second Trump administration will help focus minds.

As a journalist who closely follows EU trade policy, how can the media and platforms like Borderlex help explain academic research to the public?

We are a specialist publication catering to professionals in the trade policy field, so it is, in principle, easier to grab the attention of our sophisticated audience with what academics and think tankers do than it might be the case for other types of media. But the challenge remains: how to make valuable research palatable to a busy group of people who need to see very quickly how this work is relevant for them.

Good independent academic research is also vital for a healthy public debate and policy-making process. At Borderlex, we try to build a bridge between the doers and the thinkers in trade.

What are your expectations for the conference?

I appreciate the fact that this conference goes back to basics: geopolitics, war, peace, and political and economic power. It might help us think about why world powers built the system we have after the Second World War in the first place, and about how to make it suitable to this century's geopolitical realities.

Eva Sjögren joins us to share her reflections on how Europe can be turned into an economic powerhouse. Her experience in the government offices of a small EU member state has taught her how to turn size into an advantage in EU trade policy.

What are the main challenges and opportunities when trying to connect academic trade research with political decisions at national and EU levels?

It is always a challenge to build bridges between academia and policy, perhaps even more so today when everything seems to move faster than ever. But it is also more important than ever – in a world where not only trade theory but also trade research seems to be overlooked – to remind policymakers of the fundamentals of trade. That means that academic trade research needs to reach policymakers, which we all have an obligation to strive to accomplish.

Sweden is often seen as a strong supporter of open trade in the EU. What influence can smaller member states have on EU trade policy today?

Sweden has a longstanding history of supporting free trade within the EU. We are small, but we matter. When it comes to having an impact on EU policy, both in trade policy and in other areas, size can give you certain advantages. However, it is also true that if you put forward creative ideas at an early stage, this gives you influence irrespective of your size. In other words, it is not only about size, but also about knowledge, experience and trust.

I am of course a bit biased, but I would say Sweden has these things when it comes to trade policy, and that we have been able to make our mark on EU policy. For example, we were early in putting the single market and external trade policy at the centre of the EU’s competitiveness agenda – long before the Letta and Draghi reports. Sweden has also been at the forefront of pushing for the conclusion of new EU free trade agreements (FTA), including the EU-Mercosur FTA, which is hopefully soon in force. We were also early in speaking of the need to align the EU more closely with the CPTPP on trade issues, something that is now starting to happen.

Eli Heckscher and Bertil Ohlin helped develop the economic case for open trade. Do you think their ideas still influence Swedish trade policy?

I would say that Swedish trade policy is built on what we have seen works, based in trade theory and supported by empirical research. Our message is clear – trade has made economies, countries and people better off across the world.

What are you hoping to gain from this conference?

As I said, it is more important than ever to talk about and highlight the importance and benefits of trade. The dialogue between academia and policymakers needs to be strong for us to get it right, and this conference is an excellent opportunity for that.

Vinod K. Aggarwal joins us to reflect on the concept of new economic statecraft for a new age. Drawing on his extensive background in political science, he brings a thought-provoking lens to economic research and policymaking.

With the global trade facing geopolitical tensions, what are the biggest risks to keeping the rules-based order?

I think the current rules-based order at the global level is dead, so the premise is incorrect. Much as we would like to think that this is a temporary problem and just about President Trump, the Obama Administration began blocking appellate judges going back to 2011, and this continued under the Biden Administration as well. On top of that, the WTO’s Doha Round essentially failed, so we have not had a new round of global negotiations for 30 years. So even though I am a big fan of the WTO, we have to be politically realistic.

How can academic research be made more useful and easier to understand for policymakers?

Most economists engage in various estimates of the benefits of free trade using different types of models. Many analysts now realise that these models depend on choices that affect calculations of benefits and that are not scientifically justified. But more critically, economists let their preferences for their models get in the way of understanding the political reality of trade policy. By ignoring the political pressures that come from the losers from free trade – which includes both some parts of labour and some firms – they have let populists dominate the agenda. The topic of active labour policies, the need to sometimes manage trade, and national security are issues that are simply not adequately studied given the zeal of pure free trade economists. Even though free trade brings great benefits, we need a political economy approach to trade that does not make politics just one more variable in a model.

What are your expectations for the conference?

This is a great opportunity to engage with academics and policymakers. As someone who has been working on the concept of new economic statecraft, I look forward to sharing my work and exchanging ideas with leading analysts of the global trading system.

Alicia García Herrero joins us to share her reflections on how researchers and policymakers can support each other. With experience in both worlds, she brings a valuable perspective and a strong voice for bridging the gap between them.

What are the main challenges and opportunities when trying to connect academic trade research with political decisions at national and global levels?

There are two main problems when trying to use academic research for political – but also business – decisions on trade. Firstly, policy advice can be very different depending on the assumptions made and the methodology used in a research project. Policymakers and businesses do not have the bandwidth to grasp such nuances, so they feel confused about the lack of direction on the way forward. The other big issue is the time lag between the challenges – and opportunities – faced by policymakers and business people, and the research results.

What should the EU and other countries that support rules-based trade do to prevent a new wave of protectionism?

Europe needs to accept that it cannot go against the strong winds of protectionism. Instead, it should pick its battles in a pragmatic way and find alliances to defend the multilateral trading system. Europe cannot do this alone.

What are your expectations for the conference?

I am confident that we will have a frank and productive discussion – with a dose of idealism but also pragmatism, and a lot of rigorous ideas – to make it a perfect gathering for researchers, policymakers and businesses.

Anders Ahnlid joins us to share his reflections on what the EU should do to take the lead in reviving the rules-based trading system. With long experience from various roles in the trade policy field, he is a strong advocate of evidence-based trade policy.

This conference focuses on trade policy for a new era. What should be done to address the erosion of the rules-based trading system?

The best way for the EU to revive a rules-based trading system is to build new supporting structures together with like-minded partners. For this reason, the EU should step forward and launch a rules-based trade coalition.

To be successful, such a coalition would have to generate real commercial benefits. It should be compatible with and supportive of the WTO, but not formally part of it.

We are not alone in advocating this direction for EU trade policy. In June, President Ursula von der Leyen proposed closer cooperation between the EU and the members of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). Such cooperation would be an important step in the right direction.

How should the EU take the lead?

The EU and CPTPP members should form the core of the rules-based coalition. At the same time, it is important that the initiative remains open to other partners, provided they respect WTO rules and are committed to genuine trade integration.

Ideally, the coalition should consist of EU free trade agreement partners that are at the same time like-minded at the WTO. Such a coalition would represent more than half of world trade in goods.

What do you hope to achieve with this conference?

I hope the conference will help us carve out a more proactive strategy to address current trade challenges, which are among the most demanding our generation has faces. But this is not the first time we face uncertainty and calls for protectionism. The US introduced the Smooth-Hawley tariffs in 1930. Today, the Trump tariffs are creating havoc in the system. History does not repeat itself, but we must learn from it. Therefore, we must continue to make trade policy decisions based on solid evidence rather than overheated macho rhetoric.