View source for The Economist editorial stance

{{Short description|Editorial stance of English news publication}}
{{DISPLAYTITLE:''The Economist'' editorial stance}}
{{use British English|date=March 2020}}
{{use dmy dates|date=March 2020}}
[[File:David Hume and Adam Smith statues, Edinburgh.jpg|thumb|Scottish economist [[Adam Smith]] (''right'') and philosopher [[David Hume]] (''left'') represent the newspaper's foundational beliefs of ''[[laissez-faire]]'' policies, [[self-sufficiency]], anti-[[protectionism]], and [[free trade]].]]
{{neoliberalism sidebar}}
Since its founding in 1843, the editorial stance of ''[[The Economist]]'' has been developed to further its founding purpose to "take part in a [[Debate|severe contest]] between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress". First published by Scottish economist [[James Wilson (UK politician)|James Wilson]] to muster support for abolishing the British [[Corn Laws]] (1815–1846), a system of import [[tariff]]s, the weekly has made [[free trade]] a touchstone of their editorial stance. Its core stance has been summarized by ''[[The Guardian]]'' as a "trusted three-card trick of [[privatisation]], [[deregulation]] and [[liberalisation]]".<ref name="autogenerated2">{{cite news|last=Stern|first=Stefan|url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/aug/21/pressandpublishing.business1|title=Economist thrives on female intuition|date=21 August 2005|work=[[The Guardian]]|access-date=2 January 2013|location=London}}</ref><!--The lack of citations is purposeful. Refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations for more information. Wikipedia allows there to be little to no citations in the lead area if it is cited within the main body. If there is something in the lead not cited in the main part drop a {{not found in body}} tag to indicate a missing citation and it will be addressed.--><!--Article uses British English, e.g. "-ise" over "-ize". See: WP:ISE.--><!--Article uses "newspaper", "paper", "weekly" to otherwise denote The Economist –– not magazine or news magazine. See: Talk:The Economist/Archive 2.-->

In 2009, ''The Economist'' website featured this note about its editorial stance: <blockquote>"What, besides [[Economic liberalism|free trade and free markets]], does ''The Economist'' believe in? 'It is to the Radicals that ''The Economist'' still likes to think of itself as belonging. The [[Radical centrism|extreme centre]] is the paper's historical position.' That is as true today as when former ''Economist'' editor Geoffrey Crowther said it in 1955. ''The Economist'' considers itself the enemy of privilege, pomposity and predictability. It has backed [[conservatives]] such as [[Ronald Reagan]] and [[Margaret Thatcher]]. It has supported the [[Vietnam War|Americans in Vietnam]]. But it has also endorsed [[Harold Wilson]] and [[Bill Clinton]], and espoused a variety of liberal causes: opposing [[capital punishment]] from its earliest days, while favoring penal reform and [[decolonization]], as well as—most recently—gun control and gay marriage."<ref>{{cite news|title=About us |work=Economist.com |url=http://www.economist.com/help/DisplayHelp.cfm?folder=663377 |access-date=21 March 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090228231949/http://www.economist.com/help/DisplayHelp.cfm?folder=663377 |archive-date=28 February 2009 }}</ref></blockquote>

== Early years ==
In its early years under James Wilson the newspaper took a strong ''[[laissez-faire]]'' stance, opposing the provision of aid to the Irish during the [[Great Famine (Ireland)|Great Famine]], proposing instead that [[self-sufficiency]], [[protectionism|anti-protectionism]] and [[free trade]], not [[food aid]], were the key to ending the famine,<ref name="irishfamine">{{cite book|last=Williams|first=Leslie|author2=Williams, W.H.A. |title=Daniel O'Connell, the British Press, and the Irish Famine|publisher=Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.|location=[[Aldershot]], [[Hampshire]], [[England]]|year=2003|pages=101, 152–153|isbn=0-7546-0553-1|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9FoLSc3pWJkC|access-date=4 February 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Ó Gráda|first=Cormac|title=The great Irish famine|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=1995|page=1|chapter=Introduction|isbn=0-521-55787-9}}</ref> as well as opposing government regulation such as the [[Railway Regulation Act 1844]] and the [[Factories Act 1847]].<ref name="newyorker">{{cite news |last1=Mishara |first1=Pankaj |title=Liberalism According to The Economist |url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/11/11/liberalism-according-to-the-economist |access-date=6 April 2024 |work=The New Yorker |publisher=Condé Nast |date=4 November 2019}}</ref>

==19th-century social reforms==
In the 19th century the editorial stance of ''The Economist'' drifted away from supporting ''laissez-faire'' policies. In January 1883, for example, one editorial noted:<ref name=Haggard>{{cite book|chapter=Conservative, Liberal, and the Radical Responses to the Social Question|pages=117–118|title=The persistence of Victorian liberalism: the politics of social reform in Britain, 1870–1900|author=Robert F. Haggard|publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group|year=2001|isbn=9780313313059}}</ref>
{{blockquote|... it required very little observation of current politics to see that the principle of ''laissez-faire'' is no longer in the ascendant.|sign="The New Radicalism", ''[[The Economist]]'', 20 January 1883<ref name=Haggard />}}

In September 1883, another editorial noted:<ref name=Haggard />
{{blockquote|When once it has been conceded that the functions of the State are not to be strictly limited to those simpler duties ... it is wonderful how soon and how rapidly the number of the outlets in which it is thought that State aid may be advantageously applied becomes increased and multiplied.|sign="State Aid", ''[[The Economist]]'', 29 September 1883<ref name=Haggard />}}

This change in editorial stance reflected a similar change in [[Politics of the United Kingdom|British politics]] itself, which had set aside the notion of ''laissez-faire'' as a practical philosophy some 50 years beforehand.<ref name=Haggard />

==United Kingdom's entry into the Common Market==
The editorial stance of ''The Economist'' on the UK's entry into the [[Common Market]], like the stance of the ''[[New Statesman]]'', gradually developed over time. Although it consistently took the position of a cooperative approach to Europe rather than an integrative approach, its initial opposition to European institutions gradually changed to acceptance over time. Once this change occurred, the weekly's supported a decentralized and cooperative model for European institutions, and democratic accountability.<ref name=Medrano>{{cite book|title=Framing Europe: attitudes to European integration in Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom|author=Juan Díez Medrano|publisher=Princeton University Press|year=2003|isbn= 9780691116112|chapter=Journalists and European Integration|pages=128 et seq}}</ref>

In part, ''The Economist''{{'}}s own editorial stance was a simple reflection of attitudes within the UK in general, and of its two major political parties through the middle to late 20th century ([[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative]] and [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour]]), resisting what it saw as surrender of sovereignty to a supranational institution for as long as possible, and attempting to preserve the UK's self-image of a world power.<ref name=Medrano />

Initially, in the years immediately after [[World War II]], contributors to the paper dismissed and rejected proposals for European institutions such as the [[European Coal and Steel Community]], the [[European Defence Community]], the [[European Economic Community]], and [[European Atomic Energy Community]].{{ref|ecsc|1}} Up to the late 1950s, the paper was pro-American.<ref name=Medrano />

However, in the period from 1957 to the 1980s, the paper's editorial opinion articles gradually came to accept the idea of the UK as a member in the various European communities. Medrano divides this period, and the transition of the newspaper's editorial stance, into three periods, which he labels "Denial", "Grudging Acceptance", and "Embrace". The ''New Statesman'' went through all three of these phases as well, although unlike ''The Economist'', the ''New Statesman'' had not completed the third phase at the point of the UK's entry into the Common Market in the 1970s. ''The Economist'' had, and was supportive of UK membership during the initial negotiations for entry in the 1960s.<ref name=Medrano />

However, the newspaper, whilst supportive of entry, did not conceal its continued editorial dislike of European institutions and pro-American stance. It optimistically predicted that the UK's entry would be able to rectify what it saw as a drift away from the United States by Europe. This is exemplified by a July 1962 editorial:<ref name=Medrano />
{{blockquote|Doubtless some people in Paris, and some elsewhere on the Continent, at present see Britain as an American Trojan horse. In a sense it is, and quite rightly ...|sign="Europe or Atlantis?", ''[[The Economist]]'', 14 July 1962<ref name=Medrano />}}

The veto of the UK's entry, by [[Charles de Gaulle]], in 1963 provoked an outraged response from ''The Economist'', which in its editorials predicted the unravelling of European institutions. It also recommended an idea that it had supported in earlier years, that of an Atlantic Community, both economic and military.<ref name=Medrano />

Soon after the veto, ''The Economist''{{'}}s stance on the status of the UK as a dominant world power began to change. One milestone in this is an editorial published in May 1963:<ref name=Medrano />
{{blockquote|The six and a half years of the attempt to come to terms with the European common market, since the free trade area was proposed in 1956, are the Great Divide of modern British history. For the time being, the attempt has failed; and British opinion is still far from wholly won over to the idea that the European communities qualify as a "good thing". But the effort alone has dealt a mortal blow to the Festival of Britain spirit, the happy pursuit of parochial self-esteem that still dulled the country's awareness of facts in the nineteen-fifties. In the great debate on the common market, the British had seen through some of their own shibboleths; this is something.{{paragraph break}}The grandest victim of the common market's cold douche has been the illusion that Britain was still a world power, an illusion fostered by a heroic war record and by a touching faith in the welfare state—so half-hearted, so incomplete—as a model for others to emulate, much as British parliamentary institutions were taken as models for the nineteenth century.|"Breaking out from the Past", ''[[The Economist]]'', 18 May 1963<ref name=Medrano />}}

In subsequent years, ''The Economist'' continued to support the idea of UK membership in the common market, and began to suggest that it was an economic necessity. It published weekly evaluations of the cost of both entry and of the European institutions, argued that membership of the EC was not incompatible with the [[Commonwealth of Nations]], and discussed industrial and technological advantages that could be obtained as a result of membership. One change, however, was that it no longer pursued the idea of radically transforming the Community from within once the UK was a member, but rather suggested that the UK accept the Community as it already was.<ref name=Medrano />

Its reaction to de Gaulle's second veto of UK membership, in 1967, thus differed from its reaction in 1964. Rather than responding with anger and outrage as it had done before, its reaction was introspective and resigned. The paper no longer argued defiantly on the basis of the UK as a world power, but rather portrayed the UK as too small to stand alone, and thus encouraged resolve and perseverance with entry negotiations. This is exemplified by an October 1967 article:<ref name=Medrano />
{{blockquote|The British have farther to go, less on specific issues of policy than in attitudes. For most of this century it has been natural for Englishmen to think of themselves as part of the English-speaking world, of which the United States has become the visible leader. Only now are they beginning in any number to think of themselves as Europeans as well.|sign="And Now", ''[[The Economist]]'', 14 October 1967<ref name=Medrano />}}

The newspaper took to minimalizing the economic importance of the Commonwealth in its editorials, calling into question the interpretation of statistical data by those who had an emotional investment in the self-image of the UK as one-time head of an Empire:
{{blockquote|Why is this sort of clamor set up whenever any new hope of entering the EEC dawns?  The truth is that there are some people in Britain who are bitterly opposed to union with Europe on emotional grounds, or on the grounds of what they call the "bureaucratic monster" at Brussels and in that it interferes with Britons' independence to run their own affairs. Such people are to be found in the economics profession, politics, and the civil service; and this quite clearly does affect their sense of statistical balance.|sign="Oh Moo", ''[[The Economist]]'', 12 July 1969<ref name=Medrano />}}

It pointed to the [[Civil Service (United Kingdom)|Civil Service]] as one of the ways in which parliamentary sovereignty, something that the opponents of entry argued would be eroded by membership, had ''already'' been eroded. Whilst it no longer advocated radical transformation from within, it observed that the UK would have a significant voice within the Eureopean Community, by virtue of its size. Medrano equates the paper's change in editorial stance, immediately before and after the UK's final success in gaining membership, to a "religious conversion". It made economic arguments for membership, on the grounds of growing globalization of markets, political arguments based upon the idea of holding the government of West Germany (which was, at the time, the [[Social Democratic Party of Germany|SPD]] with its then policy of ''[[Ostpolitik]]'') in check, and emotional arguments that played on the British antipathy towards the French by presenting its own federalist view of European communities as an anti-French alternative to the French government's proposals of intergovernmental union.<ref name=Medrano />

==Anglo-American relations==
Whilst, as observed, ''The Economist''{{'}}s editorial stance was pro-American when it came to postwar international alliances, it was not always so. One particular editorial, that was at the head of a nadir in Anglo-American relations in [[World War II]], was "Noble Negatives".<ref name=Nobecourt /> It was published in the 1944-12-30 edition of the newspaper,{{ref|nn|2}} and is believed to be the work of Owen Fleming.<ref name=Nobecourt /><ref name=Xiang /> The so-called "noble negatives" were two cornerstones of U.S. foreign policy: non-intervention with the object of non-involvement.<ref name=Nobecourt>{{cite book|title=Hitler's Last Gamble: The Battle of the Bulge|author=Jacques Nobecourt|publisher=Schocken Books|year=1967|page=92|location=New York}}</ref>

"Noble Negatives" appeared at the height of mutual criticisms between the UK and the U.S., and provoked wide discussion and comment in the news media of both.<ref name=PoP /> It was ostensibly a reply to the "outburst of criticism and abuse" that the U.S. had directed against the UK in previous weeks<ref>{{cite book|title=The New international year book, 1944|author=Frank Moore Colby|publisher=Funk & Wagnalls|location=New York|page=261|year=1945}}</ref> (that had been, in part, triggered by the [[Carlo Sforza]] affair).<ref name=Xiang /> Its outspoken views on both U.S. foreign policy and sectors of U.S. public opinion were widely quoted, and in the view of Thomson, Meyer, and Briggs, writing in 1945, did much to "clear the air" between the two allies.<ref name=PoP>{{cite book|title=Patterns of Peacemaking|author1=David Thomson |author2=E. Meyer |author3=Asa Briggs |publisher=Routledge|year=2003|isbn= 9780415175517|page=354}}</ref>

The editorial questioned whether the price that the UK had paid for collaboration with the U.S. during the war was not "too high for what we are likely to get".<ref>{{cite book|title=Washington Despatches, 1941–1945: Weekly Political Reports from the British Embassy|author1=Herbert George Nicholas |author2=Isaiah Berlin |publisher=Weidenfeld and Nicolson|year=1981|isbn= 9780297779209|page=494}}</ref> It characterized U.S. public opinion of the UK as "Britain is stealing a march on the poor repressed American exporter, Britain has no intention of fighting the Japanese, [and] Britain is not really fighting in Europe. Britain is imperialist, reactionary, selfish, exclusive, restrictive."<ref name=Xiang>{{cite book|title=Recasting the Imperial Far East|author=Lanxin Xiang|year=1995|isbn=1-56324-460-8|publisher=East Gate|pages=6–8}}</ref>

It reflected on this attitude by noting that "All is painfully familiar, the only novelty in the recent epidemic is the evidence that [the] American government itself—or at least part of it—is more anxious to provide ammunition for the miscontents than to correct their wild misstatements." The editorial called for a change in U.K. policy towards the U.S., saying, "Let an end be put to the policy of appeasement which, at Mr. Churchill's personal bidding, has been followed with all the humiliations and abasements", and concluded by saying that:<ref name=Xiang/>
{{blockquote|Hypocrisy is a common Anglo-Saxon failing—indeed, a failing of the rich and comfortable, all over the world ... the British have many times have made themselves cordially disliked by it. But that does not exempt them from feeling resentment when they are the objects of other people's hypocrisy.|sign="Noble Negatives", ''[[The Economist]]'', 30 December 1944<ref name=Xiang />}}

The result was a media sensation on both sides of the Atlantic. The ''[[Daily Telegraph]]'' had a headline article "British Frankness Has Good Effect in U.S." The ''[[Daily Herald (UK newspaper)|Daily Herald]]'' headlined with "So the British Have Dared to Hit Back". Other headline articles were "Anglo-American Back Chat" (in the ''[[New York Herald Tribune]]'') "Cross Talk" (in the ''[[Daily Mail]]''), and "U.S. Comment on British Touchiness" (in the ''[[Manchester Guardian]]'').<ref name=Xiang />

The [[Foreign Office]] agreed with the editorial, although secret reports from British security services in New York warned that in fact there was worse to come, with support for isolationism and nationalism growing in the U.S., a crumbling of pro-British factions, and an increase in anti-British views in official U.S. government circles. Both President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt|Roosevelt]] and the [[United States Secretary of State|Secretary of State]] [[Edward Stettinius, Jr.|Stettinius]] were besieged by U.S. press calling for an official reaction to the editorial.<ref name=Xiang />

Stettinius himself wrote that, "Unfortunately, other British papers had followed the ''Economist''{{'}}s lead. Even the London ''Times'' [had] demanded that America 'put its cards on the table'." His view on the editorial, which he expressed in a memorandum to Roosevelt, was that "the British were undergoing a strain in adjusting to a secondary role after having always accepted a leading one".<ref name=Xiang />

==Cold fusion==
In 1989, ''The Economist'' editorialized that the [[cold fusion]] "affair" was "exactly what science should be about."<ref name=Brooks>Michael Brooks, "[[13 Things That Don't Make Sense]]" ({{ISBN|978-1-60751-666-8}}), p. 67 (New York:Doubleday, 2008), citing J. (Jerrold) K. Footlick, "Truth and Consequences: how colleges and universities meet public crises" ({{ISBN|9780897749701}}), p. 51 (Phoenix:Oryx Press, 1997).</ref> Science journalist [[Michael Brooks (science writer)|Michael Brooks]] wrote:
{{blockquote|It seems almost laughably naive in light of what followed, but the ''Economist'' was right: the research is what science is about, and has led us somewhere.|Michael Brooks<ref name=Brooks />}}

==Bosnian War==
''The Economist'' summarily dismissed [[Brendan Simms]]'s book, ''Unfinest Hour'', on the [[Bosnian War]] for having no more than "the force of an inkpot thrown from a schooldesk" and for its criticism of government ministers for their "flaws of logic [and] failures of clairvoyance". Simms himself observed in response that ''The Economist''{{'}}s own attempts at clairvoyance had "backfired spectacularly". He pointed to the weekly's editorials through July 1991 and 1992, which predicted that European Community foreign policy would deal with the situation well and that there would not be all-out war in Bosnia.<ref name=Simms>{{cite book|title=Neo-medievalism and Civil Wars|editor=Neil Winn|chapter=The End of the "Official Doctrine": The New Consensus on Britain and Bosnia|author=Brendan Simms|publisher=Routledge|year=2004|isbn= 9780714656687|pages=58–60}}</ref>

Simms characterizes ''The Economist'' as being "a longstanding opponent of military intervention" in Bosnia, pointing to its editorials of July 1995, when the [[Operation Deliberate Force|1995 NATO bombing campaign in Bosnia and Herzegovina]] was underway, and to Bill Emmott's own letter to the publication, which rejected "intervention in this three-cornered civil war, a war which all along has risked escalation into a far wider conflict with even ghastlier consequences", as evidence of this.<ref name=Simms />

Simms observed that the newspaper's editorial stance changed at the end of September 1995, describing it as "finally conced[ing] what it had denied for so long".<ref name=Simms />

==Drug liberalization==
''The Economist'' has, since 1989,<ref>{{cite news|title=Hooked on just saying no|work=Economist.com|access-date=2010-05-26|url=http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13251312}}</ref> argued for the [[Drug liberalization|legalisation of drugs]], calling it the "least bad solution" in a 2009 issue.<ref>"How to stop the drug wars", ''The Economist'' (2009–3–5) (The Economist Newspaper Limited)</ref> A February 2016 article praised the undergoing process of [[legalisation of cannabis]] in several countries worldwide.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21692881-argument-legalisation-cannabis-has-been-won-now-difficult-bit-right?fsrc=scn/fb/te/pe/ed/therightwaytododrugs|title=The right way to do drugs|date=13 February 2016|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>

==Global warming==
''The Economist'' supports government action on [[global warming]]. In 1987 the paper called for a [[carbon price|price on carbon emissions]]. In 1997 it wrote that the United States showed "dangerous signs" of using the [[developing world]] as an excuse to do nothing about global warming.<ref name="Economist1997SharingGreenhouse">{{cite news | title=Sharing the greenhouse | newspaper=The Economist | date=1997-10-09 | url=https://www.economist.com/leaders/1997/10/09/sharing-the-greenhouse | access-date=2019-03-22}}</ref> In 1998, ''The Economist'' expressed its view that global warming may be a catastrophe that warrants much spending to reduce fossil fuels, but before this, climatologists need a stream of reliable data.<ref name="Economist1998_A heated controversy">{{cite news | title=A heated controversy | newspaper=The Economist | date=1998-08-13 | url=https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/1998/08/13/a-heated-controversy | access-date=2019-03-22}}</ref> In a December editorial before the [[2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference]], ''The Economist'' declared its view that the risk of catastrophic climate change and [[Economic analysis of climate change|its effect on the economy]] outweighs the economic consequences of insuring against global warming now.<ref>"The Copenhagen Summit", ''The Economist'' Volume 393 Number 8660 (2009–12–5) (The Economist Newspaper Limited)</ref>

==War in Afghanistan==
''The Economist'' supported the [[War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)|ISAF/NATO operation in Afghanistan]], and called on [[Barack Obama]] to fight the war "with conviction". It supported his escalation of the American presence there in late 2009, on the basis of security interests and that a withdrawal "would amount to a terrible betrayal of the Afghan people, some of whose troubles are the result of Western intervention".<ref>"Obama's war", ''The Economist'' Volume 393 Number 8653 (17 October 2009) (The Economist Newspaper Limited)</ref>

==Invasion of Iraq==
''The Economist'' supported the [[2003 invasion of Iraq]],<ref>"The case for war&nbsp;– revisited", ''The Economist'' (2003–7–17) (The Economist Newspaper Limited)</ref> even as early as August 2002, when it argued that "the danger Mr. [Saddam] Hussein poses cannot be overstated". It presented to readers a choice for the West between two options: "to give up and give in, or to remove Mr. Hussein before he gets his bomb. Painful as it is, our vote is for war."

The paper maintained its original support for invasion throughout 2003, but expressed unhappiness as to how it was unfolding, in particular the failure to find any stockpiles or other evidence of weapons of mass destruction. It chastised the Bush administration in July 2003 for its "incomprehensible" defence of its post-war planning. In 2007 the paper disavowed its original judgment in support of the invasion, describing the war a "debacle" that "has inflicted fear, misery and death on its intended beneficiaries".<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_RRRTGGP |title=Mugged by reality |access-date=9 April 2007 |newspaper=The Economist |date=22 March 2007}}</ref>

The episode is remembered by the newspaper's readers, critics and journalists alike. In 2017 ''The Economist'' wrote: "A newspaper cannot publish for 174 years without some mistakes. This one has made its share. We thought Britain was safe in the European exchange-rate mechanism just weeks before it crashed out; we opined, in 1997, that Indonesia was well placed to avoid financial crisis; we noted in 1999 that oil, at $10 per barrel, might well reach $5, almost perfectly timing the bottom of the market; and in 2003 we supported the invasion of Iraq."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21723126-online-journal-encourages-economists-own-up-past-blunders-err-human |title=To err is human; so is the failure to admit it |access-date=16 June 2017| newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>

== China ==
''The Economist'' has been noted to generally take a [[Market sentiment|bearish]] stance on the [[Economy of China|Chinese economy]] and political system.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Woodward |first=Jude |url=https://www.google.nl/books/edition/The_US_vs_China/i3G5DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22the+economist%22+china+collapse&pg=PT57&printsec=frontcover |title=The US vs China: Asia's new Cold War? |date=2017-08-10 |publisher=Manchester University Press |isbn=978-1-5261-1656-7 |language=en |quote=The Economist's special supplement on China in 2002 was entitled 'A dragon out of puff'. Fourteen years later it was still arguing: 'It is a question of when, not if, real trouble will hit China.'}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Huang |first=Yukon |url=https://www.google.nl/books/edition/Cracking_the_China_Conundrum/WjooDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22the+economist%22+china+collapse&pg=PA40&printsec=frontcover |title=Cracking the China Conundrum: Why Conventional Economic Wisdom Is Wrong |date=2017-06-22 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-063005-8 |language=en |quote=The Economist reporting, “In the coming decade, therefore, China seems set to become more unstable. It will face growing unrest as unemployment mounts."}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |title=The great fall of China? |url=https://www.economist.com/leaders/2004/05/13/the-great-fall-of-china |access-date=2025-01-19 |work=The Economist |issn=0013-0613}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Han |first=Heyuan |date=2023-11-28 |title=Will China's economy 'collapse' again? |url=https://www.thinkchina.sg/economy/will-chinas-economy-collapse-again |quote=Looking back on the 2000s, the world at large (...) was not optimistic about China, whose entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) was accompanied by a wave of the "China collapse theory". UK publication The Economist was most representative of this.}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=“China Economic Collapse” Prediction Doomed to Collapse Again-The “Taking a longer view of China's economy” commentary series_Photo news_Invest in Dongguan |url=https://fipc.dg.gov.cn/ywb/newsevents/photonews/content/post_4077491.html |access-date=2025-01-19 |website=fipc.dg.gov.cn |quote=A recent issue of the Economist had, on its cover, a scary giant dragon alluding to the Chinese economy, with the caption “China’ Economy Has Peaked”. The same dragon image appeared on a special supplement to the June 15, 2002 issue, with a headline that reads the “Breathless Chinese Dragon”. The publication predicted at the time that China’s economy would grow significantly slower in the coming decade.}}</ref>

==Endorsements==
Like many newspapers, ''The Economist'' uses its pages to endorse candidates and parties ahead of major elections.

===British general elections===
''The Economist'' has endorsed a party at every [[List of United Kingdom general elections|United Kingdom general election]] since 1955, having remained neutral before that, on the grounds that "A journal that is jealous of its reputation for independence would, in any event, be foolish to compromise it by openly taking sides in a general election."<ref>''The Economist'', 4 February 1950, p. 243</ref>
{| class=wikitable
|-
! Year
! colspan="2" |Party
!Leader
! Endorsement
! Outcome
|-
|[[1955 United Kingdom general election|1955]]
| style="background-color: {{party color|Conservative Party (UK)}}" |
|[[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative]]
|[[Anthony Eden|Sir Anthony Eden]]
|"[I]n the election of 1955 an elector who tries to reach his conclusion by reason based on observation has no choice. He may not like voting Tory. But there is nothing else he can do."<ref>''The Economist'', 21 May 1955, p. 645</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
|[[1959 United Kingdom general election|1959]]
| style="background-color: {{party color|Conservative Party (UK)}}" |
|Conservative
|[[Harold Macmillan]]
|"The Tories deserve a vote, if not of confidence, then of hope."<ref>''The Economist'', 3 October 1959, p. 19</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
|[[1964 United Kingdom general election|1964]]
| style="background-color: {{party color|Labour Party (UK)}}" |
|[[Labour Party (UK)|Labour]]
|[[Harold Wilson]]
|"It does seem to ''The Economist'' that, on the nicest balance, the riskier choice of Labour—and Mr Wilson—will be the better choice for voters to make on Thursday."<ref>''The Economist'', 10 October 1964, p. 115</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
|[[1966 United Kingdom general election|1966]]
| style="background-color: {{party color|Conservative Party (UK)}}" |
|Conservative
|[[Edward Heath]]
|"On their record in the past decade, as in the past weel, on the central issues of British policy the choice must be for Mr Heath."<ref>''The Economist'', 26 March 1966, p. 1205</ref>
|'''Lost''' {{N}}
|-
|[[1970 United Kingdom general election|1970]]
| style="background-color: {{party color|Conservative Party (UK)}}" |
|Conservative
|Edward Heath
|"But the Conservatives provide the better hope on at least three grounds: restoring some incentives to risk-taking, not destroying savings through Mr Crossman's pension scheme, and making some overdue advance towards trade union reform."<ref>''The Economist'', 6 June 1970, p. 11</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
|[[February 1974 United Kingdom general election|February 1974]]
| style="background-color: {{party color|Conservative Party (UK)}}" |
|Conservative
|Edward Heath
|"If they want the resolution that they will win through one day ... then [[there is no alternative]] to Mr Heath."<ref>''The Economist'', 23 February 1974</ref>
|'''Lost''' {{N}}
|-
|{{nowrap|[[October 1974 United Kingdom general election|October<br>1974]]}}
| style="background-color: {{party color|Conservative Party (UK)}}" |
|Conservative
|[[Edward Heath]]
|"[A]lthough a good Liberal contribution would be essential to the formation, and the success, of any coalition, it is the Conservatives who will provide the strongest and toughest opposition to a majority Labour government next week." While expressing a preference for the Conservatives, they also hoped for the "reinforcement of the sensible centre wherever it can be managed: that includes social democratic Labour men, who may yet have a decisive part to play, as much as it includes Conservatives who would rely on unemployment as their main policy"<ref>''The Economist'', 5 October 1979, pp. 14, 15</ref>
|'''Lost''' {{N}}
|-
|[[1979 United Kingdom general election|1979]]
| style="background-color: {{party color|Conservative Party (UK)}}" |
|Conservative
|[[Margaret Thatcher]]
|"We are not confident that it will be proved, but we would like to see it tried. ''The Economist'' votes for Mrs Thatcher being given her chance." This year they recognized the risk of Margaret Thatcher, and supported the [[Liberal Party (UK)|Liberal Party]], led by [[David Steel]], as "the choice for the timid."<ref>''The Economist'', 28 April 1979, pp. 15, 17</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
|[[1983 United Kingdom general election|1983]]
| style="background-color: {{party color|Conservative Party (UK)}}" |
|Conservative
|Margaret Thatcher
|"We believe Mrs Thatcher and her colleagues should be given a second chance to deliver them, with the fewest possible Labour (as distinct from alliance) MPs elected against her."<ref>''The Economist'', 4 June 1983, p. 12</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
|[[1987 United Kingdom general election|1987]]
| style="background-color: {{party color|Conservative Party (UK)}}" |
|Conservative
|{{nowrap|Margaret Thatcher}}
|"The Tories may not succeed; the Thatcher revolution may stall, unfinished. But to end its chances now would be folly, grand scale."<ref>''The Economist'', 6 June 1987, p. 14</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
|[[1992 United Kingdom general election|1992]]
| style="background-color: {{party color|Conservative Party (UK)}}" |
|Conservative
|[[John Major]]
|"Mr Ashdown's best long-term hope for a Liberal revival lies in overturning the past 92 years, so that the Labour Party and the Liberals rejoin each other. For that to happen, Labour must lose this election, and the bigger its loss the better. And that, given the depressing state of British politics, is the best reason for wanting the Conservatives to win next week."<ref>''The Economist'', 4 April 1992, p. 16</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
|[[1997 United Kingdom general election|1997]]
| style="background-color: {{party color|Conservative Party (UK)}}" |
|Conservative
|John Major
|"Labour doesn't deserve it"<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displayStory.cfm?story_ID=86742&subjectid=348897 | newspaper=The Economist | title=Labour doesn't deserve it | date=24 April 1997}}</ref>
|'''Lost''' {{N}}
|-
|[[2001 United Kingdom general election|2001]]
| style="background-color: {{party color|Labour Party (UK)}}" |
|Labour
|[[Tony Blair]]
|"Vote conservative—But choose the ambiguous right-winger rather than the feeble one"<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displayStory.cfm?story_ID=639306&subjectid=483478 | newspaper=The Economist | title=Vote conservative | date=31 May 2001}}</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
|[[2005 United Kingdom general election|2005]]
| style="background-color: {{party color|Labour Party (UK)}}" |
|Labour
|Tony Blair
|"There is no alternative (alas)"<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3910189 | newspaper=The Economist | title=There is no alternative (alas) | date=28 April 2005}}</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
|[[2010 United Kingdom general election|2010]]
| style="background-color: {{party color|Conservative Party (UK)}}" |
|Conservative
|[[David Cameron]]
|"But in this British election the overwhelming necessity of reforming the public sector stands out. It is not just that the budget deficit is a terrifying 11.6% of GDP, a figure that makes tax rises and spending cuts inevitable. Government now accounts for over half the economy, rising to 70% in Northern Ireland. For Britain to thrive, this liberty-destroying Leviathan has to be tackled. The Conservatives, for all their shortcomings, are keenest to do that; and that is the main reason why we would cast our vote for them."<ref>{{cite news |title=Who should govern Britain |url=https://www.economist.com/leaders/2010/04/29/who-should-govern-britain |newspaper=The Economist |access-date=25 March 2021}}</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
|[[2015 United Kingdom general election|2015]]
| style="background-color: {{party color|Conservative Party (UK)}}" |
|Conservative
|David Cameron
|"On that calculus, the best hope for Britain is with a continuation of a Conservative-led coalition."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21650113-despite-risk-europe-coalition-led-david-cameron-should-have-second-term-who|title=Who should govern Britain?|date=2 May 2015|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
|[[2017 United Kingdom general election|2017]]
| style="background-color: {{party color|Liberal Democrats (UK)}}" |
|Liberal Democrat
|[[Tim Farron]]
|"No party passes with flying colours. But the closest is the Liberal Democrats."<ref name=UK2017>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21722855-leaders-both-main-parties-have-turned-away-decades-old-vision-open-liberal?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/thebritishelectionthemiddlehasfallenoutofbritishpolitics|title=The middle has fallen out of British politics|date=1 June 2017|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref> This support was despite the fact that "We know that this year the Lib Dems are going nowhere."<ref name=UK2017 />
|'''Lost''' {{N}}
|-
|[[2019 United Kingdom general election|2019]]
| style="background-color: {{party color|Liberal Democrats (UK)}}" |
|Liberal Democrat
|[[Jo Swinson]]
|"As last time, they are the only choice for anyone who rejects both the hard Brexit of the Conservatives and the hard-left plans of Labour."<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/12/05/britains-nightmare-before-christmas|title=Britain's nightmare before Christmas|newspaper=The Economist|access-date=2019-12-05|issn=0013-0613}}</ref>
|'''Lost''' {{N}}
|-
|[[2024 United Kingdom general election|2024]]
| style="background-color: {{party color|Labour Party (UK)}}" |
|Labour
|[[Keir Starmer]]
|"If we had a vote on July 4th, we, too, would pick Labour, because it has the greatest chance of tackling the biggest problem that Britain faces: a chronic and debilitating lack of economic growth."<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/06/27/keir-starmer-should-be-britains-next-prime-minister|title=Keir Starmer should be Britain's next prime minister|newspaper=The Economist|access-date=2024-06-27}}</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|}

===United States presidential elections===
{| class=wikitable |-
! Year
! Candidate
! colspan=2|Party
! Endorsement
! Outcome
|-
|[[1980 United States presidential election|1980]]
|[[Ronald Reagan]]
| {{party name with colour|Republican Party (US)}}
|"That, perhaps, is the most pressing reason why so many of America's friends want, unusually in a presidential election, to see a change at the top, even one laden with risk. We agree with them."<ref name="uspres">{{cite news|url=http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12499760|title=US presidential endorsements|date=28 October 2008|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
|[[1984 United States presidential election|1984]]
|colspan=4|No endorsement<ref name="uspres"/>
|-
|[[1988 United States presidential election|1988]]
|colspan=4|No endorsement, "Oh dear!"<ref name="uspres"/>
|-
|[[1992 United States presidential election|1992]]
|[[Bill Clinton]]
| {{party name with colour|Democratic Party (US)}}
|"Despite the risks, the possibilities are worth pursuing. Our choice falls on him."<ref name="uspres"/>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
|[[1996 United States presidential election|1996]]
|[[Bob Dole]]
| {{party name with colour|Republican Party (US)}}
|"We choose him on the assumption that the real Bob Dole is the one who spent three decades on Capitol Hill, not this year's dubious character; that he would be more prudent than his economic plan implies. That is an awkward basis for an endorsement. But the choice is a lousy one."<ref name="uspres"/>
|'''Lost''' {{N}}
|-
|[[2000 United States presidential election|2000]]
|{{nowrap|[[George W. Bush]]}}
| {{party name with colour|Republican Party (US)}}
|"''The Economist'', if it had a vote, would choose [[George W. Bush]]. It prefers his small government, pro-market philosophy. And, on the simple test of the two crises, he wins on points: behind on a foreign crisis, but well ahead in a domestic one."<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.economist.com/node/415334 | newspaper=The Economist | title=Crunch Time | date=2 November 2000}}</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
|[[2004 United States presidential election|2004]]
|[[John Kerry]]
| {{party name with colour|Democratic Party (US)}}
|"The incompetent George W. Bush or the incoherent John Kerry"<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3329802 | newspaper=The Economist | title=The incompetent or the incoherent? | date=28 October 2004}}</ref>
|'''Lost''' {{N}}
|-
|[[2008 United States presidential election|2008]]
|[[Barack Obama]]
| {{party name with colour|Democratic Party (US)}}
|"He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency."<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12516666 | newspaper=The Economist | title=It's time | date=30 October 2008}}</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
|[[2012 United States presidential election|2012]]
|[[Barack Obama]]
| {{party name with colour|Democratic Party (US)}}
|"Mr Obama has dragged America's economy back from the brink of disaster, and has made a decent fist of foreign policy. So this newspaper would stick with the devil it knows, and re-elect him."<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21565623-america-could-do-better-barack-obama-sadly-mitt-romney-does-not-fit-bill-which-one | newspaper=The Economist | title=Which one? | date=3 November 2012}}</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
|[[2016 United States presidential election|2016]]
|[[Hillary Clinton]]
| {{party name with colour|Democratic Party (US)}}
|"Hence our vote goes to both Mrs Clinton and her party. Partly because she is not Mr Trump, but also in the hope she can show that ordinary politics works for ordinary people—the sort of renewal that American democracy requires."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21709540-why-we-would-cast-our-hypothetical-vote-hillary-clinton-americas-best-hope|title=America's best hope|date=5 November 2016|newspaper=The Economist|access-date=31 December 2016}}</ref>
|'''Lost''' {{N}}
|-
|[[2020 United States presidential election|2020]]
|[[Joe Biden]]
| {{party name with colour|Democratic Party (US)}}
|"Joe Biden is not a miracle cure for what ails America. But he is a good man who would restore steadiness and civility to the White House. He is equipped to begin the long, difficult task of putting a fractured country back together again. That is why, if we had a vote, it would go to Joe."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/10/29/why-it-has-to-be-biden|title=Why it has to be Biden|date=29 October 2020|newspaper=The Economist|access-date=29 October 2020}}</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
|[[2024 United States presidential election|2024]]
|[[Kamala Harris]]
| {{party name with colour|Democratic Party (US)}}
|"Presidents do not have to be saints and we hope that a second Trump presidency would avoid disaster. But Mr Trump poses an unacceptable risk to America and the world. If ''The Economist'' had a vote, we would cast it for Ms Harris."<ref>{{Cite news |title=A second Trump term comes with unacceptable risks |url=https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/10/31/a-second-trump-term-comes-with-unacceptable-risks |access-date=2024-10-31 |work=The Economist |issn=0013-0613}}</ref>
|'''Lost''' {{N}}
|}

===Other national elections===
{| class=wikitable
|-
! Country
! Year
! colspan="2" |Party
!Leader/Candidate
! Endorsement
! Outcome
|-
!rowspan=3|{{flagg|pxx|Argentina|size=45}}<br>[[Argentina]]
|[[2015 Argentine general election|2015]]
| style="background-color: {{party color|Republican Proposal}}" |
|[[Republican Proposal]]
| rowspan="2" |[[Mauricio Macri]]
|"Argentines should choose Mr Macri."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21676770-front-runner-promises-continuity-country-needs-change-cleaning-up-after-cristina|title=Cleaning up after Cristina|date=24 October 2015|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
|[[2017 Argentine legislative election|2017]]
| style="background-color: {{party color|Cambiemos}}" |
|[[Cambiemos]]
|"On October 22nd Argentina's voters will render a judgment on Mr Macri in a mid-term congressional election. For the sake of Argentina, and of Latin America more broadly, it is important that he do well. A strong showing by his Cambiemos (Let's Change) coalition would help his government continue economic reforms."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/leaders/2017/10/21/breaking-the-spell-of-peronism|title=Breaking the spell of Peronism|date=21 October 2017|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
|[[2023 Argentine general election|2023]]
| style="background-color: {{party color|La Libertad Avanza}}" |
|[[La Libertad Avanza|Liberty Advances]]
|[[Javier Milei]]
|"The least bad outcome to hope for is that Mr Milei moderates his wild rhetoric and tries to assemble a coalition of sensible politicians keen on reform."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/10/23/argentinas-election-result-is-the-worst-of-all-possible-outcomes|title=Argentina's election result is the worst of all possible outcomes|date=23 October 2023|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
!rowspan=2|{{flagg|pxx|Australia|size=45}}<br>[[Australia]]
|[[2004 Australian federal election|2004]]
| style="background-color: {{party color|Coalition (Australia)}}" |
|[[Coalition (Australia)|Liberal-National coalition]]
|[[John Howard]]
|Had opposed Howard's bid for a third term in 2001<ref>{{cite news |date=30 September 2004 |title=John Howard reconsidered |newspaper=The Economist |url=http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3242828}}</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
|[[2013 Australian federal election|2013]]
| style="background-color: {{party color|Australian Labor Party}}" |
|[[Australian Labor Party|Labor]]
|[[Kevin Rudd]]
|"Mr Rudd gets our vote, largely because of Labor's decent record."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21584343-kevin-rudd-just-about-deserves-second-turn-lucky-no-more|title=Lucky no more|date=6 September 2013|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>
|'''Lost''' {{N}}
|-
! rowspan="6" |{{flagg|pxx|Brazil|size=45}}<br>[[Brazil]]
|[[1998 Brazilian general election|1998]]
|rowspan=4  style="background-color: {{party color|Brazilian Social Democracy Party}}" |
|rowspan=4|[[Brazilian Social Democracy Party|PSDB]]
|[[Fernando Henrique Cardoso]]
|"He has not managed everything perfectly in his first four years, and can be justly criticised for having, in one vital area, fallen far short of that impossible ideal. And he still has plenty to do (see article). But remember what he inherited, and look at what he has made of it, and the balance is heavily in his favour."<ref>{{Cite news|date=1998-10-08|title=Brazil's steady nerve|newspaper=The Economist|url=https://www.economist.com/leaders/1998/10/08/brazils-steady-nerve|access-date=2021-10-02|issn=0013-0613}}</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
|[[2002 Brazilian general election|2002]]
|[[José Serra]]
|Described him as the most market-friendly candidate.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Sales|first=Camila|title=O BRASIL NA ECONOMIST|url=https://repositorio.ufscar.br/bitstream/handle/ufscar/7401/TeseCMRS.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y|journal=UFSCar}}</ref>
|'''Lost''' {{N}}
|-
|[[2010 Brazilian presidential election|2010]]
|[[José Serra]]
|"In a suddenly exciting contest, José Serra would be a better president than Dilma Rousseff."<ref>{{Cite news|date=2010-10-21|title=Second round, second thoughts?|newspaper=The Economist|url=https://www.economist.com/leaders/2010/10/21/second-round-second-thoughts|access-date=2021-10-02|issn=0013-0613}}</ref>
|'''Lost''' {{N}}
|-
|[[2014 Brazilian general election|2014]]
|[[Aécio Neves]]
|"Voters should ditch Dilma Rousseff and elect Aécio Neves."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21625780-voters-should-ditch-dilma-rousseff-and-elect-cio-neves-why-brazil-needs-change|title=Why Brazil needs change|date=18 October 2014|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>
|'''Lost''' {{N}} 
|-
|[[2018 Brazilian general election|2018]]
|rowspan=2 style="background-color: {{party color|Workers' Party (Brazil)}}" |
|rowspan=2|[[Workers' Party (Brazil)|PT]]
|[[Fernando Haddad]]
|"Fernando Haddad is more temperate than his fire-breathing rival."<ref>{{Cite news|date=2018-10-20|title=The only man who can stop Jair Bolsonaro from becoming Brazil's president|newspaper=The Economist|url=https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2018/10/20/the-only-man-who-can-stop-jair-bolsonaro-from-becoming-brazils-president|access-date=2021-10-02|issn=0013-0613}}</ref>
|'''Lost''' {{N}}
|-
|[[2022 Brazilian general election|2022]]
|[[Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva|Lula da Silva]]
|"In short, he is far from the ideal candidate, but he is squarely within the realm of the normal—and he is a supporter of democracy. Mr Bolsonaro, by instinct, is not. ... The best outcome would be for Mr Bolsonaro to lose by such a wide margin that he cannot plausibly claim to have won."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/09/08/win-or-lose-jair-bolsonaro-poses-a-threat-to-brazilian-democracy|title=Win or lose, Jair Bolsonaro poses a threat to Brazilian democracy|date=8 September 2022|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
! rowspan="4" |{{flagg|pxx|Canada|size=45}}<br>[[Canada]]
| [[2006 Canadian federal election|2006]]
| rowspan="3" style="background-color: #6495ED" |
| rowspan="3" |[[Conservative Party of Canada|Conservative]]
| rowspan="3" |[[Stephen Harper]]
| "Those daring Canadians: And why they should vote Conservative this time"<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_VQTTJVR|title=Those daring Canadians|date=19 January 2006|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
| [[2008 Canadian federal election|2008]]
| "Why Stephen Harper does not deserve to be dumped"<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12381439|title=The fear factor|date=9 October 2008|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
|[[2011 Canadian federal election|2011]]
|"For these reasons ''The Economist'', like many Canadians, would be relieved if there were a better alternative to Mr Harper. But there is not."<ref>{{Cite news |title=Groundhog day |url=https://www.economist.com/leaders/2011/04/28/groundhog-day |access-date=2025-04-24 |work=The Economist |issn=0013-0613}}</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
| [[2025 Canadian federal election|2025]]
| style="background-color: {{party color|Liberal Party of Canada}}" |
|[[Liberal Party of Canada|Liberal]]
|[[Mark Carney]]
| "Pierre Poilievre of the Conservative Party is feisty and impressive, but you probably won’t be surprised to learn that ''The Economist'' believes Mark Carney, a former central banker and the leader of the Liberal Party, would make a better prime minister."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/leaders/2025/04/24/how-canada-went-from-preachy-to-pragmatic|title=How Canada went from preachy to pragmatic|date=24 April 2025|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
!{{flagg|pxx|Colombia|size=45}}<br>[[Colombia]]
|[[2018 Colombian presidential election|2018]]
| style="background-color: #99CC00" |
|[[Sergio Fajardo|Civic Compromise]]
|[[Sergio Fajardo]]
|"He would seek to improve the implementation of the peace agreement, not undermine it. He gets our vote."<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/05/26/the-faulty-front-runners-for-colombias-presidency|title=The faulty front-runners for Colombia's presidency|newspaper=The Economist|language=en|access-date=2018-05-27}}</ref>
|'''Lost''' {{N}}
|-
!{{flagg|pxx|Chile|size=45}}<br>[[Chile]]
|[[2021 Chilean general election|2021]]
| style="background-color: {{party color|Christian Democratic Party (Chile)}}" |
|[[Christian Democratic Party (Chile)|Christian Democratic]]
|[[Yasna Provoste]]
|"There are two moderate candidates, Yasna Provoste of the centre-left and Sebastián Sichel of the centre-right. Either, and especially Ms Provoste, would offer hope that Chile can draw back from its dangerous polarisation and find a new consensus."<ref>{{Cite news|date=2021-11-20|title=Chile's voters are on the verge of a terrible mistake|newspaper=The Economist|url=https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/11/20/chiles-voters-are-on-the-verge-of-a-terrible-mistake|access-date=2021-11-20|issn=0013-0613}}</ref>
|'''Lost''' {{N}}
|-
!{{flagg|pxx|Egypt|size=45}}<br>[[Egypt]]
|[[2012 Egyptian presidential election|2012]]
| style="background-color: {{party color|Freedom and Justice Party (Egypt)}}" |
|[[Freedom and Justice Party (Egypt)|Freedom and Justice]]
|[[Mohamed Morsi]]
|"A Muslim Brother is better than a Mubarak crony"<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.economist.com/node/21556941|title=Vote for the Brother|date=16 June 2012|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
! rowspan="5" |{{flagg|pxx|France|size=45}}<br>[[France]]
| [[2007 French presidential election|2007]]
|rowspan=2 style="background-color: {{party color|Union for a Popular Movement}}" |
|rowspan=2| [[Union for a Popular Movement|UMP]]
|rowspan=2| [[Nicolas Sarkozy]]
| "After a quarter-century of drift Nicolas Sarkozy offers the best hope of reform"<ref>{{cite news|url=http://economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9005216|title=France's chance|date=12 April 2007|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
| [[2012 French presidential election|2012]]
| "For all that, if we had a vote on May 6th, we would give it to Mr Sarkozy—but not on his merits, so much as to keep out Mr Hollande."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.economist.com/node/21553446|title=The rather dangerous Monsieur Hollande|date=26 April 2012|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>
|'''Lost''' {{N}}
|-
|[[2017 French presidential election|2017]]
|rowspan=3 style="background-color: {{party color|En Marche!}}" |
| rowspan="3" | [[En Marche!]]
|[[Emmanuel Macron]]
| "Either of the two pro-market candidates would be a blessing. ... Emmanuel Macron is untested and lacks the support of an established party; François Fillon is a social conservative tarnished by scandal. On balance, we would support Mr Macron."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21721143-french-go-polls-they-are-angry-and-divided-consequential-choice-franceand|title=A consequential choice for France—and an uncertain one|date=22 April 2017|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
|[[2017 French legislative election|2017]]
|[[Édouard Philippe]]
| "Mr Macron must also break the habit of 30 years in which France's reforms have been blocked by the hard left. Success rests on early, visible progress in two areas—employment and relations with Germany. ... LRM's landslide makes this programme more likely to succeed."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21723410-he-will-still-have-face-down-challenge-street-electoral-victory-will-make|title=Electoral victory will make France's president a potent force|date=15 June 2017|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
|[[2022 French presidential election|2022]]
|[[Emmanuel Macron]]
| "Mr Macron still has our vote. But he needs company" <ref>{{Cite news |date=2022-04-09 |title=Why Macron matters |newspaper=The Economist |url=https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/04/09/why-macron-matters |access-date=2022-04-09 |issn=0013-0613}}</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
!rowspan=6|{{flagg|pxx|Germany|size=45}}<br>[[Germany]]
| [[2002 German federal election|2002]]
|rowspan=2 style="background-color: {{party color|CDU/CSU}}" |
|rowspan=2| [[CDU/CSU]]
| [[Edmund Stoiber]]
| "Time for a change"<ref>{{cite news| url=http://economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1337340 | newspaper=The Economist | title=Time for a change | date=19 September 2002}}</ref>
|'''Lost''' {{N}}
|-
| [[2005 German federal election|2005]]
| [[Angela Merkel]]
| "For Germany's sake, and for the sake of reform right across the EU, voters should do their best to give Ms Merkel's Christian Democrats and their allies a clear majority on September 18th."<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.economist.com/node/4401619 | newspaper=The Economist | title=Time for a change | date=15 September 2005}}</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
|[[2009 German federal election|2009]]
| style="background-color: {{party color|Free Democratic Party (Germany)}}" |
|[[Free Democratic Party (Germany)|FDP]]
|[[Guido Westerwelle]]
| "If this newspaper had a vote in Germany's election, it would cast it for the FDP, in the hope that it joins a coalition with Ms Merkel's CDU."<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.economist.com/node/14447959 | newspaper=The Economist | title=Set Angela Free | date=7 September 2009}}</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
| [[2013 German federal election|2013]]
|rowspan=2 style="background-color: {{party color|CDU/CSU}}" |
|rowspan=2| [[CDU/CSU]]
|rowspan=2| [[Angela Merkel]]
| "And yet we believe Mrs Merkel is the right person to lead her country and thus Europe. That is partly because of what she is: the world's most politically gifted democrat and a far safer bet than her leftist opponents." The editorial also favoured a continuation of the existing CDU/CSU–FDP coalition.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21586343-german-voters-should-re-elect-angela-merkel-their-chancellorand-europes-leader-one-woman|title=The German election: One woman to rule them all|date=14 September 2013|newspaper=The Economist|access-date=16 April 2015}}</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
| [[2017 German federal election|2017]]
| "A continuation of the present grand coalition with the SPD threatens yet more sleepy stasis. Instead she should team up with the free-market Free Democratic Party and the Greens—who are wise on Europe and tougher on Russia. Such a coalition would stand a chance of shaking the country up. As its leader, the hesitant Mrs Merkel might even become the chancellor who surprised everybody."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21728618-and-why-she-must-become-bolder-her-almost-inevitable-fourth-term-why-angela-merkel-deserves|title=Why Angela Merkel deserves to win Germany's election|date=9 September 2017|newspaper=The Economist|access-date=22 September 2007}}</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
|[[2021 German federal election|2021]]
| style="background-color: {{party color|Social Democratic Party of Germany}}" |
|[[Social Democratic Party of Germany|SPD]]
|[[Olaf Scholz]]
| "the CDU/CSU, frankly, has blown it. Sixteen years in power has been enough. The party has run out of ideas and drive ... Mr Scholz has been an effective finance minister. The German people trust him. He is better placed than a CDU chancellor would be to work with the Greens on climate change."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/09/25/the-mess-merkel-leaves-behind|title=The mess Merkel leaves behind|date=25 September 2021|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
!rowspan=3|{{flagg|pxx|India|size=45}}<br>[[India]]
| [[2009 Indian general election|2009]]
|rowspan=3 style="background-color: {{party color|Indian National Congress}}" |
|rowspan=3| [[Indian National Congress]]
| [[Manmohan Singh]]
| "It has presided over an unprecedented economic boom, and has continued the course of cautious liberalisation and globalisation followed by its predecessors. ... For this reason, ''The Economist'', if it had a vote, would plump for Mr Singh's Congress."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.economist.com/node/13492427|title=India's jumbo election|date=16 April 2009|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref> 
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
| [[2014 Indian general election|2014]]
|rowspan=2| [[Rahul Gandhi]]
| "We do not find the prospect of a government led by Congress under Mr Gandhi an inspiring one. But we have to recommend it to Indians as the less disturbing option."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21600106-he-will-probably-become-indias-next-prime-minister-does-not-mean-he-should-be-can-anyone?spc=scode&spv=xm&ah=9d7f7ab945510a56fa6d37c30b6f1709|title=Can anyone stop Narendra Modi?|date=4 April 2014|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>
|'''Lost''' {{N}}
|-
| [[2019 Indian general election|2019]]
| "Congress, the BJP's only national rival, may be hidebound and corrupt, but at least it does not set Indians at one another's throats. ... It is a worthier recipient of Indians' votes than the BJP."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/05/02/under-narendra-modi-indias-ruling-party-poses-a-threat-to-democracy|title=Under Narendra Modi, India's ruling party poses a threat to democracy|date=2 May 2019|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>
|'''Lost''' {{N}}
|-
!{{flagg|pxx|Indonesia|size=45}}<br>[[Indonesia]]
|[[2019 Indonesian general election|2019]]
| style="background-color: {{party color|Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle}}" |
|[[Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle|PDI-P]]
|[[Joko Widodo]]
|"[Prabowo's] election would be a step backwards for Indonesia's 20-year-old democracy. It is heartening, therefore, that most polls show Jokowi firmly in the lead."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/04/11/jokowi-the-better-candidate-is-leading-in-indonesias-election|title=Jokowi, the better candidate, is leading in Indonesia's election|date=11 April 2019|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
!{{flagg|pxx|Israel|size=45}}<br>[[Israel]]
|[[2015 Israeli legislative election|2015]]
| style="background-color: {{party color|Zionist Union}}" |
|[[Zionist Union]]
|[[Isaac Herzog]]
|"[Herzog] is level-headed and has a credible security and economic team. He wants talks with the Palestinians and to heal ties with Mr Obama."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21646206-prime-ministers-failures-outweigh-his-achievements-israelis-should-back-yitzhak-herzog-bibis|title=Israel's election: Bibi's a bad deal|date=14 March 2015|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>
|'''Lost''' {{N}}
|-
!rowspan=4|{{flagg|pxx|Italy|size=45}}<br>[[Italy]]
| [[2006 Italian general election|2006]]
| style="background-color: {{party color|The Union (Italy)}}" |
| [[The Union (Italy)|The Union]]
| [[Romano Prodi]]
| "Italians have a rotten choice to make, but it is time to sack Silvio Berlusconi."<ref>{{cite news| url=http://economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_GSSNPPP | newspaper=The Economist | title=Basta, Berlusconi | date=6 April 2006}}</ref>
|'''Lost''' {{N}}
|-
| [[2008 Italian general election|2008]]
| rowspan=3 style="background-color: {{party color|Democratic Party (Italy)}}" |
| rowspan=3|[[Democratic Party (Italy)|Democratic Party]]
| [[Walter Veltroni]]
| "Silvio Berlusconi has failed to show that he is any more worthy of leading Italy today than he was in the past."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10966223|title=A Leopard, spots unchanged|date=3 April 2008|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>
|'''Lost''' {{N}}
|-
| [[2013 Italian general election|2013]]
| [[Pier Luigi Bersani]]
| The editorial called for a coalition between the centre-left and [[Mario Monti]]'s centrist coalition.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21571891-europes-most-sluggish-economy-needs-more-mario-montis-reforms-who-can-save-italy|title=Who can save Italy?|newspaper=The Economist|language=en|access-date=2018-03-04}}</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
| [[2018 Italian general election|2018]]
| [[Paolo Gentiloni]]
| "If The Economist had a vote, we would reject those woeful options and plump instead for continued government by the left-of-centre Democratic Party (PD)."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21737511-worlds-eighth-largest-economy-faces-woeful-set-choices-italy-goes-polls|title=Italy goes to the polls with bleak electoral prospects|date=1 March 2018|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>
|'''Lost''' {{N}}
|-
!{{flagg|pxx|Mexico|size=45}}<br>[[Mexico]]
|[[2012 Mexican general election|2012]]
| style="background-color: {{party color|Institutional Revolutionary Party}}" |
|[[Institutional Revolutionary Party]]
|[[Enrique Peña Nieto]]
|"Enrique Peña is the least bad choice. But he must still show he is a force for reform."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.economist.com/node/21557332|title=Back to the future|date=23 June 2012|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
!rowspan=2|{{flagg|pxx|Nigeria|size=45}}<br>[[Nigeria]]
|[[2015 Nigerian general election|2015]]
| style="background-color: {{party color|All Progressives Congress}}" |
|[[All Progressives Congress]]
|[[Muhammadu Buhari]]
|"We are relieved not to have a vote in this election. But were we offered one we would—with a heavy heart—choose Mr Buhari."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21642168-former-dictator-better-choice-failed-president-least-awful|title=Nigeria's election: The Least Awful|date=7 February 2015|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
|[[2023 Nigerian general election|2023]]
| style="background-color: {{party color|Labour Party (Nigeria)}}" |
|[[Labour Party (Nigeria)|Labour]]
|[[Peter Obi]]
|"He is the only candidate to offer Nigerians much hope of change. In a country that has been badly and repeatedly failed by its leaders, he is easily the best choice."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/02/16/nigeria-desperately-needs-a-new-kind-of-leadership|title=Nigeria desperately needs a new kind of leadership|date=16 February 2023|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>
|'''Lost''' {{N}}
|-
!{{flagg|pxx|the=yes|Philippines|size=45}}<br>[[Philippines]]
|[[2016 Philippine presidential election|2016]]
| style="background-color: {{party color|Liberal Party (Philippines)}}" |
|[[Liberal Party (Philippines)|Liberal Party]]
|[[Mar Roxas]]
|"This newspaper's view is that the dull but diligent Mr Roxas would make the best next president."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21697850-danger-personality-driven-politics-fatal-distraction|title=Fatal distraction|date=30 April 2016}}</ref>
|'''Lost''' {{N}}
|-
!{{flagg|pxx|the=yes|Poland|size=45}}<br>[[Poland]]
|[[2025 Polish presidential election|2025]]
| style="background-color: {{party color|Civic Platform}}" |
|[[Civic Platform]]
|[[Rafał Trzaskowski]]
|"Were [[Karol Nawrocki|Mr Nawrocki]] to win the second round, both Poland and Europe would suffer."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/leaders/2025/05/22/how-poland-can-keep-its-place-at-the-heart-of-europe|title=How Poland can keep its place at the heart of Europe|date=22 May 2025|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>
|'''Lost''' {{N}}
|-
!rowspan=3|{{flagg|pxx|South Africa|size=45}}<br>[[South Africa]]
| [[2014 South African general election|2014]]
| style="background-color: {{party color|Democratic Alliance (South Africa)}}" |
| [[Democratic Alliance (South Africa)|Democratic Alliance]]
| [[Helen Zille]]
| "The DA deserves to be endorsed. It has doggedly promoted non-racial and liberal values and sensible economic policies."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21601513-ruling-african-national-congress-sure-triumph-again-it-no-longer-deserves-time|title=Time to ditch Mandela's party|date=1 May 2014|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>
|'''Lost''' {{N}}
|-
| [[2019 South African general election|2019]]
| style="background-color: {{party color|African National Congress}}" |
| [[African National Congress]]
| [[Cyril Ramaphosa]]
| "But this time, with deep reservations, we would cast our notional vote, at the national level, for the ANC."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/04/25/to-stop-the-rot-in-south-africa-back-cyril-ramaphosa|title=To stop the rot in South Africa, back Cyril Ramaphosa|date=24 April 2019|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
| [[2024 South African general election|2024]]
| style="background-color: {{party color|Democratic Alliance (South Africa)}}" |
| [[Democratic Alliance (South Africa)|Democratic Alliance]]
| [[John Steenhuisen]]
| "When they vote on May 29th, they should throw out a party that has proved unable to govern. But that seems unlikely. Many voters still associate the ANC with liberation itself. ... The best option for South Africa would be for the ANC to work with the Democratic Alliance (DA), a moderate, liberal party that governs well at a local level."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/05/23/how-to-save-south-africa|title=How to save South Africa|date=23 May 2024|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
!rowspan=2|{{flagg|pxx|Spain|size=45}}<br>[[Spain]]
| [[2015 Spanish general election|2015]]
| style="background-color: {{party color|Citizens (Spanish political party)}}" |
| [[Citizens (Spanish political party)|Citizens]]
| [[Albert Rivera]]
| "If ''The Economist'' had a vote, it would go to Ciudadanos." The editorial called for a coalition between Ciudadanos and the conservative [[People's Party (Spain)|People's Party]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21684152-new-liberal-party-offers-antidote-populist-euro-blues-feliz-navidad-espa|title=¡Feliz Navidad, España!|date=19 December 2015|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>
|'''Lost''' {{N}}
|-
| [[April 2019 Spanish general election|2019]]
| style="background-color: {{party color|Spanish Socialist Workers' Party}}" |
| [[Spanish Socialist Workers' Party|PSOE]]
| [[Pedro Sánchez]]
| "Ideally, Spaniards would vote on April 28th for Mr Sánchez's party in large enough numbers for it not to need allies."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/04/17/more-political-paralysis-will-not-serve-spain-well|title=More political paralysis will not serve Spain well|date=17 April 2019|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
!rowspan=5|{{flagg|pxx|Turkey|size=45}}<br>[[Turkey]]
|[[2007 Turkish general election|2007]]
| {{party name with colour|Justice and Development Party (Turkey)}}
|[[Recep Tayyip Erdoğan]]
|"The best outcome would be the re-election of Recep Tayyip Erdogan"<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9516424|title=Of mullahs and majors|date=19 July 2007|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
|[[2011 Turkish general election|2011]]
| {{party name with colour|Republican People's Party}}
|[[Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu]]
|"Turkey's election: One for the opposition"<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.economist.com/node/18774786|title=Turkey's election: One for the opposition|date=2 June 2011|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>
|'''Lost''' {{N}}
|-
|[[June 2015 Turkish general election|June 2015]]
| {{party name with colour|Peoples' Democratic Party (Turkey)}}
|[[Selahattin Demirtaş]]
|"Why Turks should vote Kurd: It is the best way of stopping their country's drift towards autocracy."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21652320-it-best-way-stopping-their-countrys-drift-towards-autocracy-why-turks-should-vote-kurd|title=Why Turks should vote Kurd|date=30 May 2015|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>
|'''Lost''' {{N}}
|-
|[[2018 Turkish presidential election|2018]]
| rowspan=2 style="background-color: {{party color|Republican People's Party}}" |
| rowspan=2|[[Republican People's Party|CHP]]
|[[Muharrem İnce]]
|"On balance, Muharrem Ince, a former teacher who now represents [[Mustafa Kemal Atatürk|Kemal Ataturk]]'s old party, the CHP, is the best option."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/06/21/turkeys-president-deserves-to-lose-on-june-24th|title=Turkey's president deserves to lose on June 24th|date=21 June 2018|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>
|'''Lost''' {{N}}
|-
|[[2023 Turkish presidential election|2023]]
|[[Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu]]
|"We warmly endorse Kemal Kilicdaroglu as the next president of Turkey."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/05/04/if-turkey-sacks-its-strongman-democrats-everywhere-should-take-heart|title=If Turkey sacks its strongman, democrats everywhere should take heart|date=4 May 2023|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>
|'''Lost''' {{N}}
|-
!rowspan=2|{{flagg|pxx|the=yes|United States|size=45}}<br>[[United States]]
|[[2006 United States elections|2006<br>midterm]]
| {{party name with colour|Democratic Party (United States)}}
|[[Nancy Pelosi]] (H)<br>[[Harry Reid]] (S)
|"Whichever way you look at it, the Republicans deserve to get clobbered next week."<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=E1_RTDRDJG | newspaper=The Economist | title=The vultures gather | date=2 November 2006}}</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
|[[2018 United States elections|2018<br>midterm]]
| {{party name with colour|Democratic Party (United States)}}
|[[Nancy Pelosi]] (H)<br>[[Chuck Schumer]] (S)
|"[T]he route forward is by many small steps, beginning with next week's elections. And the first of those steps is for the House, at a minimum, to switch to Democratic control."<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/11/03/why-the-mid-terms-matter | newspaper=The Economist | title=America Divided | date=3 November 2018}}</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|-
!{{flagg|pxx|Zambia|size=45}}<br>[[Zambia]]
|[[2021 Zambian general election|2021]]
| style="background-color: {{party color|United Party for National Development}}" |
|[[United Party for National Development]]
|[[Hakainde Hichilema]]
|"On August 12th Zambians should do as they did in 1991 and 2021 — vote out the incumbent president. The main opposition candidate, Hakainde Hichilema, would be a huge improvement on Mr Lungu."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/08/07/zambias-election-is-crucial-but-its-not-a-fair-fight|title=Zambia's election is crucial, but it's not a fair fight|date=7 August 2021}}</ref>
|'''Elected''' {{Y}}
|}

===Local elections===
* [[2001 New York City mayoral election]]: [[Michael Bloomberg]], [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]], "''The Economist'' would shudder and pull the lever for Mr. Bloomberg"<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=842420 | newspaper=The Economist | title=Goodbye, Rudy Tuesday | date=1 November 2001}}</ref>
* [[2003 California recall]]: [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]], [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]], though the newspaper was strongly opposed to the recall itself<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2101394 | newspaper=The Economist | title=Has it come to this? | date=2 October 2003}}</ref>
* [[2004 London mayoral election]]: [[Ken Livingstone]], [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour]], "Why Londoners should vote for Ken Livingstone, despite his many flaws"<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2724986 | newspaper=The Economist | title=A capital choice | date=3 June 2004}}</ref>
* [[2012 London mayoral election]]: [[Boris Johnson]], [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative]], "Boris Johnson deserves another term as mayor of London. He also deserves a proper job"<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.economist.com/node/21553441 | newspaper=The Economist | title=A capital choice | date=26 April 2012}}</ref>

===Party primaries===
* [[2008 Kadima leadership election]]: [[Tzipi Livni]], "Ms Livni has the toughness and the vision to [achieve the co-operation of both a new American president and a host of difficult Arabs]. She is thus Israel's best chance of peace"<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.economist.com/node/12208607|title=Give Livni a chance|date=11 September 2008|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>
* [[2015 Labour Party (UK) leadership election|Labour leadership election, 2015]]: [[Liz Kendall]]<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/news/britain/21652367-would-labour-heeded-painful-messages-its-most-promising-wannabe-leader-liz-kendalls|title=Liz Kendall's high-stakes workout|date=30 May 2015|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>
* [[2015 Liberal Democrats leadership election]]: [[Norman Lamb]], "Of the two candidates, the drier Mr Lamb looks the more likely to raise from the ruins of the Lib Dems' defeat a distinctive force capable of pulling British politics in a liberal direction. He is the sober choice for a punch-drunk party"<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/news/britain/21657411-two-starkly-different-futures-liberal-democrats-vie-supremacy-battle|title=The battle for the ruins|date=11 July 2015|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>
* [[Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016]]: [[John Kasich]], "If ''The Economist'' had cast a vote in the Republican primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina or Nevada we would have supported John Kasich. The governor of Ohio has a good mixture of experience, in Congress and in his home state as well as in the private sector. He has also shown bravery, expanding Medicaid in Ohio though he knew it would count against him later with primary voters, as indeed it has"<ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21693579-front-runner-unfit-lead-great-political-party-let-alone-america-time-fire-trump|title=Time to fire Trump|magazine=economist.com}}</ref>
*[[2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries|Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2020]]: [[Joe Biden]], "Many younger Democrats think that the former vice-president's faith in his power to persuade Republicans to cross the aisle and support him is touching at best, and dangerously naive at worst. Yet the only way to bring about long-lasting change in Washington is for a president to find a coalition in Congress that is broad enough to pass laws. After Super Tuesday, it looks as if only one candidate on the Democratic side may be capable of doing that"<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/03/05/joe-biden-redux|title=Joe Biden redux|newspaper=The Economist|access-date=2020-03-06|issn=0013-0613}}</ref>

===Referendums===
* [[2014 Scottish independence referendum]]: opposed to independence.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21606832-why-we-hope-people-scotland-will-vote-stay-union-dont-leave-us-way |title=Don't leave us this way |newspaper=The Economist |date=11 July 2014 |access-date=9 September 2014}}</ref>
* [[2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum]]: supported remaining in the European Union.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/EconomistBrexitBriefs16.pdf |title=The Brexit briefs: Our guide to Britain's EU referendum |newspaper=The Economist |date=June 2016 |access-date=29 June 2016}}</ref>
* [[2016 Italian constitutional referendum]]: opposed the proposed new constitutional law.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21710816-country-needs-far-reaching-reforms-just-not-ones-offer-why-italy-should-vote-no |title=Why Italy should vote no in its referendum |newspaper=The Economist |date=November 2016 |access-date=26 November 2016}}</ref>
* [[2017 Turkish constitutional referendum]]: opposed the proposed new constitutional law.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21720590-recep-tayyip-erdogan-carrying-out-harshest-crackdown-decades-west-must-not-abandon |title=Turkey is sliding into dictatorship |newspaper=The Economist |date=April 2017 |access-date=15 April 2017}}</ref>
* [[2020 Chilean national plebiscite]]: supported a new constitution.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2020/10/24/chiles-momentous-referendum-on-its-constitution|title=Chile's momentous referendum on its constitution|newspaper=The Economist |date=24 October 2020 |access-date=27 October 2020}}</ref>
* [[2022 Chilean national plebiscite]]: opposed the [[2022 proposed Political Constitution of the Republic of Chile|proposed new Constitution]], calling it a "fiscally irresponsible left-wing wish list".<ref>{{Cite news |title=Voters should reject Chile's new draft constitution |newspaper=The Economist |url=https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/07/06/voters-should-reject-chiles-new-draft-constitution |access-date=2022-07-09 |issn=0013-0613}}</ref>

Some of these might not be considered official endorsements but express ''The Economist's'' view on the matter.

==Footnotes==
* {{note|ecsc|1}} In its 20 May 1950 edition, the newspaper remarked that the [[Schuman Plan]] would "stand or fall" depending from its effects on the links between Europe and the U.S., and warned that [[Konrad Adenauer]] and others were aiming to organize Western Europe on neutralist lines that would not ally it with the U.S. against the Soviet Union.<ref>{{cite book|author1=George Wilkes  |author2=Dominic Wring |name-list-style=amp |chapter=The British Press and Integration|title=Britain for and against Europe|editor1=David Baker |editor2=David Seawright |pages=187–188|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=1998|isbn= 9780198280781}}</ref>
* {{note|nn|2}} It was re-printed in the 8 January 1945 issue of ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]''.<ref name=PoP />

==References==
{{reflist}}
{{The Economist Group}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Editorial Stance}}
[[Category:The Economist]]