protectionism

(redirected from Economic protectionism)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.

Protectionism

Notion that governments should protect domestic industry from import competition by means of tariffs, quotas, and other trade barriers.

Protectionism

Any government policy or regulation that restricts international trade. Examples include import quotas, which set a maximum number of imports for a certain good over a given period of time, and import substitution, in which the state subsidizes businesses and industries to make domestic goods less expensive. By far the most common example, however, is the tariff, which is a tax on imports. Proponents of protectionism argue that it encourages domestic production of goods and helps working class people, while critics contend that it hurts the people it aims to help by discouraging competition, which may drive down prices. The balance of protectionism and free trade is a controversial topic regarding the government's role in international trade. See also: General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

protectionism

The establishment of barriers to the importation of goods and services from foreign countries in order to protect domestic producers. Protectionism generates higher consumer prices. It is also likely to penalize domestic exporters because foreign countries are apt to retaliate with trade barriers of their own.

protectionism

the measures taken by a country to protect certain of its domestic industries from foreign competition and, on occasion, to assist the country's balance of payments. See TARIFF, QUOTA, DUMPING, LOCAL CONTENT RULES, SUBSIDIES, FREE TRADE, WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION.

protectionism

a deliberate policy on the part of governments to erect trade barriers such as TARIFFS and QUOTAS in order to protect domestic industries from foreign competition.

While there are arguments for protection, especially appealing to sectional interests, protectionism cannot, for the most part, be vindicated as being in the best interests of the national and international community. Take, for example, the often cited contention that tariffs are needed to equalize wage rates between countries. The UK and US textile industries complain that their domestic positions are undermined by foreign suppliers who employ ‘cheap labour’. It should be noted, however, that for the economy as a whole, high wage rates are the result, not the cause, of productive efficiency - other industries successfully meet foreign competition in both domestic and foreign markets despite higher wages. This is because they rank higher in the order of COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE. Protection of industries that come low in the order of comparative advantage distorts the industrial ranking and leads to inefficient resource utilization. Foreign competition would force contraction of the textile industries, and the resources released from it could then be devoted to products in which the country has a comparative advantage.

Protection might be necessary, it is suggested, in the short term to facilitate an orderly restructuring of industries (particularly where manpower resources are highly localized), but there is the danger that such protection might become permanent in the face of vested interests.

Other arguments for protection, while superficially appealing, can usually be achieved more effectively by alternative means. Thus, selective tariffs and quotas may assist in restoring BALANCE-OF-PAYMENTS EQUILIBRIUM but distort the ordering of industries by comparative advantage. By contrast, aggregate fiscal and monetary policies and exchange-rate adjustments affect all foreign transactions.

There are, however, some seemingly respectable arguments for protection. From the viewpoint of the welfare of the world as a whole, the most popular claim made for tariffs, etc., is the so-called INFANT-INDUSTRY argument. Protection can be an effective means of stimulating the development of an industry that is well suited to a country (in terms of potential comparative advantage) but that finds it impossible to get started unless it is protected from imports. Over time, suitably protected, such an industry is able to acquire internal economies of scale (i.e. lower costs through exploiting a larger domestic market) and to take advantage of various external economies (a well-trained labour force or the ‘learning-by-doing’ effect). Eventually the new industry is able to become equally or more efficient than its older competitors. The tariff can then be removed, leaving behind a viable and competitive industry.

Such temporary protection of industries does not conflict with the goal of free traders: maximum specialization on the basis of comparative advantage. It is only through the temporary equalization of competitive conditions that the industry is able to reach that stage of development that allows it to fully realize its potential.

There are problems, however. Industries are frequently selected for protection not on the basis of a favourable comparative advantage but for nationalistic reasons (e.g. diversification of the economy); ‘infant industry’ becomes a slogan to justify promiscuous protection without regard to merit. The protection afforded may be over-excessive and continue for longer than is strictly necessary.

In some circumstance, tariffs can be employed to improve a country's TERMS OF TRADE by forcing down prices in exporting countries. This applies especially to major importers who are large enough to exercise buying power. It is to be noted, however, that the gain from lower-priced imports may be offset by two adverse effects of tariffs: their diversion of resources to less productive uses and the fact that trade partners are likely to retaliate by imposing tariffs of their own. See also IMPORT RESTRICTIONS, NOMINAL RATE OF PROTECTION, EFFECTIVE RATE OF PROTECTION, BEGGAR-MY-NEIGHBOUR POLICY, MULTI-FIBRE ARRANGEMENT, DUMPING, LOCAL CONTENT RULE, WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION.

References in periodicals archive ?
Arbitrated minimum employment conditions and industry protections have always been important to the New Zealand "wage-earners' welfare state" (Castles 1996), so economic protectionism is a good place to start when considering social citizenship.
To assess whether New Zealand's experience of neoliberal reform led its citizens to make a clearer shift away from supporting economic protectionism and the welfare state than seen in Australia, the paper draws on the few regular data sources available: the New Zealand Election Study (NZES--Vowles et al.
We welcome the opportunity to challenge laws whose sole purpose is economic protectionism," said Judge Kenneth W.
Two wineries in California and Virginia, and three New York wine lovers, sued the New York State Liquor Authority, claiming the direct shipment ban was economic protectionism for local wineries and wholesalers.
Buchanan embraces not the free market, but its antithesis: economic protectionism, anti-immigration, populist hostility to big business, religion-inspired regulation.
The emergence of these New Multinationals is in some sense a tribute to the effectiveness of economic protectionism.
Why" is explained by health care futurist Jeff Goldsmith: "The twin propositions [in California] were transparent economic protectionism.
New Jersey where it found New Jersey's prohibition of solid waste from outside that state to amount to economic protectionism barred by the Commerce Clause.
China has for years been engaging in economic protectionism and a quiet economic war affecting all of its trading partners.
Support for Le Pen's populist National Front (FN) party, which advocates tighter immigration policies and economic protectionism, surged recently.
Hostility to immigration and economic protectionism, which is already visible, can be projected to increase.
Rockett (film studies, Trinity College Dublin) provides a thorough study, organizing the subject as follows: film distribution and exhibition, 1909-29; economic protectionism and foreign oligopoly, 1929-46; British and American film interests in Ireland after the Second World War; the emergence of Ward Anderson and the challenge from new distribution technologies; multiplexes; alternative exhibition; Irish Catholic film policies in the 1920s and 1930s; and establishing a Catholic-sanctioned film culture.