When an industry is threatened with competition from other
countries opponents of free trade often argue that the industry is vital for
national security. In our example, isolandian steel companies might point out
that steel is used to make guns and tanks. Free trade would allow Isoland to
become dependent on foreign countries to supply steel. If a war later broke out
and the foreign supply was interrupted Isoland might be unable to produce
enough steel and weapons to defend itself.
Economist acknowledge that protecting key industries may be
appropriate when there are legitimate concerns. Yet they fear that this
argument may be used too quickly by producers eager to gain at consumers
expense.
One should be wary of the national-security argument when it
is made by representatives of industry rather than the defense establishment.
Companies have an incentive to exaggerate their role in national defense to
obtain protection from foreign competition. A nation’s general may see thing
very ydifferently. Indeed when the military is a consumer of an industry’s
output it would benefit from imports. Cheaper steel in isoland for example
would allow the Isolandian military to accumulate a stockpile of weapons at
lower cost.
Comments
Post a Comment