New industries sometimes argue for temporary trade
restrictions to help them get started. After a period of protection , the
argument goes these industries will mature and be able to compete with foreign
firms.
Similarly older industries sometimes argue that they need
temporary protection to help them adjust to new conditions. For example in
2002, president Bush imposed temporary tariffs on imported steel. He said, I decided
that imports were severely affecting our industry an important industry. The tariff
which ended up lasting 20 month, would offer temporary relief so that the
industry could restructure itself.
Economics are often skeptical about such claims. The primary
reason is that the infant-industry argument is difficult to implement in
practice. To apply protection successfully the government would need to decide
which industries will eventually be profitable and decide whether the benefits
of establishing will eventually be profitable and decide whether the benefits
of establishing these industries exceed the costs to consumer of protection. Yet
picking winners is extraordinarily difficult. It is made even more difficult by
the political powerful. And once a powerful industries is protected from foreign
competition the temporary policy is
sometimes hard to remove.
In addition many economists are skeptical about the
infant-industries argument even in principle. Suppose for instance that the
Isolandian steel industry is young and unable to compete profitably against foreign
rivals but there is reason to believe that the industry can be profitable in
the long run. In this case the owners of the firms should be willing to incur temporary
losses to obtain the eventual profits. Protection
is not necessary for an industry to grow. Firms in various industries such as
many internet firms today incur temporary losses in the hope of growing and
becoming profitable in the future. And many of them succeed even without
protection from foreign competition.
Comments
Post a Comment