Why is protectionism bad

Trade barriers at home raise the costs and reduce the amount of imports that can be purchased. Free trade reduces those costs and increases purchasing power at home. Trade barriers — the handmaiden of protectionism — are simply taxes on consumers and businesses that impede the global division of labour and the creation of wealth.

Live Now. This article appeared on City A. This site uses cookies to deliver website functionality and analytics. If you would like to know more about the types of cookies we serve and how to change your cookie settings, please read our Cookie Notice.

By clicking the "I accept" button, you consent to the use of these cookies. It is sometimes alleged that for all the microeconomic distortions that protectionist policies inflict, there can be a silver lining in terms of macroeconomic gains: more jobs, more output and a stronger trade balance.

Indeed, some economies today are seemingly using commercial policy to pursue macroeconomic objectives. Tariffs can dampen imports, boost net exports the difference between exports and imports, or the trade balance , and so boost GDP, other things being equal.

Economists, however, have generally been skeptical. Since the time of Adam Smith or maybe even before , open and competitive markets have been seen as most likely to maximize output by directing resources more productively.

Tariffs, on the other hand, encourage both the deflection of trade to inefficient producers and smuggling in order to evade them; such distortions reduce any beneficial effects. Further, consumers lose more from tariffs than producers gain, so there is deadweight loss.

And the redistributions associated with tariffs tend to create vested interests, so harm tends to persist. Broad-based protectionism can also provoke retaliation, which adds further costs in other markets. Moreover, economists believe macroeconomic policies fiscal and monetary policies such as interest rates or the budget deficit to be the natural instruments for achieving macroeconomic goals, such as raising growth and jobs.

Tariffs are more likely to lead to offsetting changes in exchange rates that frustrate the achievement of macroeconomic objectives; less imports and a stronger trade balance increase demand for the domestic currency, and so its value.

There is in addition a powerful lesson from history. Next it will examine the politics of trade and the relationship between international trade and domestic trade.

Then it will address the fairness objection, and a conclusion will pull all these threads together. This book deals mainly with the theory of free trade, but it provides a few examples. The reader will find many other examples in the media and in political debates. Each week, we will send you the latest in publications, media, and events featuring Mercatus research and scholars. Skip to main content. Sparking New Thinking Read Discourse magazine Online journal dedicated to promoting and defending classical liberal values with new and innovative thinking.

Grants and fellowships for talented individuals with unique ideas for changing the world. Online platform providing a world-class economics education to everyone, everywhere for free. Main Close. Advancing Ideas Sparking New Thinking Read Discourse magazine Online journal dedicated to promoting and defending classical liberal values with new and innovative thinking. Connect With Mercatus Get the latest in research, commentary, and more from Mercatus scholars. But quotas do not save specific jobs.

Protectionists tend to believe that by diverting demand to domestic corporations, quotas will improve their profitability and prevent plant closures. Better prospects for profitability that attract investment, however, may induce a change in plant location or the purchase of more automated machinery.

To the extent that protection encourages such a response, it can exacerbate dislocation and reduce employment. In fact, we found that of 16 major U. And even in this instance, protection failed to save many of the jobs existing when it was granted.

Moreover, while trade shelters may temporarily slow the shrinkage of a particular industry, it can lead to fewer jobs for those distributing protected goods as well as those using such goods in their own manufacture. By raising domestic prices for steel, for example, quota protection undermines the competitiveness of the car and machinery industries, heavy users of steel.

So protection is an extremely costly, unpredictable, and inefficient device for saving jobs. Indeed, by encouraging relocation and automation, by screening domestic producers from competition, and by raising production costs, it may actually reduce the number of jobs in some industries.

And even if protection temporarily preserves jobs, the effects wane with time while workers elsewhere in the economy may actually be harmed. Because the U. But protectionists often lobby their cause with the objective of gaining import-damaged industries a breathing period in which to recuperate and modernize.

This line of argument raises an important question: If an industry can be profitable once it has attained enough capacity or experience in the case of the infant industry or when it has reequipped itself in the case of the recuperating industry , what prevents it from entering the capital market to get the finances to tide itself over until it is profitable? The industry rejuvenation rationale for special trade assistance implies a serious failure in the capital market.

With so many suppliers of capital and such a sophisticated system of financial intermediaries to channel their funds to capital users, there is no reason why the market should systematically fail to recognize and underwrite industries that seem to have a future in the international market-place.

Those who want the government to help rejuvenate industries often claim that the recovery of single companies would help the entire industry. In the case of underdeveloped countries with primitive capital markets, this argument might be valid. When an industry producing a standardized product loses its comparative advantage, far more than the passage of time is required to regain competitiveness.

Moreover, when quotas are applied to imports, protection may actually help foreign competitors more than the domestic industry.

But trade protection is a very inefficient means of preserving the production capacity of an industry deemed essential to national defense. A far cheaper way is to pay for the capacity and such stockpiles of products as are necessary to defend the nation directly out of the federal budget. The first problem with this line of argument is that it applies only, if at all, to those products for which international competition is weak, like crude oil in the s when the OPEC cartel controlled world prices.

Indeed, American business would suffer if the government misguidedly imposed a tariff or quota on the importation of inputs, which would only raise their price and thereby reduce or destroy any competitive advantage U. A second flaw in the basic industries rationale is the impossibility of distinguishing what is basic.

Many industries produce inputs for other industries—lumber for wood products, copper for finished metal products, cotton for textiles, and so on.

Why should only one or two of these sectors get subsidies or protection from imports? As we have argued, the U.

And it cannot be accomplished overnight. For this reason, an effective trade policy must not only reverse national overspending but also hold protectionist pressures at bay during the difficult transition.

The imbalance between national spending and production can be corrected in any one, or a combination, of three ways. The first option, reducing private investment, is the least desirable. At a time when U. The second course, increasing private saving, is far more desirable but not readily susceptible to changes in government policy. After decades of empirical studies, it remains unclear whether savings patterns are sensitive to changes in interest rates and, if so, in what direction.

That year, net personal saving stood at 7.