THE EFFECTS OF TRADE: INFANT INDUSTRIES AND TRADE POLICIES

The term "infant industry" is used to denote a new industry which has prospects of becoming profitable in the long-term, but which would be unable to survive in the face of competition from imported goods. That is a situation that can occur because time is needed either to achieve potential economies of scale, or to acquire potential learning curve economies. Successful identification of such a situation followed by the temporary imposition of a barrier against imports can, in principle, produce substantial benefits to the country that applies it – a policy known as “import substitution industrialization”. Whether such policies succeed depends upon governments’ skills in picking winners, and there might reasonably be expected to be both successes and failures. It has been claimed that South Korea’s automobile industry owes its existence to initial protection against imports, but a study of infant industry protection in Turkey reveals the absence of any association between productivity gains and degree of protection, such as might be expected of a successful import substitution policy.

Another study provides descriptive evidence suggesting that attempts at import substitution industrialisation since the 1970s have usually failed, but the empirical evidence on the question has been contradictory and inconclusive. It has been argued that the case against import substitution industrialisation is not that it is bound to fail, but that subsidies and tax incentives do the job better. It has also been pointed out that, in any case, trade restrictions could not be expected to correct the domestic market imperfections that often hamper the development of infant industries.

Trade policies

Economists’ findings about the benefits of trade have often been rejected by government policy-makers, who have frequently sought to protect domestic industries against foreign competition by erecting barriers, such as tariffs and quotas, against imports. Average tariff levels of around 15 per cent in the late 19th century rose to about 30 percent in the 1930s, following the passage in the United States of the Smoot-Hawley Act. Mainly as the result of international agreements under the auspices of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and subsequently the World Trade Organisation (WTO), average tariff levels were progressively reduced to about 7 per cent during the second half of the 20th century, and some other trade restrictions were also removed. The restrictions that remain are nevertheless of major economic importance.

The largest of the remaining trade-distorting policies are those concerning agriculture. In the OECD countries government payments account for 30 per cent of farmers’ receipts and tariffs of over 100 per cent are common. OECD economists estimate that cutting all agricultural tariffs and subsidies by 50% would set off a chain reaction in realignments of production and consumption patterns that would add an extra $26 billion to annual world income.

Quotas prompt foreign suppliers to raise their prices toward the domestic level of the importing country. That relieves some of the competitive pressure on domestic suppliers, and both they and the foreign suppliers gain at the expense of a loss to consumers, and to the domestic economy, in addition to which there is a deadweight loss to the world economy. When quotas were banned under the rules of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the United States, Britain and the European Union made use of equivalent arrangements known as voluntary restraint agreements (VRAs) or voluntary export restraints (VERs) which were negotiated with the governments of exporting countries (mainly Japan) - until they too were banned. Tariffs have been considered to be less harmful than quotas, although it can be shown that their welfare effects differ only when there are significant upward or downward trends in imports. Governments also impose a wide range of non-tariff barriers that are similar in effect to quotas, some of which are subject to WTO agreements.

Text 17