<p>It’s difficult to disentangle exactly what you are asking in this question because of the poor grammar.</p>

<p>It’s been pointed out that both the UK and US have both employed protectionist measures to protect their economies before they were judged strong enough to compete. Sometimes these measures can last for some time. For example Ha Joon Chang in his book on the illusions of capitalism wrote that the textile industry in Britain was protected for around a century, if not more. </p>

<p>The modern twist on this is that protectionism can occur whilst still loudly proclaiming the benefits of ‘free trade’. </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-25T11:18:14.800Z
I apologise for the grammar! (The downvote is not me). I suppose I am asking: if protectionism is widely seen as self-harming, does that mean protectionist states like China have other factors in-play that overcome the harm? Or is protectionism not always harmful?
52d6c6af
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-25T20:56:36.953Z
@Ben: Protectionism is widely seen as harmful because of widespread ideology of free trade, free of any understanding, context, history, practise and theory. This is how all ideologies end up corrupting into.
Mozibur Ullah
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-25T07:14:35.643Z
2019-01-25T07:14:35.643Z
Mozibur Ullah
<p>If protectionism is injurious to a state, is the success of mercantilist China <em>in spite of</em> its protectionist measures?</p>

<p>Furthermore, if the academic consensus is that most instances of protectionism are akin to using self-harm in retaliation to a perceived offensive measure, why is it still so prevalent (for example the EU Common Agricultural Policy)?</p>

<p><strong>References:</strong></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Protectionism is used for a number of reasons, some of which are
  outlined here, but is generally acknowledged to be ineffective and
  harmful to a country’s economic interests in the longer term. This is
  because it prevents the mutual gains from trade being realised, and,
  by restricting competition, limits the incentives for firms to improve
  their efficiency.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/43315/11-718-protectionism.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/43315/11-718-protectionism.pdf</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Our main conclusion is that, in all the scenarios we consider,
  protectionism is not an effective tool for macroeconomic stimulus.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://www.nber.org/papers/w24353" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.nber.org/papers/w24353</a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-22T18:03:16.197Z
Can you please back up your claims with some references. Claim 1: "protectionism is injurious to a state" Claim 2: "the academic consensus is that most instances of protectionism are akin to shooting oneself in the foot" By references I do not mean newspaper editorials, that is not the discipline of economics.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-22T18:04:35.517Z
I thought “protectionism as injurious to the enacting state” was the academic consensus because of the market inefficiencies it inevitably introduces (ie. the state picking winners)? Is it not?
52d6c6af
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-22T19:58:11.397Z
You were able to link a 2018 paper on the subject, so I would say the debate is not over.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-22T20:54:26.173Z
Your comments come across as bruised and slightly indignant, which I know you didn’t mean. My claims about protectionism are presented in the mode of a question. As a foil for rebuttal. I am not an economist - if protectionism is not a settled debate, then great, just let me know. I have no skin in this debate. Can you link me a paper that advocates protectionism?
52d6c6af
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-23T05:42:33.980Z
Sorry if my comments seemed snippy. Backing up your claims is generally good practice. Btw. currently the only upvote on the question is mine, given after your edit.
Giskard
<protectionism>
If protectionism is injurious to a state, is the success of mercantilist China in spite of its protectionist measures?
52d6c6af
# If protectionism is injurious to a state, is the success of mercantilist China in spite of its protectionist measures?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-01-22)

If protectionism is injurious to a state, is the success of mercantilist China *in spite of* its protectionist measures?

Furthermore, if the academic consensus is that most instances of protectionism are akin to using self-harm in retaliation to a perceived offensive measure, why is it still so prevalent (for example the EU Common Agricultural Policy)?

**References:**

> Protectionism is used for a number of reasons, some of which are
> outlined here, but is generally acknowledged to be ineffective and
> harmful to a country’s economic interests in the longer term. This is
> because it prevents the mutual gains from trade being realised, and,
> by restricting competition, limits the incentives for firms to improve
> their efficiency.

<https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/43315/11-718-protectionism.pdf>

> Our main conclusion is that, in all the scenarios we consider,
> protectionism is not an effective tool for macroeconomic stimulus.

<https://www.nber.org/papers/w24353>

**Tags:** protectionism

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Can you please back up your claims with some references. Claim 1: "protectionism is injurious to a state" Claim 2: "the academic consensus is that most instances of protectionism are akin to shooting oneself in the foot" By references I do not mean newspaper editorials, that is not the discipline of economics.  
> **username_0**: I thought “protectionism as injurious to the enacting state” was the academic consensus because of the market inefficiencies it inevitably introduces (ie. the state picking winners)? Is it not?  
> **username_1**: You were able to link a 2018 paper on the subject, so I would say the debate is not over.  
> **username_0**: Your comments come across as bruised and slightly indignant, which I know you didn’t mean. My claims about protectionism are presented in the mode of a question. As a foil for rebuttal. I am not an economist - if protectionism is not a settled debate, then great, just let me know. I have no skin in this debate. Can you link me a paper that advocates protectionism?  
> **username_1**: Sorry if my comments seemed snippy. Backing up your claims is generally good practice. Btw. currently the only upvote on the question is mine, given after your edit.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2019-01-25. Score: -2

It’s difficult to disentangle exactly what you are asking in this question because of the poor grammar.

It’s been pointed out that both the UK and US have both employed protectionist measures to protect their economies before they were judged strong enough to compete. Sometimes these measures can last for some time. For example Ha Joon Chang in his book on the illusions of capitalism wrote that the textile industry in Britain was protected for around a century, if not more.

The modern twist on this is that protectionism can occur whilst still loudly proclaiming the benefits of ‘free trade’.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I apologise for the grammar! (The downvote is not me). I suppose I am asking: if protectionism is widely seen as self-harming, does that mean protectionist states like China have other factors in-play that overcome the harm? Or is protectionism not always harmful?  
> **username_2**: @Ben: Protectionism is widely seen as harmful because of widespread ideology of free trade, free of any understanding, context, history, practise and theory. This is how all ideologies end up corrupting into.  

---

