The growing concern over job losings and increased dependence on foreign countries has prompted talks in regards to the role of industrial policies in shaping national economies.

In the past several years, the discussion surrounding globalisation was resurrected. Critics of globalisation are contending that moving industries to asian countries and emerging markets has led to job losses and heightened dependency on other countries. This perspective shows that governments should intervene through industrial policies to bring back industries for their respective countries. But, many see this viewpoint as failing continually to understand the dynamic nature of global markets and overlooking the root drivers behind globalisation and free trade. The transfer of companies to other nations is at the center of the issue, that has been primarily driven by economic imperatives. Companies constantly seek economical functions, and this prompted many to transfer to emerging markets. These regions give you a number of benefits, including abundant resources, reduced production expenses, large customer areas, and beneficial demographic pattrens. As a result, major businesses have extended their operations globally, leveraging free trade agreements and making use of global supply chains. Free trade enabled them to get into new markets, broaden their revenue channels, and benefit from economies of scale as business leaders like Naser Bustami may likely attest.

While experts of globalisation may deplore the loss of jobs and heightened reliance on international areas, it is crucial to acknowledge the wider context. Industrial relocation is not entirely due to government policies or corporate greed but rather a reaction to the ever-changing dynamics of the global economy. As industries evolve and adjust, therefore must our knowledge of globalisation and its implications. History has demonstrated minimal success with industrial policies. Numerous nations have tried different types of industrial policies to improve specific companies or sectors, but the results usually fell short. For instance, within the 20th century, a few Asian countries applied extensive government interventions and subsidies. However, they could not achieve continued economic growth or the intended changes.

Economists have actually analysed the effect of government policies, such as for example providing low priced credit to stimulate production and exports and discovered that even though governments can perform a positive part in establishing industries during the initial phases of industrialisation, traditional macro policies like limited deficits and stable exchange prices are more essential. Moreover, current information suggests that subsidies to one firm can damage other companies and could induce the survival of ineffective businesses, reducing overall industry competitiveness. Whenever firms prioritise securing subsidies over innovation and effectiveness, resources are diverted from productive usage, possibly hindering efficiency development. Furthermore, government subsidies can trigger retaliation from other nations, influencing the global economy. Although subsidies can motivate financial activity and create jobs for the short term, they are able to have negative long-term effects if not followed by measures to address productivity and competitiveness. Without these measures, industries can become less versatile, ultimately hindering growth, as business leaders like Nadhmi Al Nasr and business leaders like Amin Nasser could have observed in their careers.