Liberty
Institute Briefing Paper on Trade and Development
November 1999
Costs
of Protectionism: How
Indian Consumers & Workers Lost Out
In 1947,
India's share of the world trade was 1.5%.
In 1998, it was estimated to be 0.8%.
Per capita income in 1998 was approximately $400 ($900 under
PPP)
Indian
Economic Philosophy for the Past 50 years
- National
self-sufficiency
- Import
substitution
- Trade
is a zero-sum game
Basic rationale
for restricting trade:
- Protecting
domestic manufacturers
- Encouraging
domestic manufacturing and employment
- Ensuring
quality and safety for the benefit of consumers
- Promoting
indigenous growth of knowledge and technology
Consequences
of protectionism:
- High
price, low quality
- Low
levels of competition
- Technological
stagnation
- Knowhow
dependent on policy of subsidies
- Smaller
market, lower volumes
- Perpetual
Scarcity
Loss to consumers
- Choice, Price, Quality, Access
Characteristics
of the Protected Domestic Market:
Organised
sector -
- Entry
barrier (licence and permit raj or rule, now being partly
dismantled)
- Higher
fiscal and regulatory costs of operating in the formal
market (while tariffs and taxes may be falling, regulatory,
legal and transaction costs are increasing)
Growth
of small / informal and even illegal sectors (particularly
in established manufacturing areas) (fly-by-night operators)
- Policies
induce companies to stay small!!
- Fewer
people are employed, minimal benefits accrue to communities
- Companies
avoid regulatory costs incurred by those that play by
the rules
- -
Low quality
- -
Low price
- -
High transaction costs for consumers
Rise of vested
interests
- Formal
sectors - seek legal protection
- Informal
sectors - seek administrative collusion
- Illegal
sectors - seek continuation of protectionist policies to
ensure their own high profits
Consequences
of distorting trade -
- International
Trade: Smuggling
- Domestics
market: Black-market
- International
relations: Political tension is common among countries that
do not trade. (India and Pakistan barely trades, and are
permanently under the cloud of war.)
Result:
- Social
level:
- Loss
of respect for laws
- Creation of established channels of smuggling, black marketing
and racketeering
- Use of these same channels for many other more insidious
activities (terrorism)
- Economic
level:
- Economic
inefficiency
- Flouting of economic regulations - loss to exchequer
- Environmental
level:
- Environmental
inefficiency / degradation
- Flouting of environment regulations, free riding
Trade Restriction
is a Negative Sum Game
- Consumers
lose out on better quality, lower prices and low transaction
costs associated with brand products.
- Manufacturers
lose out by failing to capture larger markets with better
share, having less opportunities to innovate or introduce
new products Traders lose out on account of small size of
the market
- Service
sector lose out for similar reasons
- Workers
lose out as there are fewer jobs on offer
Required
Policy Direction:
If the interest of consumers are to be paramount, and since
all parties in an economy are also consumers in their private
capacities, then policies must reflect the following objectives.
- Free
trade
- Elimination
of tariffs
- Reduction
of regulatory costs
- Unrestrained
imports (even second hand goods or waste products)
Economic
consequences of Free Trade:
- Advantages
of economies of scale
- A
more dynamic and competitive domestic economy
- Inflow
of new innovations and technology
- Economic
efficiency will boost environmental quality
- Realisation
that domestic manufacturing are not the prime source of
employment
- More
employment in the area of trade and services outside the
organised sectors
- Substantial
investments are attracted to open and expanding markets
Conclusion:
- Free
trade is a positive sum game.
- Producers
compete to improve their products at lower prices
- Consumers
have a wide range of choices.
- A
competitive market economy improves the social and environmental
conditions.
- Free
trade is fair trade
Consumer
is truly the King in an open market. Greater the choice, the
more powerful the consumer becomes.
In contrast,
creating protectionist barriers, at the international and
domestic levels, have led to high cost and inefficient economy,
where the consumer has become the pauper.
|