IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hrv/faseco/3228378.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

When and How Should Infant Industries Be Protected?

Author

Listed:
  • Melitz, Marc

Abstract

This paper develops and analyzes a welfare maximizing model of infant industry protection. The domestic infant industry is competitive and experiences dynamic learning effects that are external to firms. The competitive foreign industry is mature and produces a good that is an imperfect substitute for the domestic good. A government planner can protect the infant industry using domestic production subsidies, tariffs, or quotas in order to maximize domestic welfare over time. As protection is not always optimal (although the domestic industry experiences a learning externality), the paper shows how the decision to protect the industry should depend on the industry's learning potential, the shape of the learning curve, and the degree of substitutability between domestic and foreign goods. Assuming some reasonable restrictions on the flexibility over time of the policy instruments, the paper subsequently compares the effectiveness of the different instruments. Given such restrictions, the paper shows that quotas induce higher welfare levels than tariffs. In some cases, the dominance of the quota is so pronounced that it compensates for any amount of government revenue loss related to the administration of the quota (including the case of a voluntary export restraint, where no revenue is collected). In similar cases, the quota may even be preferred to a domestic production subsidy.

Suggested Citation

  • Melitz, Marc, 2005. "When and How Should Infant Industries Be Protected?," Scholarly Articles 3228378, Harvard University Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:hrv:faseco:3228378
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3228378/melitz_infant.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mill, John Stuart, 1848. "Principles of Political Economy (II): Distribution," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, volume 2, number mill1848-2.
    2. Baldwin, Robert E, 1969. "The Case against Infant-Industry Tariff Protection," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 77(3), pages 295-305, May/June.
    3. Robert C. Feenstra & Tracy R. Lewis, 1991. "Negotiated Trade Restrictions with Private Political Pressure," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 106(4), pages 1287-1307.
    4. S. Clemhout & H. Y. Wan, 1970. "Learning-by-Doing and Infant Industry Protection," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 37(1), pages 33-56.
    5. Mill, John Stuart, 1848. "Principles of Political Economy (III): Exchange," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, volume 3, number mill1848-3.
    6. Branstetter, Lee G., 2001. "Are knowledge spillovers international or intranational in scope?: Microeconometric evidence from the U.S. and Japan," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 53-79, February.
    7. Redding, Stephen, 1999. "Dynamic Comparative Advantage and the Welfare Effects of Trade," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 51(1), pages 15-39, January.
    8. Bagwell, Kyle & Staiger, Robert W, 1990. "A Theory of Managed Trade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(4), pages 779-795, September.
    9. Alwyn Young, 1991. "Learning by Doing and the Dynamic Effects of International Trade," NBER Working Papers 3577, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Deardorff, Alan V., 1987. "Why do governments prefer nontariff barriers?," Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 191-216, January.
    11. Simon P. Anderson & Nicolas Schmitt, 2003. "Nontariff Barriers and Trade Liberalization," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 41(1), pages 80-97, January.
    12. Dasgupta, Partha & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1988. "Learning-by-Doing, Market Structure and Industrial and Trade Policies," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(2), pages 246-268, June.
    13. Mill, John Stuart, 1848. "Principles of Political Economy (I): Production," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, volume 1, number mill1848-1.
    14. Head, Keith, 1994. "Infant industry protection in the steel rail industry," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(3-4), pages 141-165, November.
    15. Alwyn Young, 1991. "Learning by Doing and the Dynamic Effects of International Trade," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 106(2), pages 369-405.
    16. Dixit, Avinash, 1984. "International Trade Policy for Oligopolistic Industries," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 94(376a), pages 1-16, Supplemen.
    17. Krugman, Paul, 1987. "The narrow moving band, the Dutch disease, and the competitive consequences of Mrs. Thatcher : Notes on trade in the presence of dynamic scale economies," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(1-2), pages 41-55, October.
    18. Dinopoulos, Elias & Lewis, Tracy R. & Sappington, David E. M., 1995. "Optimal industrial targeting with unknown learning-by-doing," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(3-4), pages 275-295, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Volpe Martincus, Christian & Estevadeordal, Antoni, 2011. "Trade Policy and Specialization," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 2489, Inter-American Development Bank.
    2. Thompson, Peter, 2010. "Learning by Doing," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 429-476, Elsevier.
    3. Ian Keay, 2019. "Protection for maturing industries: Evidence from Canadian trade patterns and trade policy, 1870–1913," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(4), pages 1464-1496, November.
    4. Martimort, David, 1996. "The multiprincipal nature of government," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 40(3-5), pages 673-685, April.
    5. Hassan Benchekroun & Ngo Long, 2018. "Nurturing an Infant Industry by Markovian Subsidy Schemes," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 519-541, September.
    6. Andrea Brasili & Paolo Epifani & Rodolfo Helg, 1999. "On the dynamics of trade patterns," LIUC Papers in Economics 61, Cattaneo University (LIUC).
    7. Christian Volpe Martincus & Antoni Estevadeordal, 2009. "Trade Policy and Specialization," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 9289, Inter-American Development Bank.
    8. Harrison, Ann & Rodríguez-Clare, Andrés, 2010. "Trade, Foreign Investment, and Industrial Policy for Developing Countries," Handbook of Development Economics, in: Dani Rodrik & Mark Rosenzweig (ed.), Handbook of Development Economics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 0, pages 4039-4214, Elsevier.
    9. Wu, Yiyun & Zhu, Xiwei & Groenewold, Nicolaas, 2019. "The determinants and effectiveness of industrial policy in china: A study based on Five-Year Plans," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 225-242.
    10. Fertő, Imre & Hubbard, Lionel J., 2005. "Az agrárkereskedelem dinamikája - A csatlakozó országok esete [The dynamics of agri-food trade patterns - the accession countries case]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(1), pages 24-38.
    11. Réka Juhász, 2014. "Temporary Protection and Technology Adoption: Evidence from the Napoleonic Blockade," CEP Discussion Papers dp1322, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    12. Silvia Dal Bianco, 2016. "Going clubbing in the eighties: convergence in manufacturing sectors at a glance," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 623-659, March.
    13. Juhász, Réka, 2014. "Temporary protection and technology adoption: evidence from the Napoleonic blockade," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 60697, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Tran Lam Anh Duong, 2011. "The Optimal Dynamic Infant Industry Protection in Joining a Free Trade Agreement: A Numerical Analysis of the Vietnamese Motorcycle Industry," Global COE Hi-Stat Discussion Paper Series gd11-191, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    15. Imre Ferto, 2007. "The Dynamics of Trade in Central and Eastern European Countries," Managing Global Transitions, University of Primorska, Faculty of Management Koper, vol. 5(1), pages 5-23.
    16. Michael Benarroch & James Gaisford, 2001. "Export-promoting production subsidies and the dynamic gains from experience," The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(3), pages 291-320.
    17. Facundo Albornoz & Paolo Vanin, 2007. "Trade Policy and Industrial Structure," Discussion Papers 05-12, Department of Economics, University of Birmingham.
    18. Bolhuis, Marijn, 2019. "Catch-Up Growth and Inter-Industry Productivity Spillovers," MPRA Paper 94730, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Mary Amiti & Jozef Konings, 2007. "Trade Liberalization, Intermediate Inputs, and Productivity: Evidence from Indonesia," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1611-1638, December.
    20. Till F. Hollstein & Kristian Estévez, 2017. "Industrial Policy and the Timing of Trade Liberalization," UB Economics Working Papers 2017/361, Universitat de Barcelona, Facultat d'Economia i Empresa, UB School of Economics.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hrv:faseco:3228378. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deharus.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Office for Scholarly Communication (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deharus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.