Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Arguments for the promotion of Protectionism


Previously we decried the practice of agribusiness and extolled the merits of peasant farming as the viable way forward towards food self sufficiency. This article was prompted by a recent news item in the BBC. The article talked about the Kenyan flower growers facing sales leveling-off in the export sector this winter season. The ensuing effect has been the scaling back of labor.
Our position is that we should not be engaged in cultivating cash crops for export to the detriment of growing food to feed the nation. This leads us to recommend an enforceable policy of protectionism to regulate what we export and to safeguard infant industries.
This edict would entail a drastic reformulation of our trade policies including rethinking our foreign trade agreements.
What is protectionism?
Protectionism is the policy of imposing duties or quotas on imports in order to protect, from global competition, home industries from overseas competition. This in turn would lead to the growth of local industries, the growth of jobs and a better living standard for the citizens due to money being spent and reinvested locally.
Benefits of protectionism:
Protects infant industries: When industries are just beginning, it makes sense to protect them from the perils of foreign competition at first, until the industry grows and matures. At that time the protection can be lifted and the mature company will be competitive.
Raises government revenue: Government revenue increases since the Kenya government collects the tariff revenue. This revenue could be used to fund social welfare programs.
Stricter enforcement of labor and environmental laws: With government monitoring, workers will be paid a fair living wage. Ground and air pollution laws will be enforced and those companies violating will be subject to fines and mandatory cleanup.
Restricts market flooding of sub-standard wares: The government could establish a quality bureau to inspect all foreign made goods being imported into the country. The operating principle would be ‘we should not import it if we can make it’. An example would be the ‘mitumba industry’. The local market is flooded with used clothing from abroad yet we can make clothing here at home by supporting the cotton growers and the textile industry. An option would even be the growing of hemp for the textile industry.
Drawbacks
Initially the Kenyan consumer will pay higher prices for locally manufactured products because the production process will not be as efficient and will be fraught with errors as the learning curve grows.
Going forward:
• As workers become more experienced and efficient, prices will drop. The government will ease tariffs and producers will then be able to compete with foreign made products. If there is a surplus in production, it may be exported to neighboring countries thereby bringing in foreign revenue.
• There will be an increase in the availability of jobs in the manufacturing and agricultural sector. This will in turn stimulate the local economy due to workers spending more on other services.
• With an experienced workforce, they may then in turn train interns so skills are perpetuated generationally. The skilled workforce may also be able to apply their skills to other areas of the industrial economy.
• We would have to partition the huge tracts of idle land to give to citizens willing to work it. They would in turn pay land rent as the only form of taxation. We would not tax their produce. This would lead to a decent living wage for the people.
• To finance the budding industries, we will set up community banks to serve localities. They would service loans to individuals or co-operatives to undertake these ventures.
• As different regions specialize in the manufacture of different products, a limited barter system could be adopted for trade. Neighboring regions that do not produce could become processors.
Conclusion.
This article is purposefully rudimentary to appeal to as wide an audience as possible. We admit it calls for drastic changes in the way we run the economy but it needs to be done if we are to emerge from the economic doldrums that has perpetually engulfed the nation.
We will call on Kenya’s learned economists and other professionals for planning and implementation.
Full disclosure: The opinions expressed in this and other preceding articles will form the basis of a political grass roots movement that will be seeking the mandate of the Kenyan people in the general elections of 2017. We believe in presenting solutions with substance to issues affecting fellow Kenyans instead of the empty rhetoric and the petty quibbles that are the hallmark of those presently in power.

5 comments:

  1. The protectionist argument advocated here is not supported by any evidence of prior success through such policies. That is because there isn’t any. There is no historical correlation between infant industry protection and improved national economic productivity. Furthermore it is highly unlikely that there ever will be- “protecting” domestic industry deters foreign investment, reduces consumers’ quality of living and encourages insular domestic industries that will never be able to compete because they are cut off from the more efficient global supply chains.
    For protectionism to be economically productive it must pass two tests. Firstly, the Mill test requires protected sector will eventually be able to survive international competition without protection. Secondly, the Bastable test requires that the discounted future benefits compensate the current costs of protection. There are no examples of this happening on an economy wide scale. Even the semi-conductor market in Japan- once lauded as a great protectionist success story- has since been proven to have cost domestic Japanese consumers more in increased costs than was gained through increased output, thus resulting in a welfare loss.
    “Buy Kenya”, “Buy American”, or “Buy Chinese” schemes are popular amongst those who stand to gain, (and those on a UN salary who can afford inflated prices) but they will cost domestic consumers and businesses dearly. The example offered of the clothing markets is a case in point. Kenya’s cotton yield has been incredibly erratic as a result of inadequate irrigation and political disruption. Kenyan clothing manufacturers protest that they need “protection” from cheaper imports. If this happened millions of Kenyans would be unable to clothe themselves at the expense of a select few manufacturers. Instead, why not lower the barriers to trading that currently prevent Kenyan manufacturers from being competitive? If Kenyan tailors want to import cheap cotton from Mali, China or anywhere else it makes sense to allow them to do so. Then, as their costs of production decrease, everyone will benefit through cheaper clothes, higher sales and more employment.
    Globalised trading is no longer “us vs them”. Rather it is characterised by mutually beneficial supply chains that stretch the world, allowing the most efficient producers to bring the cheapest goods to people who need and can afford them. Severing these chains reverses this process: Just ask those who have managed to “escape” North Korea or who can remember the destitution faced in East Germany prior to 1989. Who would wish to afflict such a fate upon Kenya- or anywhere else for that matter?

    ReplyDelete
  2. When people talk about free trade, they talk without having read history of economic policies. In any case, the Ricardian conditions for free trade have never been met.

    A study of all developed nations show that, protectionism is a must.

    This ia a good start:

    1. Tariff History of the United States by Frank W. Taussig.

    2. Hamilton's "Report on Manufactures which led the industrialization of the USA.

    Simply put, free trade is a dogma of the Empires. What most economists do not understand due to limited lack of historical knowledge is that, when Adam Smith wrote his book, England had protected its industry for 300 years. For instance, it would tax exports of wool very heavily, to destroy its rivals.

    It happens that, once you achieve efficiency levels, free trade is good. If you read the USA history, u will find that, Hamilton, Jefferson, Washington, Abraham Lincoln, all rejected free trade as imperial policy of England. They had a saying, do as they did, not what they tell u. ahahhaa.

    It was only after the 2WW, did USA assume the England's role as an empire and forced the free trade with poor nations.
    Unfortunately, this will destroy USA economy as it happened with England in 1870 - 1914.

    Simply, read history of economic policies of developed nations.

    NB: Free trade is a matter of context and timing. Thus, when done at the right time, it is okay, but Africa is not yet there.

    Very soon, we shall be finalising a document we are working on this matter and we shall make matters more explicit.


    By Mwarang'ethe

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mwarang'ethe, unfortunately regurgitating Chang doesn’t suffice as evidence for the benefits of protectionist policies.
    The points I raised in my original post remain unanswered.

    Firstly, there is no historical correlation between infant industry protection and improved national economic productivity.

    Secondly, how can an impoverished population be expected to face significant increases in the cost of living to “support” local industries?

    Thirdly, Nations that have pursued long term economy wide “self sufficiency” programmes have all, without fail, fallen into economic destitution.

    I’m sure your forthcoming document will be most illuminating, but in the mean time it would be nice to hear some evidence for the rhetoric you are passing off as fact.

    ReplyDelete
  4. to Timothy Cox

    May you tell us, after the 2WW, was Europe re-industrialised under free trade or under protectionism regime?

    Mwarang'ethe

    ReplyDelete
  5. I thought China has done well under protectionism, and I also thought that protectionism is obviously good to protect economy of a country through discouraging unfair competition of developed world. Timothy Cox you cannot convince me with your arguements.

    ReplyDelete