Protectionism
in sentence
619 examples of Protectionism in a sentence
The
protectionism
advocated by Trump, Le Pen, and others poses a similar threat to the world economy.
The World Trade Organization was established precisely to prevent this scenario, and its system of agreed rules and legal procedures has generally kept a lid on competitive
protectionism.
But if leaders end up pursuing an extreme form of short-termism – by, say, passing big tax cuts with no accompanying revenue increase, weakening public institutions, or imposing tariffs or engaging in other forms of protectionism, without accounting for retaliation by other countries – the gains will not last long.
That approach has now been stymied by China’s mounting internal imbalances, a post-crisis slowdown in global trade, and an increase in China-focused
protectionism.
Avoiding a global race to the bottom in regulatory standards, a race to the top in incentives, or a return to protectionism, will require better global coordination.
The conventional view, then as now, was that unilateral action risked unleashing a wave of
protectionism.
In choosing whether or not to do so, its policymakers may weigh factors ranging from China’s international responsibilities to the potential damage of foreign
protectionism
or even a “trade war.”
Such a scheme, if poorly designed, might deliver excessive
protectionism.
This does not mean that
protectionism
is the way forward, only that taking account of specific issues that affect international farm trade – weather, price volatility, or health risks – may be necessary from time to time.
Moreover, the negative argument that historical experience supports the case for
protectionism
is flawed.
Extending this principle to protect environmental, labor, or consumer-safety standards with appropriate restraints against abuse might make the world trading system more resistant to ad-hoc
protectionism.
And he will not have much enthusiasm for these meetings’ habitual exhortation to foreswear
protectionism
or provide greater assistance to refugees.
Consider the topic that will be on all G20 leaders’ minds in Hamburg (except for Trump’s, of course): the threat of rising trade
protectionism.
Responding to other countries’
protectionism
by erecting barriers of our own amounts to shooting ourselves in the foot.
If we want to avoid misguided protectionism, or to benefit from better economic management in general, we need to start by putting our own national houses in order.
This is why the current confrontation between the US and China has raised fears of serious damage, particularly if it leads to ever-greater
protectionism
and a wider “trade war.”
Putin has turned his back on the World Trade Organization and is promoting protectionism, which will also harm growth.
When virtually all GOP contenders for 2016 signed on to that agenda, Trump exploited an opening for “America First” nativism and
protectionism.
Given the role of technology in displacing workers,
protectionism
– tearing up trade agreements and imposing tariffs on Chinese and Mexican goods – won’t bring back high-paying manufacturing jobs, and Trump has no plan B. That means the polarization of America that brought Trump to power will only become far more severe.
The appropriate response to such massive changes is not
protectionism.
Little wonder, then, that French president Nicolas Sarkozy succumbed to the allure of
protectionism
during last year’s election campaign, as did both presidential candidates in the United States.
But
protectionism
need not be the only alternative to fear of global competition.
This would represent an almost irresistible opportunity for China to champion global free trade and arrest the trend toward
protectionism.
ROME – In the last few years, for many people and their leaders, globalization has become a scourge to be purged in favor of greater
protectionism
and unilateralism.
Trump’s kneejerk
protectionism
does little to help the working class that helped elect him.
Under the circumstances, trade
protectionism
made some sense for each country on its own, as it shifted demand away from foreign goods and thus helped support domestic employment.
(Of course, for all countries taken together,
protectionism
spelled disaster; one country’s expenditure shift was more than offset by others’ own shifts.)
While some countries in the eurozone suffer from high levels of unemployment, there is nothing that
protectionism
can do for these countries that expansionary fiscal or monetary policy (the latter by the European Central Bank) cannot do better.
If Europe, China, and other trade partners were to retaliate in response to Trump’s tariffs they would simply reduce their own gains from trade without reaping any of the advantages of
protectionism.
Provided other countries do not overreact, Trump’s
protectionism
need not be as costly as many accounts make it sound.
Back
Related words
Trade
Global
Economic
Countries
World
Would
Their
Policies
Financial
Which
Political
Growth
Crisis
Policy
Against
There
Should
Rising
Could
Nationalism