Example collocations logo

Protectionism in sentence

619 examples of Protectionism in a sentence

Europe Should Not Retaliate Against US ProtectionismMUNICH – US President Donald Trump is making good on his promises to put “American first” through trade protectionism.
The system of agricultural protectionism that this compromise produced survives to this day, exemplified in import duties of 69% on beef and 26% for pork.
Europe’s agricultural protectionism also harms developing countries, which are unable to sell their agricultural products – in many cases, the only goods they can export – in European markets.
According to an older studyby the Canadian economist John Whalley, the disadvantages of agricultural protectionism for developing countries outweigh the benefits of development aid.
So, in this respect, Trump is not wrong to criticize the EU’s protectionism.
The EU must ensure that it is truly a bastion of free trade, even if America moves to act as a stronghold of protectionism.
This would enable Trump to proclaim victory at home, while raising the European standard of living by freeing Europe’s consumers from the yoke of the EU’s agricultural protectionism.
Not everyone agrees that protectionism is bad for the economy.
If anything, Trump’s protectionism is hurting the US trade balance (when one includes the effects of his administration’s fiscal policies).
The other major Obama-led trade initiative, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the US and the European Union, is all but dead, crippled by opposition on both continents and by the UK’s Brexit referendum result, widely interpreted as a vote for protectionism.
When it comes to trade protectionism, European integration, and economic globalization, those on the far right and the far left often share the same views.
The voices of protectionism and nationalism are gaining strength, and governments are increasingly pursuing policy goals through unilateral or ad hoc measures, rather than by working together.
Although new trade deals can spark controversy, it is highly unlikely that protectionism will prevail.
So far, the Trump administration has taken no action suggesting that a new era of protectionism is at hand.
Many Europeans see trade as an opportunity, rather than as a threat to jobs; and even Europe’s staunchest anti-globalizers show little appetite for more protectionism.
But the unpopularity of mega-regional trade deals in advanced economies does not imply broad-based support for a return to protectionism.
Meanwhile, the Commission’s steadfast defense of competition in the banking sector – particularly in Portugal, Germany, Italy, and Poland – ended an era of protectionism in the guise of prudential control; this helped to spur cross-border financial integration to an extent unprecedented in developed economies.
But there isn’t, and protectionism is certainly not the answer.
It is equally important to restart global trade talks and bring the Doha Round to a successful conclusion – not least in order to protect Africa from the risk of rising protectionism.
For example, the University of California at Berkeley economist Barry Eichengreen has argued that protectionism can be a helpful way to create inflation when central banks are stuck at the zero bound.
They stood against protectionism, and they recognized the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals as an engine for development, growth, and creation of quality jobs worldwide.
Upon independence half a century ago, India's first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, set India on a course of protectionism and socialism – two of the most self-defeating economic strategies of modern times.
Their “state capitalism” – a large role for state-owned companies; an even larger role for state-owned banks; resource nationalism; import-substitution industrialization; and financial protectionism and controls on foreign direct investment – is the heart of the problem.
Contrary to popular belief, the true global trade dilemma of our time is not so much liberalization versus protectionism, but the rights of capital versus the rights of people.
In this new age of protectionism, US firms that receive tariff exemptions and South Korean firms that receive quota entitlements will be gaining valuable property rights at little cost.
The danger is that the resulting political tensions, including US protectionism, may disrupt the global economy and plunge the world into recession – or worse.
As the world watches the US presidential candidates wrestle with issues of protectionism, immigration, global public health, climate change, and international cooperation, we should ask what aspect of American identities they are appealing to and whether they are educating followers about broader meanings.
There is justice in this, particularly given the hypocrisy of those countries who proclaim their faith in free trade while every day praying at the altar of protectionism.
As the United States Congress begins to debate the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA), a titanic struggle between the forces of free trade and protectionism promises to unfold.
The issue is not free trade versus protectionism, but “smart trade” versus “polarizing trade.”
BackNext