Industrial Policy Leads to Propping Up Businesses

By Duesterberg, Thomas | Insight on the News, July 19, 1993 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Industrial Policy Leads to Propping Up Businesses


Duesterberg, Thomas, Insight on the News


The current debate on a federal energy tax serves as a useful reminder that industrial policy comes in many forms, and that it almost inevitably leads to some form of protectionism. Unfortunately, what the debate hasn't revealed is the price of economic inefficiency and job loss that results.

The Reagan and Bush administrations were generally hostlle to tax preferences, industrial policy and protectionism, although in politics it is always difficult to be totally pure. The unifying theme was to rely as much as possible on the marketplace, as opposed to government intervention and distortion, to achieve economic growth and international competitiveness. The simplification was key to this strategy, since a plethora of tax preferences led increasingly to distortions of investment and trade.

In the Reagan-Bush era, the United States maintained its worldwide lead in manufacturing productivity. Total productivity increased by more than 40 percent in the 1980s. Unit labor costs rose by only 3 percent between 1985 and 1992, compared with 10 percent in Japan, 19 percent in Germany, and more in most of Europe and the newly industrialized countries. The US. cut a large trade deficit back to manageable proportions and created more than 20 million new jobs. Only Japan among industrial nations, including the newly industrialized nations of the Pacific Rim, could match this overall performance.

A recent study by the McKinsey Global Institute documents the U.S. lead in productivity in the service sector as well as in manufacturing. As reported in the New York Times, McKinsey attributes this performance to US. competition policy: "America's secret productivity weapon . . . is not bigger companies, more robots, or even brainier managers. Instead, it is Washington's reluctance to protect companies from the rigors of competition, domestic or foreign."

Led by a determined rush to increase the level of taxation and the use of tax preferences, the Clinton administration is threatening to reverse direction on industrial policy, tax preferences and protectionism. The administration has realized, though, that increased taxation on U.S. industry would diminish industry's competitive edge. For instance, the House bill on Clinton's economic program, apparently still supported in this respect by the White House, carved out important exemptions to the Btu tax. In so doing, it reinforced the drive for a new industrial policy and exposed the link between industrial policy and protectionism.

Alternative energy sources such as solar and wind power were to be exempted from the tax. Fuels used to produce aluminum and chlorine would have been taxed at half the rate than if put to other uses.

Farmers would have paid only a base rate for their fuel, as would steelmakers using coal in the production process. Fuels going into export markets and jet fuel used on international routes would have been exempt from tax. Apparently, the administration was also pushing for exemptions for the chemical, glass and paper industries.

When House and Senate conferees meet to hammer out a final bill, we can reasonably expect further use of tax preferences that reinforce the emerging industrial policy.

The policy choices suggested by these exemptions to the falled Btu tax fit logically with some of the more proactive industrial policy ideas floated by the administration. Sectors such as the automobile industry, commercial aviation and the transportation infrastructure all are mentioned as good candidates for assistance or subsidies in a February Clinton administration document titled "Technology for America's Economic Growth: A New Direction to Build Economic Strength:"

Are these industries singled out for tax preferences and other support the "leading edge" industries that we can rely on to create good jobs and cut the trade deficit?

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Industrial Policy Leads to Propping Up Businesses
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?