Protectionism — FAQ

While it might save jobs in a specific protected industry, it often leads to job losses elsewhere. For example, if steel is protected, firms that use steel (e.g., car manufacturers) face higher costs, reducing their competitiveness and potentially leading to job cuts. Also, consumers have less disposable income due to higher prices, reducing demand and jobs in other sectors. The risk of retaliation from other countries can also harm jobs in export industries. The net effect on total employment is often negative.

The concept of 'net loss' or 'deadweight loss' comes from comparing the total gains and total losses using the concepts of consumer and producer surplus. The loss to consumers (in the form of reduced consumer surplus due to the higher price) is larger than the combined gains to domestic producers (increased producer surplus) and the government (tariff revenue). The two small triangles on the diagram represent this deadweight loss – a loss of welfare that is not captured by anyone in the economy, representing the inefficiency created by the tariff.

Both create similar deadweight losses by raising prices and reducing consumption. However, a tariff generates revenue for the government, which can be used to fund public services or reduce other taxes. With a quota, the extra revenue ('quota rent') goes to private firms holding import licences, providing no direct benefit to the public purse. Furthermore, if domestic demand increases, a tariff allows more imports to enter at the fixed 'tariff price', whereas a quota keeps imports fixed, causing the domestic price to rise even further. For these reasons, most economists consider quotas to be more harmful than tariffs.