Many of this blog's readers are probably aware that I'm a bit obsessed with the word "protectionism." Here's another post where I parse the meaning. This time it's based on some things Harry Reid said in relation to the G-20's statements on protectionism. He starts out as follows:
"At the same time," Reid added, "officials and commentators should not conflate legitimate governmental actions with 'protectionism.'"
I am on board with this part. It's very important to distinguish the two.
But he quickly loses me with the rest of what he ways. First, he talks about things that are not protectionism:
"For example, enforcement of product and safety standards based on sound science and valid safety concerns is not protectionism. Enforcement of trade remedy laws consistent with WTO rules is not protectionism. Providing subsidies through direct government spending for domestic production consistent with WTO rules is not protectionism."
Then he talks about things that are protectionism:
Reid said these actions "consistent with and constrained by detailed multilateral rules, simply cannot be compared to protectionist measures like unilaterally raising tariffs, whether or not from levels below tariff bindings; imposing arbitrary new licensing restrictions; or similar measures." (emphasis added)
I have issues with both of his categories. On the first one, he lists three kinds of measures that he says are "not protectionism." But I'm not sure that any of these measures can be definitively characterized this way. With regard to trade remedy laws and subsidies, enforcing them consistently with WTO rules does not mean they are not protectionist. WTO rules allow plenty of protectionism. And there are many who would argue that these measures are prime examples of protectionism. As for science-based product and safety standards, I agree that such measures are certainly not inherently protectionist. However, they could be used as a disguised means of protectionism (e.g., where a domestic industry lobbies for restrictions on foreign competitors on the basis of these standards).
As to the things that he says are protectionism, it is true that unilaterally raising tariffs is protectionist in effect, although it could also be for the purpose of raising revenue (particularly in developing countries). However, as for "arbitrary new licensing restrictions," well, I suppose these could be protectionist. But they could also just be arbitrary.
