Muslim World Report

Only 3% of Experts Support Tariffs as Economic Strategy

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Mar 23, 2025 10:48 AM | 10 min read | 1937 words

TL;DR: Only 3% of economists support current tariff policies as a strategy to boost investment, highlighting potential economic pitfalls. This analysis discusses the negative implications of tariffs, the risks of failing to attract investment, and the benefits of alternative economic policies.

The Economic Implications of Tariffs: A Critical Analysis

In recent months, the global discourse surrounding tariffs has intensified, particularly in the context of national economic strategies. As of March 2025, a significant consensus among economists raises troubling concerns: only 3% of over 100 experts believe that current tariff policies will successfully stimulate the desired influx of investments into economies. Originally, governments implemented these tariffs to protect domestic industries and boost local employment; however, emerging data suggests that the anticipated economic rejuvenation may remain elusive.

Tariffs, essentially taxes imposed on imported goods, are often marketed as means to shield domestic markets from foreign competition. Yet, this approach is fraught with complexities and unintended consequences that can resemble a double-edged sword. While the blade may offer protection, it also risks inflicting harm on the wielder.

  • Temporary sector benefits may occur.
  • Broader implications can lead to trade tensions.
  • Retaliatory measures frequently follow.
  • Overall economic growth may decline (Behrens et al., 2016).

For instance, during the trade disputes that began in 2018, the United States saw significant price increases on consumer goods, leading to an estimated monthly reduction of $1.4 billion in real income as tariffs were passed on to consumers (Amiti et al., 2019). This scenario mirrors the experience of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930, which aimed to protect American agriculture but spiraled into a trade war that severely contracted international trade, ultimately exacerbating the economic downturn of the Great Depression.

Experts caution that the anticipated capital influx—one of the primary justifications for implementing tariffs—might not materialize due to a fundamental misunderstanding of investor behavior. Studies show that companies typically seek:

  • Stable regulatory environments
  • Clarity in economic policies
  • Predictable trade relations when deciding where to invest (Himics et al., 2019).

This creates a dangerous reality: a continued reliance on tariffs could isolate economies and stifle the very investments they aim to attract. In today’s increasingly interconnected global markets, one must ask: what price are we willing to pay for short-term gains if it risks long-term economic health? Failure to adapt to this changing landscape could have significant repercussions for domestic economies, international relations, and overall cooperation (Polachek, 1997; Hurrell, 1995).

What if Investment Fails to Materialize?

If the anticipated influx of investments fails to occur, the economic landscape could shift drastically, akin to a ship navigating into turbulent waters without a proper course. A lack of foreign investment would undermine the very goals of tariff imposition, much like a dam that fails to hold back rising waters. Companies are unlikely to relocate operations or invest in new projects if they perceive an unstable and adversarial economic environment (Ikejiaku & Mordi, 2010). This grim scenario could lead to:

  • Stagnation in job creation
  • Increased pressure on already strained labor markets

Without significant investment, sectors expected to thrive under protective tariff policies may falter. Local firms, anticipating a boom from reduced foreign competition, might find themselves:

  • Undercapitalized
  • Unprepared to meet burgeoning market demands.

This could result in:

  • Business closures
  • Job losses
  • A rise in socio-economic disparities (Siriwardana, 1996).

The implications of failing to attract investment extend beyond economic metrics. A retreat into economic isolationism could weaken a nation’s geopolitical standing. With foreign investment often tied to international alliances, diminished economic engagement could jeopardize a country’s influence on international platforms, reducing its bargaining power in global negotiations.

Furthermore, prolonged economic stagnation can lead to political unrest. As history has shown, citizens often express dissatisfaction during periods of economic hardship; consider the protests in Iran in 2009 or the Yellow Vest movement in France, both fueled by unmet economic promises. If the promise of job growth and economic prosperity remains unfulfilled, disillusionment can spread rapidly. Politicians who championed tariffs may find their support eroding, as constituents demand accountability for unmet economic promises. This political instability exacerbates economic issues, creating a vicious cycle of distrust between the public and policymakers.

The societal fallout from such economic stagnation could be profound. Workers displaced by industrial failures may face not only job loss but also a challenging transition to new fields. The rise of socio-economic disparities could foster an environment ripe for social unrest, prompting protests and calls for policy reform that may not align with existing political agendas. The connection between economic hardship and political instability is well-documented; for instance, the economic crises in Venezuela and Greece reveal how financial collapse can lead to political upheaval. Thus, it underscores the importance of investing in sustainable policies that provide real economic opportunities.

What if Tariffs Reverse Economic Growth?

Should tariffs inadvertently lead to an overall economic decline instead of the intended growth, the repercussions would be significant. The ripple effects of decreased economic activity would be felt across various sectors, complicating the very fabric of domestic and international commerce. Supply chains, particularly vulnerable to shifts in tariff policies, could face severe disruptions. For example, during the 1930s, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act aimed to protect American industry but instead triggered a steep decline in international trade, worsening the Great Depression. Domestic manufacturing might struggle due to high input costs resulting from tariffs on imported materials, leading to sharply increased consumer goods prices, which would further strain household budgets and curtail consumer spending (Elsheikh et al., 2013).

Moreover, retaliatory tariffs from other nations could escalate into full-blown trade wars, as countries respond to perceived injustices in trade practices by imposing their own tariffs on exports. This scenario is particularly alarming in a globalized economy that relies on interconnected supply chains (Vakulchuk & Knobel, 2018). Imagine a game of dominoes—one misplaced tile can send the entire structure crashing down. The result would be:

  • A fragmented global market
  • Heightened costs
  • Diminished efficiency, harming domestic consumers and jeopardizing international trade relationships.

Furthermore, should economic growth reverse, significant implications would arise for public policy. Governments often react to downturns with austerity measures, leading to cuts in essential services like:

  • Healthcare
  • Education
  • Infrastructure investment.

Such measures exacerbate social inequalities and foster discontent among vulnerable populations who rely on these services for their well-being (Zain et al., 2010). Is it not ironic that in trying to protect an economy, the very policies put in place could harm those who depend on it the most?

In the long term, reversing economic growth could reshape a nation’s economic ideology. Populations may begin to question the foundational principles of free trade and open markets as they experience the direct consequences of economic failures attributed to tariff policies. In response, political movements advocating for radical shifts in economic policy could gain momentum, leading to critical scrutiny of corporate practices and demands for economic justice, ultimately transforming the socio-economic landscape.

What if Alternative Economic Policies are Adopted?

Policymakers have the opportunity to pivot away from tariff reliance and explore alternative economic strategies, which, if effectively implemented, could yield profoundly positive outcomes. By fostering trade relationships rather than hindering them, nations can create an atmosphere conducive to both foreign and domestic investment. This shift may involve engaging in multilateral trade agreements that prioritize equitable trade practices and open markets (Nakano et al., 2016).

Consider the example of the post-World War II Marshall Plan in Europe, where cooperation and investment in rebuilding war-torn economies led to unprecedented growth and stability. By investing in collaboration rather than competition, nations can similarly revitalize their economies and strengthen international ties.

Moreover, developing incentives for local businesses to thrive—such as subsidies for innovation and sustainable practices—could stimulate economic growth without resorting to protectionist measures (Muchopa, 2021). For instance, a study by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) found that every job in renewable energy leads to 3.4 jobs in the wider economy due to increased spending and investment. Coupled with a strong focus on education and workforce development, these policies would build a robust foundation for economic diversification and resilience (García & Fernández, 2014).

Taking a page from successful international models, countries could invest in technology and infrastructure enhancements that align with global demand for sustainable practices. By supporting green technologies and renewable energy initiatives, governments can stimulate local economies while making strides toward meeting international environmental standards and commitments. This multifaceted approach would enhance a nation’s competitive edge in the global market while fostering long-term economic sustainability.

Additionally, expanding diplomatic efforts to rebuild trust with other nations can yield significant results. Collaborating on shared challenges, such as climate change or public health, can foster goodwill and lead to mutually beneficial economic partnerships (Tchouassi, 2014). Imagine a world where countries share technology and resources to combat climate change effectively—the result could be a thriving global economy that benefits all.

An important aspect of this transformative agenda involves engaging local communities in the economic discourse. Policymakers should consider consultations with civic organizations and labor unions to ensure that proposed policies are inclusive and equitable. This participatory approach increases public buy-in and aligns economic initiatives with the needs and aspirations of the populace.

Ultimately, a reevaluation of the current tariff-centric mindset is imperative for fostering a balanced economic framework that benefits both local and global economies. Enabling a shift towards policies that encourage inclusive growth will not only support domestic industries but also strengthen the fabric of international cooperation and mutual prosperity. As we stand at a crossroads, one must ask: will we embrace the opportunity for transformation or cling to outdated paradigms? The potential consequences of failing to adapt to this evolving economic landscape must not be underestimated, as they could redefine the global economic order.

References

  • Amiti, M., Redding, S. J., & Weinstein, D. E. (2019). The impact of the 2018 tariffs on prices and welfare. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(4), 187-210.
  • Behrens, P., Rodrigues, J. F. D., Bras, T. J. G., & Silva, C. (2016). Environmental, economic, and social impacts of feed-in tariffs: a Portuguese perspective 2000–2010. Applied Energy, 165, 837-844.
  • Elsheikh, O. E., Elbushra, A. A., & Salih, A. A. (2013). Economic impacts of changes in wheat’s import tariff on the Sudanese economy. Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences, 12(1), 43-51.
  • Ederington, J. (2001). International coordination of trade and domestic policies. American Economic Review, 91(5), 1580-1596.
  • García, J. A., & Fernández, J. I. (2014). Does the investment climate determine the transformation of tourism growth into economic development? Tourism Economics, 20(4), 1073-1096.
  • Himics, M., Listorti, G., & Tonini, A. (2019). Simulated economic impacts in applied trade modelling: A comparison of tariff aggregation approaches. Economic Modelling, 80, 117-133.
  • Ikejiaku, B. V., & Mordi, C. (2010). Weak business investment climate, poor economic growth and Africa’s poor socio-economic development. Journal of International Economic Law, 13(1), 231-262.
  • Muchopa, C. L. (2021). Economic impact of tariff rate quotas and underfilling: The case of canned fruit exports from South Africa to the EU. Economies, 9(4), 155.
  • Nakano, S., Arai, S., & Washizu, A. (2016). Economic impacts of Japan’s renewable energy sector and the feed-in tariff system. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 18(4), 859-878.
  • Polachek, S. W. (1997). Why democracies cooperate more and fight less: The relationship between international trade and cooperation. Review of International Economics, 5(3), 239-255.
  • Siriwardana, M. (1996). The economic impact of tariffs in the 1930s in Australia: The Brigden report re-examined. Australian Economic Papers, 35(66), 118-133.
  • Tchouassi, G. (2014). Private capital and investment climate for economic growth: Empirical lessons based on ARDL bound test technique. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 3(2), 17-34.
  • Zain, M. E., Abdelbagi, A., & Salih, A. (2010). Impact of mycotoxins on humans and animals. Journal of Saudi Chemical Society, 14(2), 186-202.
← Prev Next →