Editing Industrial policy

{{short description|Official strategic effort to encourage the development and growth of all or part of the economy}}
{{Blacklisted-links|1=
*http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html
*:''Triggered by <code>\beconlib\.org\b</code> on the local blacklist''
*http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN19.html#IV.9.24
*:''Triggered by <code>\beconlib\.org\b</code> on the local blacklist''
*http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/List/lstNPE.html
*:''Triggered by <code>\beconlib\.org\b</code> on the local blacklist''
*http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/List/lstNPE31.html#Book%20III,%20Chapter%2031
*:''Triggered by <code>\beconlib\.org\b</code> on the local blacklist''|bot=Cyberbot II|invisible=true}}
{{Public finance}}
'''Industrial policy''' is proactive government-led encouragement and development of specific strategic industries for the growth of all or part of the economy, especially in absence of sufficient private sector investments and participation. <ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last1=Juhász |first1=Réka |last2=Steinwender |first2=Claudia |date=2024 |title=Industrial Policy and the Great Divergence |url=https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-091523-044259 |journal=Annual Review of Economics |volume=16 |pages=27–54 |language=en |doi=10.1146/annurev-economics-091523-044259 |issn=1941-1383|hdl=10419/282363 |hdl-access=free }}</ref>{{sfn|Graham|1994|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=My9sL1iKQm8C&pg=PA3 3]}}{{sfn|Bingham|1998|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=nyF0zNh68ooC&pg=PA21 21]}}{{sfn|Rodrik|2004|p=2. Rodrik uses the term in a more extended fashion, such as to encompass "non-traditional activities in agriculture or services. There is no evidence that the types of market failures that call for industrial policy are located predominantly in industry"}} Historically, it has often focused on the [[manufacturing]] sector, militarily important sectors, or on fostering an advantage in new technologies. In industrial policy, the government takes measures "aimed at improving the competitiveness and capabilities of domestic firms and promoting structural transformation".{{sfn|UNCTAD|UNIDO|2011|p=34}} A country's [[infrastructure]] (including transportation, telecommunications and [[energy industry]]) is a major enabler of industrial policy.<ref>For the relations between industrial policy and infrastructure, see Koh, Jae Myong (2018) ''Green Infrastructure Financing: Institutional Investors, PPPs and Bankable Projects'', Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 12–51.</ref>

Industrial policies are [[economic interventionism|interventionist]] measures typical of [[mixed economy]] countries. Many types of industrial policies contain common elements with other types of interventionist practices such as [[trade policy]]. Industrial policy is usually seen as separate from broader [[Macroeconomic policy instruments|macroeconomic policies]], such as tightening credit and taxing capital gains. Traditional examples of industrial policy include subsidizing export industries and [[import-substitution-industrialization]] (ISI), where trade barriers are temporarily imposed on some key sectors, such as manufacturing.{{sfn|Krugman|1987}} By selectively protecting certain industries, these industries are given time to learn ([[Learning-by-doing (economics)|learning by doing]]) and upgrade. Once competitive enough, these restrictions are lifted to expose the selected industries to the international market.{{sfn|Gereffi|Wyman|1990}} More contemporary industrial policies include measures such as support for linkages between firms and support for upstream technologies.<ref name=":1">{{cite web|last1=Wear|first1=Andrew|title=Industry policy emerges from globalisation resurgent and more important than ever|url=http://www.themandarin.com.au/74425-industry-policy-emerges-from-globalisation-resurgent/|website=The Mandarin|access-date=26 January 2017|date=2017-01-24}}</ref>

Economists have debated the role of industrial policy in fostering industrialization and economic development.<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Juhász |first1=Réka |last2=Lane |first2=Nathan |last3=Rodrik |first3=Dani |date=2024 |title=The New Economics of Industrial Policy |url=https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-081023-024638 |journal=Annual Review of Economics |volume=16 |pages=213–242 |language=en |doi=10.1146/annurev-economics-081023-024638 |issn=1941-1383}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite journal |last1=Bartelme |first1=Dominick |last2=Costinot |first2=Arnaud |last3=Donaldson |first3=Dave |last4=Rodríguez-Clare |first4=Andrés |date=2025 |title=The Textbook Case for Industrial Policy: Theory Meets Data |url=https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/734129 |journal=Journal of Political Economy |page=000 |doi=10.1086/734129 |issn=0022-3808}}</ref> They have also debated concerns that industrial policy threatens free trade and international cooperation.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Bown |first=Chad P. |date=2024 |title=Modern Industrial Policy and the World Trade Organization |url=https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-100223-041958 |journal=Annual Review of Economics |volume=16 |pages=243–270 |language=en |doi=10.1146/annurev-economics-100223-041958 |issn=1941-1383}}</ref>

== History ==
The traditional arguments for industrial policies go back as far as the 18th century. Prominent early arguments in favor of selective protection of industries were contained in the 1791 ''[[Report on the Subject of Manufactures]]''{{sfn|Hamilton|1827}} of US statesman [[Alexander Hamilton]],<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Sylla |first=Richard |date=2024 |title=Alexander Hamilton's Report on Manufactures and Industrial Policy |url=https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.38.4.111 |journal=Journal of Economic Perspectives |language=en |volume=38 |issue=4 |pages=111–130 |doi=10.1257/jep.38.4.111 |issn=0895-3309}}</ref> as well as the work of German economist [[Friedrich List]].{{sfn|List|1909}} List's views on [[free trade]] were in explicit contradiction to those of [[Adam Smith]],{{sfn|List|1909|loc=Book III, [https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/lloyd-the-national-system-of-political-economy#lf0168_label_157]}} who, in ''[[The Wealth of Nations]]'', said that "the most advantageous method in which a landed nation can raise up artificers, manufacturers, and merchants of its own is to grant the most perfect freedom of trade to the artificers, manufacturers, and merchants of all other nations."{{sfn|Smith|1776|loc=Book IV, Chapter 9 [https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3300/3300-h/3300-h.htm#chap34]}}

According to [[New York University|NYU]] historians Prince & Taylor, "The relationship between government and industry in the United States has never been a simple one, and the labels used in categorizing these relationships at different times are often misleading if not false. In the early nineteenth century, for example, it is quite clear that the laissez faire label is an inappropriate one."{{sfn|Prince|Taylor|1982|p=283}}{{POV statement|date=March 2019}} In the US, an industrial policy was explicitly presented for the first time by the [[Jimmy Carter]] administration in August 1980, but it was subsequently dismantled with the election of [[Ronald Reagan]] the following year.{{sfn|Graham|1994|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=My9sL1iKQm8C&pg=PA27 27]}}

Historically, there is a growing consensus that most developed countries, including United Kingdom, United States, Germany, and France, have intervened actively in their domestic economy through industrial policies.{{sfn|Chang|2002}} These early examples are followed by interventionist [[Import substitution industrialization|ISI]] strategies pursued in Latin American countries such as Brazil, Mexico or Argentina.{{sfn|Gereffi|Wyman|1990}} More recently, the rapid growth of East Asian economies, or the [[newly industrialized countries]] ([[Newly industrialized country|NICs]]), has also been associated with active industrial policies that selectively promoted manufacturing and facilitated technology transfer and industrial upgrading.{{sfn|Wade|2003}} The success of these state-directed industrialization strategies are often attributed to [[developmental state]]s and strong bureaucracies such as the Japanese [[Ministry of International Trade and Industry|MITI]].{{sfn|Johnson|1982}} According to [[Princeton University|Princeton]]'s [[Atul Kohli]], the reason Japanese colonies such as [[Korea under Japanese rule|South Korea]] developed so rapidly and successfully was down to Japan exporting to its colonies the same centralised state development that it had used to develop itself.{{sfn|Kohli|2004}} Precisely speaking, South Korea's development can be explained by the fact that it followed the similar industrial policies that UK, US and Germany implemented, and South Korea adopted Export-Oriented Industrialization (EOI) policy from 1964 based on its own decision contrary to the Import Substitution Industrialization (ISI) policy touted by international aid organizations and experts at that time.<ref>Koh 2018, pp. 28–39.</ref> Many of these domestic policy choices, however, are now seen as detrimental to free trade and are hence limited by various international agreements such as [[WTO]] [[Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures|TRIMs]] or [[TRIPS]]. Instead, the recent focus for industrial policy has shifted towards the promotion of local [[business cluster]]s and the integration into global [[value chain]]s.{{sfn|Humphrey|Schmitz|2000}}

During the [[Reagan administration]], an economic development initiative called [[Project Socrates]] was initiated to address US decline in ability to compete in world markets.  Project Socrates, directed by Michael Sekora, resulted in a computer-based competitive strategy system that was made available to private industry and all other public and private institutions that impact economic growth, competitiveness and trade policy.  A key objective of Socrates was to utilize advanced technology to enable US private institutions and public agencies to cooperate in the development and execution of competitive strategies without violating existing laws or compromising the spirit of "[[free market]]".   President Reagan was satisfied that this objective was fulfilled in the Socrates system.  Through the advances of innovation age technology, Socrates would provide "voluntary" but "systematic" coordination of resources across multiple "economic system" institutions including industry clusters, financial service organizations, university research facilities and government economic planning agencies.  While the view of one US President and the Socrates team was that technology made it virtually possible for both to exist simultaneously, the industrial policy vs. free market debate continued as later under the [[George H. W. Bush administration]], Socrates was labeled as industrial policy and de-funded.<ref>{{cite news | first = Esther | last = Smith | title = DoD Unveils Competitive Tool: Project Socrates Offers Valuable Analysis | date = 5 May 1988 | work = Washington Technology}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last= Markoff |first= John |date= 10 May 1990 |title= Technology Official Quits At Pentagon |url= https://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/10/business/technology-official-quits-at-pentagon.html |newspaper= [[The New York Times]] |access-date= 25 August 2012 }}</ref>

Following the [[Financial crisis of 2007–2008|Financial Crisis of 2007–08]], many countries around the world  – including the US, UK, Australia, Japan and most countries of the European Union – have adopted industry policies. However contemporary industry policy generally accepts globalization as a given, and focuses less on the decline of older industries, and more on the growth of emergent industries. It often involves the government working collaboratively with industry to respond to challenges and opportunities.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Wear|first1=Andrew|title=Industry policy emerges from globalization resurgent and more important than ever|url=http://www.themandarin.com.au/74425-industry-policy-emerges-from-globalisation-resurgent/|website=The Mandarin|access-date=26 January 2017|date=2017-01-24}}</ref> China is a prominent case where the central and subnational governments participate in nearly all economic sectors and processes. Even though market mechanisms have gained importance, state guidance through state-directed investment and indicative planning plays a substantial role in the economy. In order to catch-up and even overtake industrialized countries technologically, China's "state activities even extend to efforts to prevent the dominance of foreign investors and technologies in areas considered to be of key significance such as the strategic industries and the new technologies"<ref>{{cite book |last= Heilmann |first= Sebastian |year= 2017 |title= China's Political System |page= 240 |url= https://www.merics.org/en/merics-analysis/chinas-political-system/ |publisher= Rowman & Littlefield |access-date= 2017-04-26 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170426042242/http://www.merics.org/en/merics-analysis/chinas-political-system |archive-date= 2017-04-26 |url-status= dead }}</ref> including robotics and new energy vehicles.

== Criticism ==
{{POV section|date=May 2023|talk=POV}} 
Some criticize industrial policy based on the concept of [[government failure]]. Industrial policy is seen as harmful as governments lack the required information, capabilities, and incentives to successfully determine whether the benefits of promoting certain sectors above others exceeds the costs and in turn implement the policies.<ref>See for instance, regarding the medias industries: Violaine Hacker, « Citoyenneté culturelle et politique européenne des médias : entre compétitivité et promotion des valeurs », Nations, Cultures et Entreprises en Europe, sous la direction de Gilles Rouet, Collection Local et Global, L’Harmattan, Paris, pp. 163–84</ref> While the [[East Asian Tigers]] provided successful examples of [[heterodox]] interventions and [[protectionist]] industrial policies,{{sfn|Amsden|1992}} industrial policies such as import-substitution-industrialization ([[Import substitution industrialization|ISI]]) have failed in many other regions such as Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa. Governments, in making decisions with regard to electoral or personal incentives, can be captured by vested interests, leading to industrial policies supporting local [[rent-seeking]] political elites while distorting the efficient allocation of resources by market forces.{{sfn|Pack|Saggi|2006}}

== Debates on process ==
Despite criticism, there is a consensus in recent development theory that says state interventions may be necessary when [[market failures]] occur.{{sfn|Rodrik|2009}} Market failures often exist in the form of [[externalities]] and [[natural monopolies]]. Some economists argue that public action can boost certain development factors "beyond what market forces on their own would generate."{{sfn|Rodrik|2004|p=1. "Perhaps not surprisingly, this recognition is now particularly evident in those parts of the world where market-oriented reforms were taken the farthest and the disappointment about the outcomes is correspondingly the greatest – notably in Latin America" }} In practice, these interventions are often aimed at regulating networks, public [[infrastructure]], [[R&D]] or correcting [[information asymmetries]]. Many countries are now seeing a revival of industrial policy.<ref>{{cite news |title=Many countries are seeing a revival of industrial policy |url=https://www.economist.com/special-report/2022/01/10/many-countries-are-seeing-a-revival-of-industrial-policy |newspaper=[[The Economist]] }}</ref>

One question is which kinds of industrial policy are most effective in promoting economic development. For example, economists debate whether developing countries should focus on their comparative advantage by promoting mostly resource- and labor-intensive products and services, or invest in higher-productivity industries, which may only become competitive in the longer term.{{sfn|Lin|Chang|2009}}

Debate also surrounds the issue of whether government failures are more pervasive and severe than market failures.{{sfn|Khan|2003}} Some argue that the lower the government accountability and capabilities, the higher the risk of political capture of industrial policies, which may be economically more harmful than existing market failures.{{sfn|Kaufmann|Krause|2009}}

Of particular relevance for developing countries are the conditions under which industrial policies may also contribute to poverty reduction, such as a focus on specific industries or the promotion of linkages between larger companies and smaller local enterprises.{{sfn|Altenburg|2011}}

== Effects ==
A study conducted by Réka Juhász investigated the economic effect of the [[Continental System|Continental Blockade]] on the [[First French Empire|French empire]]. It concluded that the regions of the French empire which were more protected from trade with the [[United Kingdom]] had an higher increase in mechanized cotton spinning than other regions.<ref>Juhász, Réka. 2018. [https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20151730 "Temporary Protection and Technology Adoption: Evidence from the Napoleonic Blockade."] ''American Economic Review'', 108 (11): 3339–76.</ref>

During the 2000s, China had implemented an industrial policy targeting its shipbuilding industry. The policy consisted in subsidizing entry, investment and production. It increased sectoral investment and entry rate by 270% and 200% respectively. It led to the entry of small and less productive firms and created excess capacity. The gain in producer or consumer surplus was lower than the cost of the subsidies. The policy was therefore welfare-reducing.<ref>Barwick, P. J., Kalouptsidi, M., & Zahur, N. B. (2019). [https://www.nber.org/papers/w26075 China’s Industrial Policy : an Empirical evaluation.] ''National Bureau Of Economic Research''. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.3386/w26075</nowiki></ref>

A 2025 study challenged that industrial policy under the most favorable circumstances in the textbook cases for industrial policy (sectors with relatively large external economies of scale) had transformative economic effects.<ref name=":2" /> According to the authors, "our estimates imply that even under the optimistic assumption that governments maximize welfare and have full knowledge of the underlying economy, gains from optimal industrial policy are hardly transformative, ranging from an average across countries of 1.08% of GDP in our baseline analysis to 4.06% in the general environment with physical capital and input-output linkages."<ref name=":2" />

== See also ==
* [[Green industrial policy]]
* [[Chaebol]]
* [[Developmental state]]
* [[Import substitution industrialization]]
* [[Infant industry argument]]
* [[Ministry of International Trade and Industry]]
* [[The Lucas Plan]]

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

== Sources ==
{{Library resources box}}
{{refbegin|}}
* {{Cite book|last=Altenburg|first=Tilman|year=2011|title=Industrial Policy in Developing Countries: Overview and lessons from seven country cases|url=http://www.die-gdi.de/CMS-Homepage/openwebcms3.nsf/%28ynDK_contentByKey%29/ANES-8EAHQ3/$FILE/DP%204.2011.pdf|location=Bonn|publisher=[[German Development Institute]]|isbn=978-3-889-85533-6|access-date=25 August 2012}}
* {{cite book|last=Amsden|first=Alice H.|author-link=Alice Amsden|year=1992|title=Asia's Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization|location=Oxford|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]|isbn=978-0-195-07603-5}}
* {{cite book|last=Bingham|first=Richard D.|year=1998|title=Industrial Policy American Style: From Hamilton to HDTV|location=Armonk,&nbsp;NY|publisher=[[M. E. Sharpe|M.E. Sharpe]]|isbn=978-1-563-24596-1}}
* {{cite book|last=Carey|first=Mathew|authorlink=Mathew Carey|year=1826|title=Cursory View of the Liberal and Restrictive Systems of Political Economy|url=https://archive.org/details/cursoryviewsofli00care|location=Philadelphia,&nbsp;PA|publisher=J.&nbsp;R.&nbsp;A.&nbsp;Skerrett}}
* {{cite book|last=Chang|first=Ha-Joon|author-link=Ha-Joon Chang|year=2002|title=Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective: Policies and Institutions for Economic Development in Historical Perspective|location=London|publisher=Anthem Press|isbn=978-1-843-31027-3}}
* {{cite book|editor1-last=Cimoli|editor1-first=Mario|editor2-last=Dosi|editor2-first=Giovanni|editor2-link=Giovanni Dosi|editor3-last=Stiglitz|editor3-first=Joseph E.|editor3-link=Joseph Stiglitz|year=2009|title=Industrial Policy and Development: The Political Economy of Capabilities Accumulation|location=Oxford|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]|isbn=978-0-199-23526-1}}
* Dobbin, Frank. Forging Industrial Policy: The United States, Britain and France in the Railway Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1994
* {{cite book|last1=Gereffi|first1=Gary|last2=Wyman|first2=Donald L.|year=1990|title=Manufacturing Miracles: Paths of Industrialization in Latin America and East Asia|location=Princeton,&nbsp;NJ|publisher=[[Princeton University Press]]|isbn=978-0-691-02297-0|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/manufacturingmir0000unse}}
* {{cite book|last=Graham|first=Otis L.|year=1994|title=Losing Time: The Industrial Policy Debate|location=Cambridge,&nbsp;MA|publisher=[[Harvard University Press]]|isbn=978-0-674-53935-8|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/losingtimeindust0000grah}}
* {{Cite journal|last=Hamilton|first=Alexander|authorlink=Alexander Hamilton|year=1827|orig-year=1791|title=Report on the Subject of Manufactures|url=https://www.scribd.com/doc/103924841/Hamilton-Alexander-1791-Report-on-the-Subject-of-Manufactures-Sixth-edition|journal=|location=Philadelphia,&nbsp;PA|publisher=William Brown|access-date=25 August 2012}}
*{{Cite book|editor-last=Heilmann|editor-first=Sebastian|year=2017|title=China's Political System|url=https://www.merics.org/en/merics-analysis/chinas-political-system/|publisher=Rowman & Littlefield|isbn=978-1-4422-7736-6|access-date=2017-04-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170426042242/http://www.merics.org/en/merics-analysis/chinas-political-system|archive-date=2017-04-26|url-status=dead}} 
* {{Cite book|last1=Humphrey|first1=John|last2=Schmitz|first2=Hubert|year=2000|url=http://www.ids.ac.uk/publication/governance-and-upgrading-linking-industrial-cluster-and-global-value-chain-research|title=Governance and Upgrading: Linking Industrial Cluster and Global Value Chain Research|publisher=[[Institute of Development Studies]]|isbn=1-8586-4334-1}}
* {{cite book|last=Johnson|first=Chalmers|author-link=Chalmers Johnson|year=1982|title=MITI and the Japanese Miracle: The Growth of Industrial Policy, 1925–1975|location=Stanford,&nbsp;CA|publisher=[[Stanford University Press]]|isbn=0-8047-1128-3|url=https://archive.org/details/mitijapanesemira00chal}}
* {{Cite journal|last1=Kaufmann|first1=Friedrich|last2=Krause|first2=Matthias|year=2009|title=Industrial Policy in Mozambique|url=http://www.die-gdi.de/CMS-Homepage/openwebcms3_e.nsf/%28ynDK_contentByKey%29/MPHG-7T3AZN/$FILE/Industrial%20Policy%20in%20Mozambique_Krause%20&%20Kaufmann.pdf|publisher=[[German Development Institute]]|access-date=25 August 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121018135755/http://www.die-gdi.de/CMS-Homepage/openwebcms3_e.nsf/%28ynDK_contentByKey%29/MPHG-7T3AZN/%24FILE/Industrial%20Policy%20in%20Mozambique_Krause%20%26%20Kaufmann.pdf|archive-date=18 October 2012|url-status=dead|journal=}}
* {{Cite book|last=Khan|first=Mushtaq H.|author-link=Mushtaq Khan (economist)|year=2003|chapter=State Failure in Developing Countries and Strategies of Institutional Reform|chapter-url=http://eprints.soas.ac.uk/3683/1/State_Failure.pdf|editor1=B. Tungodden|editor2=N. Stern|editor3=I. Kolstad|title=Toward Pro-Poor Policies: Aid, Institutions, and Globalization|url=http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2004/04/3521340/annual-world-bank-conference-development-economics-europe-2003-toward-pro-poor-policies-aid-institutions-globalization|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] and [[World Bank]]|pages=165–195|access-date=25 August 2012}}
* Koh, Jae Myong (2018). ''Green Infrastructure Financing: Institutional Investors, PPPs and Bankable Projects'', London: Palgrave Macmillan. {{ISBN|978-3-319-71769-2|}}.
* {{cite book|last=Kohli|first=Atul|year=2004|title=State-Directed Development: Political Power and Industrialization in the Global Periphery|location=Cambridge|publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|isbn=978-0-521-54525-9|author-link=Atul Kohli}}
* {{cite journal|last=Krugman|first=Paul|author-link=Paul Krugman|year=1987|title=The narrow moving band, the Dutch disease, and the competitive consequences of Mrs. Thatcher|url=http://www.eco.uc3m.es/~desmet/trade/KrugmanJDE1987.pdf|journal=[[Journal of Development Economics]]|volume=27|issue=1–2|pages=41–55|doi=10.1016/0304-3878(87)90005-8|access-date=2012-08-24|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120911202113/http://www.eco.uc3m.es/~desmet/trade/KrugmanJDE1987.pdf|archive-date=2012-09-11|url-status=dead}}
* {{cite journal|last1=Lin|first1=Justin|author1-link=Justin Yifu Lin|last2=Chang|first2=Ha-Joon|author2-link=Ha-Joon Chang|year=2009|title=Should Industrial Policy in Developing Countries Conform to Comparative Advantage or Defy it? A Debate Between Justin Lin and Ha-Joon Chang|url=http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTRANETTRADE/Resources/Internal-Training/287823-1256848879189/LinChangeDPRDebateIndustrialPolicy.pdf|journal=Development Policy Review|volume=27|issue=5|pages=483–502|access-date=25 August 2012|doi=10.1111/j.1467-7679.2009.00456.x|s2cid=17063817}}
* {{cite book|last=List|first=Friedrich|author-link=Friedrich List|year=1909|orig-year=1841|title=The National System of Political Economy|url=https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/lloyd-the-national-system-of-political-economy|location=London|publisher=Longmans, Green, and Co}}
* {{cite encyclopedia |last1=McKenzie |first1=Richard B. |editor=David R. Henderson |editor-link=David R. Henderson |encyclopedia=[[Concise Encyclopedia of Economics]] |title=Industrial Policy |url=http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/IndustrialPolicy.html |year=2002 |edition=1st |publisher=[[Library of Economics and Liberty]] }} {{OCLC|317650570|50016270|163149563}}
* {{cite book|last=Okuno-Fujiwara|first=Masahiro|year=1991|chapter=Industrial Policy in Japan: A Political Economy View|chapter-url=https://www.nber.org/chapters/c8667.pdf|editor=Paul Krugman|editor-link=Paul Krugman|title=Trade with Japan: Has the Door Opened Wider?|url=https://archive.org/details/tradewithjapanha0000unse/page/271|location=Chicago,&nbsp;IL|publisher=[[University of Chicago Press]]|pages=[https://archive.org/details/tradewithjapanha0000unse/page/271 271–304]|isbn=0-226-45458-4|access-date=25 August 2012}}
* {{Cite book|last1=Pack|first1=Howard|last2=Saggi|first2=Kamal|year=2006|title=The case for industrial policy: a critical survey|url=http://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/8782/wps3839.pdf|publisher=[[World Bank]]|access-date=25 August 2012}}
* {{cite journal|last1=Prince|first1=Carl E.|last2=Taylor|first2=Seth|year=1982|title=Daniel Webster, the Boston Associates, and the U.S. Government's Role in the Industrializing Process, 1815–1830|journal=Journal of the Early Republic|volume=2|issue=3|pages=283–299|jstor=3122975|doi=10.2307/3122975}}
* {{Cite book|last=Rodrik|first=Dani|author-link=Dani Rodrik|year=2004|title=Industrial Policy for the 21st Century|chapter=Industrial Policy for the Twenty-First Century|chapter-url=https://www.scribd.com/doc/4930237/Industrial-Policy-for-the-21st-Century|publisher=[[UNIDO]]|access-date=24 August 2012|archive-date=12 May 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130512202801/http://www.scribd.com/doc/4930237/Industrial-Policy-for-the-21st-Century|url-status=dead}}
* {{cite journal|last=Rodrik|first=Dani|author-link=Dani Rodrik|year=2009|title=Industrial Policy: Don't Ask Why, Ask How|journal=Middle East Development Journal|volume=1|issue=1|pages=1–29|doi=10.1142/S1793812009000024|s2cid=155012777}}
* {{cite book|last=Smith|first=Adam|author-link=Adam Smith|year=1776|orig-year=|title=An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations|url=https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38194|location=London|publisher=W Strahan and T Cadell}}
* {{Cite journal|author1=UNCTAD|author1-link=UNCTAD|author2=UNIDO|author2-link=UNCTAD|year=2011|title=Economic Development in Africa Report 2011: Fostering Industrial Development in Africa in the New Global Environment|url=http://unctad.org/en/docs/aldcafrica2011_en.pdf|journal=|publisher=[[United Nations]]|access-date=27 August 2012}}
* {{cite book|last=Wade|first=Robert|author-link=Robert Wade (development scholar)|year=2003|title=Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East Asian Industrialization|location=Princeton,&nbsp;NJ|publisher=[[Princeton University Press]]|isbn=978-0-691-11729-4}}
{{refend}}

== External links ==
* [http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/WBI/WBIPROGRAMS/KFDLP/0,,contentMDK:20750656~pagePK:64156158~piPK:64152884~theSitePK:461198,00.html New Industrial and Innovation Policy, The World Bank Institute]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20170426042242/http://www.merics.org/en/merics-analysis/chinas-political-system China's Political System], [https://www.merics.org/de Mercator Institute for China Studies]
* [http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/competitiveness/index.asp Interview with US secretary of commerce Penny Pritzke by the McKinsey Global Institute]

{{Public policy}}

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Industrial Policy}}
[[Category:Industrial policy| ]]
[[Category:Secondary sector of the economy|Policy]]