As industries relocated to emerging markets, worries about job losses and reliance on other nations have grown amongst policymakers.

Industrial policy in the form of government subsidies can lead other countries to retaliate by doing exactly the same, that may impact the global economy, security and diplomatic relations. This might be excessively high-risk due to the fact general economic effects of subsidies on efficiency remain uncertain. Despite the fact that subsidies may stimulate economic activities and create jobs in the short term, yet the long term, they are prone to be less favourable. If subsidies are not accompanied by a range other actions that address productivity and competition, they will probably hamper essential structural modifications. Hence, industries can be less adaptive, which lowers growth, as company CEOs like Nadhmi Al Nasr have probably noticed throughout their professions. It is, definitely better if policymakers were to concentrate on finding an approach that encourages market driven development instead of obsolete policy.

Critics of globalisation suggest that it has led to the transfer of industries to emerging markets, causing employment losses and greater reliance on other countries. In reaction, they suggest that governments should relocate industries by implementing industrial policy. However, this viewpoint does not acknowledge the powerful nature of worldwide markets and neglects the basis for globalisation and free trade. The transfer of industry was primarily driven by sound economic calculations, namely, companies seek cost-effective operations. There clearly was and still is a competitive advantage in emerging markets; they offer abundant resources, reduced manufacturing costs, big consumer areas and favourable demographic trends. Today, major businesses operate across borders, making use of global supply chains and reaping the benefits of free trade as company CEOs like Naser Bustami and like Amin H. Nasser may likely aver.

History shows that industrial policies have only had limited success. Many nations implemented different forms of industrial policies to encourage certain industries or sectors. But, the outcome have often fallen short of expectations. Take, for instance, the experiences of several parts of asia in the twentieth century, where extensive government involvement and subsidies by no means materialised in sustained economic growth or the intended transformation they envisaged. Two economists examined the impact of government-introduced policies, including inexpensive credit to enhance manufacturing and exports, and compared industries which received help to those who did not. They concluded that throughout the initial phases of industrialisation, governments can play a constructive role in establishing companies. Although traditional, macro policy, such as limited deficits and stable exchange prices, must also be given credit. Nevertheless, data suggests that helping one firm with subsidies tends to harm others. Additionally, subsidies allow the survival of inefficient businesses, making companies less competitive. Furthermore, whenever companies concentrate on securing subsidies instead of prioritising creativity and effectiveness, they remove resources from productive use. Because of this, the general financial aftereffect of subsidies on efficiency is uncertain and possibly not positive.