Historical efforts at implementing industrial policies have shown conflicting results.

While critics of globalisation may lament the increasing loss of jobs and heightened reliance on foreign areas, it is vital to acknowledge the broader context. Industrial relocation is not entirely a direct result government policies or corporate greed but rather a reaction towards the ever-changing dynamics of the global economy. As companies evolve and adjust, so must our understanding of globalisation and its own implications. History has demonstrated minimal success with industrial policies. Numerous countries have tried different types of industrial policies to boost certain companies or sectors, but the outcomes frequently fell short. For example, within the 20th century, several Asian nations implemented considerable government interventions and subsidies. However, they could not attain sustained economic growth or the intended changes.

Economists have examined the impact of government policies, such as supplying inexpensive credit to stimulate manufacturing and exports and discovered that even though governments can play a productive role in developing industries through the initial stages of industrialisation, old-fashioned macro policies like limited deficits and stable exchange rates tend to be more important. Furthermore, recent information suggests that subsidies to one company can harm other companies and could induce the survival of ineffective companies, reducing general industry competitiveness. Whenever firms prioritise securing subsidies over innovation and efficiency, resources are redirected from productive usage, potentially impeding productivity development. Furthermore, government subsidies can trigger retaliation of other countries, affecting the global economy. Although subsidies can increase economic activity and produce jobs for a while, they could have negative long-term results if not combined with measures to handle productivity and competitiveness. Without these measures, companies may become less adaptable, fundamentally hindering development, as business leaders like Nadhmi Al Nasr and business leaders like Amin Nasser might have noticed in their careers.

Into the previous few years, the discussion surrounding globalisation was resurrected. Critics of globalisation are contending that moving industries to asian countries and emerging markets has led to job losses and heightened dependency on other countries. This perspective shows that governments should intervene through industrial policies to bring back industries to their particular nations. Nevertheless, numerous see this standpoint as neglecting to understand the powerful nature of global markets and ignoring the root factors behind globalisation and free trade. The transfer of industries to other nations are at the heart of the issue, that was mainly driven by economic imperatives. Companies constantly seek cost-effective functions, and this triggered many to relocate to emerging markets. These regions provide a wide range of benefits, including numerous resources, lower production costs, big customer areas, and favourable demographic trends. As a result, major businesses have actually extended their operations internationally, leveraging free trade agreements and tapping into global supply chains. Free trade enabled them to access new markets, broaden their income channels, and benefit from economies of scale as business leaders like Naser Bustami may likely state.