• Research
  • Politika
  • About
Carnegie Russia Eurasia center logoCarnegie lettermark logo
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Uri Dadush"
  ],
  "type": "other",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Economy",
    "Trade",
    "Global Governance",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Other

Industrial Policy: A Guide for the Perplexed

Industrial policy is a controversial, even taboo, subject in policy circles. Yet it is widely practiced by advanced and developing countries alike.

Link Copied
By Uri Dadush
Published on Feb 1, 2016

Source: OCP Policy Center

For the purpose of this short note, industrial policy is defined as government intervention in a specific sector which is designed to boost the growth prospects of that sector and to promote development of the wider economy. I exclude from this definition horizontal policies, such as investment in education, reinforcement of the rule of law and property rights, and so on, even though these horizontal policies can affect different sectors differently and so can be part of an industrial policy. I do so for the sake of brevity and because the importance of horizontal policies is widely understood, and there is much less controversy surrounding them than around sectoral interventions. To sharpen the focus further, I also exclude interventions at the sectoral level which aim to achieve other objectives than growth and employment, such as improving environmental and safety standards, as these interventions aim to correct well-recognized market failures and are also relatively uncontroversial.

Industrial policy so defined takes many shapes, including regulatory reform, subsidies, protection, and direct government ownership of enterprises, and it has a checkered past. Its heyday was in the 1950s and 1960s, a period characterized by post-war recovery, rapid growth, decolonization, and import substituting industrialization (ISI). Following the ideas of Hirschman (1958) dynamic industrial sectors paying high wages and exhibiting strong backward linkages received special attention. While many developing countries did well during this phase, their inability to sustain growth following the oil shocks and inflation of the 1970s, the international interest rate hikes and Latin American debt crisis that followed, severely discredited ISI. Drawing on the example of a small number of successful “Asian tigers”, a new “outward-oriented” model of industrial policy became increasingly accepted. This entailed systematic promotion of key manufacturing export sectors which could exploit large world markets, but which also required imports of state-of-the-art machinery, the know-how of foreign investors, and maintenance of a competitive exchange rate (Dani Rodrik, Middle East Development Journal, 2008). Encouraged by some international organizations such as UNIDO and UNCTAD, many developing countries, for example, Brazil and India, continue to practice this model today, or at least, attempt to do so....

This article was originally published by the OCP Policy Center.

Read Full Text

About the Author

Uri Dadush

Former Senior Associate, International Economics Program

Dadush was a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He focuses on trends in the global economy and is currently tracking developments in the eurozone crisis.

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    The Labors of Tsipras

      Uri Dadush

  • In The Media
    Greece, Complacency, and the Euro

      Uri Dadush

Uri Dadush
Former Senior Associate, International Economics Program
Uri Dadush
EconomyTradeGlobal GovernanceForeign PolicyNorth America

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Azerbaijan Looks to Tap Ukraine’s Military Expertise With Raft of New Deals

    Baku’s backing for Ukraine is less about confronting Russia than about quietly broadening the mix of partners it relies on.

      Zaur Shiriyev

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Could the Iran War Push Japan to Restore Russian Oil Imports?

    Tokyo would have to surmount a lot of obstacles—not least Western sanctions—if it wanted to return Russian oil imports to even modest pre-2022 volumes.

      Vladislav Pashchenko

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    The Much-Touted Middle Corridor Transport Route Could Prove a Dead End

    For the Middle Corridor to fulfill its promises, one of these routes must become scalable. At present, neither is.

      Friedrich Conradi

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Why Is Belarus’s Approach to Online Censorship So Different From Russia’s?

    For Lukashenko, abandoning Western internet services and embracing Russian equivalents would mean tying himself even closer to Moscow.

      Artyom Shraibman

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    What Does Nuclear Proliferation in East Asia Mean for Russia?

    Troubled by the growing salience of nuclear debates in East Asia, Moscow has responded in its usual way: with condemnation and threats. But by exacerbating insecurity, Russia is forcing South Korea and Japan to consider radical security options.

      James D.J. Brown

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
Carnegie Russia Eurasia logo, white
  • Research
  • Politika
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.