This is a variation on the infant-industry argument with the novelty of the infants not being located in the country imposing the tariffs. I know the infant-industry argument has the support of many well-regarded persons. Unfortunately, if this were even to be only one of many solutions to the problems of economic development, Congress could not defend against the accusation that AGOA hurts the economic development of the United States.

If anyone wants to open American markets to Africa, the promotion of uncompromised free trade should be the priority. Most people in the United States are ambivalent enough about trade as it is (this applies to a greater degree to the President’s party and supporters). Using the argument that the restrictiveness of AGOA produces some economic benefit for Africa bolsters the arguments of those who think America should have a more restrictive policy of free trade vis-à-vis the world generally.

Aside from the political considerations above, I find it difficult to understand the arguments of the aforementioned respectable economists in support of the infant-industry argument. Fencing in AGOA-like trade preferences creates wealth in come countries only at the expense of others, with a deadweight loss besides, just as scrapping AGOA altogether would create wealth in the US. You’ve probably heard of Bastiat’s “A Negative Railroad”, which I find the most compelling demonstration of this idea.

Along those lines, I’d like to hear your thoughts on Boudreaux’s statement below. Does this statement not apply equally to all countries?

“[Protectionism is] a strategy in which short-term gains in employment and export opportunities are traded for longer-term growth in the form of truly competitive industries.”