Free Trade versus Infant Industry Promotion
The Possibility of Temporary Protection for Latecomer Countries

Kenichi Ohno
National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies
January 11, 2001

1. Introduction
For Latecomer developing countries like Viet Nam, international economic
integration is both an opportunity and a challenge. On the one hand, strong foreign influence
acts as great pressure and incentive to change, and if this influence is properly guided andutilized, the country can enter a new age of dynamism and prosperity. On the other hand,facing this powerful force without adequate preparations is risky and may lead tomacroeconomic instability, social strain and national identity crisis. In either case, this is a
critical historical moment for these countries, and policy makers bear a very heavy
responsibility. Integration must surely be pursued, but its manner and timing must be
carefully designed in order to maximize its benefits and minimize its costs. Integration
should be neither too slow nor too fast. It should be paced so as to stimulate realistic
domestic reforms with the right amount of external pressure, not more, not less.
This paper discusses both theoretical and practical issues concerning thecommitment to free trade by latecomer countries trying to catch up with early comers. It alsooffers some policy suggestions regarding how Viet Nam should implement AFTA obligations
and proceed with WTO accession negotiations.
The dominant trade theory which supports free trade can be challenged for the lackof dynamic and historical considerations. However, the feasibility of temporary importprotection for latecomers is severely constrained today by accelerated international
integration on the one hand and limited domestic capability on the other. In order to justify
industrial promotion through temporary import protection, latecomer countries should
improve the capability of both government and domestic enterprises. Our proposal is that1

this capability should be nurtured—and externally demonstrated—primarily throughpresenting concrete and reasonable promotion strategies for a relatively small number of
selected industries. At the same time, international economic rules surrounding IMF, World
Bank, WTO, AFTA, etc. need to be modified so as to enable latecomer countries to execute
reasonable industrial development policies (although this policy revision is beyond the powerof the Vietnamese government). For Viet Nam, both of these conditions remain yet to besatisfied.

2. The Theory-History Nexus
Comparative advantage doctrine
Ever since the mid 19th century, the dominant academic paradigm in trade theory
has been that of comparative advantage. Comparative advantage is said to be one of the mostdifficult concept for laymen to understand. Briefly, it says that if each country exports goods
it is relatively good at producing and imports goods it is relatively poor at producing, allcountries will gain regardless of income level or economic structure. As long as countries aredifferent in technology (Ricardian model) or in factor endowments (Heckscher-Ohlin model),potential gains from trade always exist.
More concretely, comparative advantage can be explained by way of an example.
Consider a professor and a research assistant with two tasks—writing an academic paper
and making photocopies. The professor is better at both tasks than his assistant. Does thismean he should do both works and the assistant should remain aside, watching? Of coursenot. Efficient division of labor depends on relative skillfulness between two tasks for each
person (“comparative advantage”), rather than relative skillfulness between two persons foreach task (“absolute advantage”). If the professor is five times more efficient in paper writing
than the assistant and two times in photocopying, comparatively speaking, the professor ismore skillful in paper writing and the assistant in photocopying. The two should divide thetasks between them (“specialize”) accordingly. If the story is reinterpreted as two countries
engaged in the production of two goods, we have a theory of comparative advantage.
The comparative advantage theory was first clearly proposed by the British
economist David Ricardo in the early 19th century in his attack against mercantilism, whichfavored official intervention in international trade. The policy implication of Ricardo’s
doctrine was immense and long lasting; it refuted the validity of trade protection and argued2

that free trade, not government intervention, was the correct public policy. Ever since, thistheory has always remained at the “core” of economic teaching and trade policy debates. Asan academic doctrine, the comparative advantage theory is one of static general equilibrium
which is simple, elegant and symmetric. As such, it is easily expandable mathematically.1
However, from the perspective of latecomer countries, the main weakness of thedominant doctrine is its indifference to historical or structural context. The Ricardian model
is so static and simple that it cannot deal with interesting dynamic questions, such as theway to overcome the technology gap, how to deal with strong competition from developed
countries, or which industries should be selected for promotion under temporary protection.
In fact, the dominant theory does not even provide any logical framework for discussingthese crucial questions in a concrete and realistic way.
Trade theory in historical perspective
Economic theories evolve through internal academic innovation as well as external
historical influences. The conclusion of the comparative advantage theory, that free trade isbeneficial for all countries, is often presented as a universal truth and a (near) consensus in
economic profession. However, historical circumstances in which this theory appeared in the
United Kingdom in the 19th century were very unique. Despite the appearance of a general
theory, the doctrine of comparative advantage is highly history-specific. Its conclusion also
depends on various assumptions that can be challenged on theoretical and empiricalgrounds.
The emergence and popularity of free trade theory is greatly affected by theparticular position of a country or an industry in the existing power relations of the global
economy. Generally speaking, a country which has already achieved a dominant economic
position tends to prefer free trade, imposing it on others who are “less enlightened.” By
prohibiting temporary import barriers, free trade serves the interest of the early comer by
1 Around the theoretical “core” of comparative advantage, there are various
sub-theories in the “protective belt,” accumulated through past academic and policy debatesand supporting or supplementing the core (see Irwin [1996] for more detail). Those
Sub-theories have covered the following areas: (i) balance of payments impact; (ii)relationship between productivity and wage; (iii) modification when the home country islarge (“optimal tariff theory”); (iv) whether tariffs are justified when there is domestic
economic distortion (the answer is no); (v) redistribution effects of trade; (vi) the case where
prices are sticky and frictional unemployment emerges; and (vii) the case where factors of
production are mobile internationally. These model variations are theoretically important but

3ensuring global markets for its products and frustrating latecomers’ effort to catch up. On
the other hand, latecomer countries wishing to industrialize against the competitive pressure
from early comers promote alternative models which justify intervention and protection
under certain conditions. Similarly, within a country, industries enjoying strong export
performance lobby for free trade, while newly emerging industries threatened by imports
demand protection.2 Whether protected industries really grow under protection is a separate
and important issue which will be discussed below.
Today’s industrialized countries also had periods of industrial promotion underimport protection in the past. Some examples are given.
United Kingdom: Until the middle of the 19th century, the British market wasprotected from foreign agricultural commodities and especially cheap Indian cotton products.
Mercantilism, a doctrine that seeks to generate trade surplus by restricting imports andpromoting exports, was theoretically defeated by Ricardo’s model of comparative costs. It istrue that Ricardo was a great economist, but his model also served important political
purposes. The emergence of the Ricardian theory coincided with Britain’s historical turnfrom protection (e.g., Corn Law) to free trade, and Ricardo in effect defended the interest of
the new merchant class (of which he was a member) who wanted free trade against theinterest of the landed class. As the UK’s global dominance in manufacturing was firmly
established by the mid 19th century, the country began to preach free trade to the rest of theworld. Free trade helps to secure the superiority of the first comer by not allowing latecomers
to promote modern industries that would compete with the British. The historians’ term
“imperialism of free trade” describes the British policy during this period of pursuing“informal rule [free trade] if possible, but formal rule [colonization] if necessary.” Thus, free
trade and military conquest were two alternative means to pursue the same British overseasinterest.
United States: From even before political independence and throughout the 19th
century, America was sharply and geographically divided between free trade advocates in the
not very relevant or helpful in solving the actual problems that Viet Nam faces.
2 The textbook analysis of consumer and producer surpluses contends that, while protection
may benefit certain producers, the country as a whole will lose if consumers’ utility andgovernment revenue are properly taken into account. While this argument may be used
politically to resist unreasonable demands by interest groups, it shares the common
analytical weakness of the dominant paradigm; it is static and devoid of any historical or
structural context. Moreover, empirically, the static efficiency effect is usually very small andcan be easily dominated by other dynamic effects, whether positive or negative.

4

south and protectionists in the north. Northern industrial states demanded protection
against British products while southern plantation states with competitive cotton exports
wanted free trade, ensuring cheap imports and free access to the British market. Alexander
Hamilton represented the northern voice, advocating industrialization under protection anda centralized federal government, while Thomas Jefferson preached free commerce in theinterest of southern planters. The US eventually grew to be a free trader, but only after acivil war and the completion of successful industrialization in the late 19th century. The
American tariff rates were very high during the most of the 19th century.
Germany: Industrial revolution of Germany began much later in the late 19th
century, under the heavy hand of the state. German customs union was created and public
investment in railroads and heavy industries was vigorously implemented. Latecomers’
protection was justified by the infant industry protection argument of Friedrich List who
contended that proper trade theory depended on the particular development stage of acountry. According to List, creation of manufacturing base and upgrading the commodity
composition of trade were more important national goals than pursuing pure commercial
profits.
Japan: After opening up to the world economy in the mid 19th century, Japan founditself desperately lagging in industry and technology. For the first half century following that,Japan had no tariff rights and had to industrialize under the uniform tariff of 5 percent.
However, this did not seem to hurt the economy greatly since Japan was a primarycommodity exporter (mainly silk, followed by tea, seafood, grain, copper, coal, etc.) and there
was virtually no domestic manufacturing industry worth protecting.3 However, by the early
20th century Japan had succeeded in light industrialization (textile) and was ready todevelop heavy industries. This coincided with regaining of full tariff rights in 1911. Japanese
tariffs were raised selectively to protect machinery, chemical, and other new industries. Highprotection was finally removed after WW2, during the 1960s and 70s when Japan had
already achieved a status of an advanced economy with high technology.

Sir Rutherford Alcock (1809-97), first British ambassador to Japan, demanded the removalof Japan’s political and social impediments to trade (i.e., NTBs) and argued the merits ofunlimited trade as an automatic equilibrating mechanism. In his book [Alcock 1863], he also
wrote that, if persuasion did not work with the Japanese government, military power might
become necessary to improve the situation. By contrast, the Japanese leader and prime
minister Hirofumi Ito (1841-1909) criticized the principle of free trade, saying that it would
only serve British interest. According to Ito, free trade would greatly harm Japan which was
only “half-developed” at that time.
3

5

Australia: In the late 1920s there was an argument for protection in Australia,
advocated mainly by J. B. Brigden. He argued that primary commodities, in which Australia
had comparative advantage, exhibited decreasing returns. Specializing in them would resultin higher costs at home and depressed prices abroad, thus reducing the real income of theAustralian people. Moreover, free trade would have adverse distributional effects as ahandful of landlords benefited at the cost of the working majority. However, as it turned out,
Australia did not subsequently succeed in industrialization and has remained a sparsely
populated primary commodity producer to this date, despite its relatively high income.
Alternative views: lack of guideline
One of the problems for latecomer countries, who must face a very competitive world
even before establishing any modern industries, is the absence of a useful system ofintellectual arguments to guide their policy of temporary import protection. Even though the“imperialism of free trade” seems unfair and unreasonable to them, there are few convincing
theories to effectively counter it.
Compared with the dominant paradigm of comparative advantage in support for free
trade, the alternative paradigm in support of temporary import protection is less clearly
defined. Empirically, the alternative paradigm asserts that effective protection of certain
industries is necessary (but not sufficient) in the catching up process (“infant industry
protection argument” of Hamilton and List above). It also presents a set of theoretical models
justifying intervention based on the notion of increasing returns, broadly defined.4 However,
the alternative paradigm is without the mathematical elegance and integrity of thecomparative advantage theory. Many of the models in the alternative paradigm are often
descriptive rather than theoretical, and look more ad hoc. The dominant paradigm considers
the alternative paradigm outdated and already proven to be irrelevant or even harmful.
Although the alternative paradigm gathers many avid followers, it has less academic appeal
due to its absence of formal structure and institutional apparatus. The current theoreticallandscape is presented schematically below.

Increasing returns models can be interpreted as belonging to and an extension of theprotective belt of the dominant paradigm. However, its policy implications are often quite theopposite of the dominant paradigm which justifies free trade rather than protection.
4

6

Dominant Paradigm (Free Trade)
Alternative Paradigm (Temporary Protection)
BOP impact
Optimal tariff

Market failure
Market distortion<THEORETICAL>

CORE

Increasing returns

Infant industry protection

Comparative

Strategic trade model

Dynamic comparative adv.

advantage

Learning effectFlying geese pattern

Endogenous growth

Product cycles

Distributional impact

Formal<EMPIRICAL>

Frictional unemployment

Neoclassical political economy

and elegant

More descriptive and less formal

PROTECTIVE BELT

Although not very popular among the practitioners of the dominant paradigm,
theories that recognize the importance of history and the specific position of each country do
exist. They are usually called the “stage of development” models. For example, Kuznets[1971] introduced the notion of “Modern Economic Growth” in which the impact of the
British Industrial Revolution was transmitted to the rest of the world through technicalinnovation and social change. Similarly, Gerschenkron [1962] analyzed the advantage anddisadvantage of backwardness in the context of Western European industrialization, again
with the United Kingdom as the leader.
Furthermore, some Japanese economists have presented models that can explain
the patterns of industrialization in non-Western countries. The flying geese pattern model,
proposed by Akamatsu and further developed by Kojima [2000], is particularly famous.
Watanabe [1995] also presents his “structural transformation chain” model of Asian
economies. These models point to the historically common pattern of successful
industrialization in which some products are first imported, then domestically produced andfinally exported. Establishment of these industries takes place sequentially, from foodprocessing to textiles and garment, steel, chemicals, then to machinery, electronics, andinformation technology. Countries with different stages of development specialize in different

7

products, and active trade and FDI among them raise the overall level of regional
industrialization. This dynamic process is now well known, especially in East Asia, and these
Japanese economists contributed to this common understanding.
However, although the models of Kuznets, Gerschenkron, Akamatsu, Kojima and
Watanabe can successfully describe “stylized facts” in the past, they are not very useful as an
operational future guideline for countries faced with practical questions of integration.
Concrete strategies cannot be readily derived from these generally descriptive theories (thisby no means lessens the intellectual value of these models, however).
More recent methods include computer-aided econometric data analyses, such as
calculation of effective tariff rates, revealed comparative advantage (RCA) analysis, andcomputable general equilibrium (CGE) models, conducted by university economists andinternational organizations. While these look awesome and highly complicated to laymen,
they also share the same vital defect with the dominant paradigm, namely, they are all static.
Studying the recent past in detail does not permit the researcher to predict the future
correctly, especially of a country going through the dynamic process of marketization andinternational integration. Evolution of a new system and social response to it cannot be
predicted by extrapolating the past using fixed coefficients.
What seems to be keenly desired in a country like Viet Nam is neither abstract
theory nor computerized data analysis. Nor is the general assertion of efficiency of idealized
free trade very useful. The Vietnamese government would like to have an operationalguideline which can analyze the actual problems on the way to integration and suggest
concrete policies to deal with them, step by step. However, such a convenient theory may notexist, if only because such wisdom exists in the accumulation of actual practice. The secret ofindustrial promotion cannot be learned passively from outside using an operation manual.

3. Increasing Pressure to Integrate
Globalization since the 1990s
As the Soviet Union collapsed and the US economy prospered thanks to the IT
Revolution and booming asset markets, the US-led global economy emerged in the 1990s. In
such a unipolar world, pressure to integrate with the global economy naturally intensified fordeveloping and transition countries. For Viet Nam which began to integrate only in the81990s, the integration shock is even greater. Integration is required in a large number ofareas including law, labor practice, accounting, enterprise management, trade, finance,
governance, environmental protection, etc. and even in building a civil society anddemocratic institutions. Integration may occur spontaneously or under duress: sometimes
through voluntary action of the country and other times through regional peer pressure or
external

loan

conditionality.

Internationalorganizations

are

ready

to

help—orpress—latecomers to open up and accept international codes of conduct.
As time passes, the challenge of integration for remaining developing countries has
become even greater [Ishikawa 2000]. First, the relative gap in the level of achievement of
the market economy between advanced and developing economies has widened during thelast several decades. Second, after some successful countries (such as NIEs) exit to theindustrialized world, the average institutional capability of the remaining countries is verylow (“losers’ bias”). Third, pressure to integrate has intensified without simultaneous
improvement in domestic capability. In the post cold war period, latecomer countries withvery weak competitiveness, policies and institutions are often unable to properly manage theintegration process and encounter serious difficulties. Many of them hasten to integrate
without sufficient preparations, often inviting social crises or the loss of macroeconomic
control.
Dynamic disciplinary effects of free trade
The challenge of integration cannot be avoided and, in fact, it should be welcomed.
In the long run, opening up to foreign competition is a prerequisite for sustained economic
development and systemic transition. Without that move, domestic industries will stagnate
and fall hopelessly behind in technology and productivity. Free trade invigorates the national
economy through the following channels (provided that at least some domestic enterprises
can meet the challenge):--Improving static efficiency of resource allocation (Harberger triangle effect—but thismay not be very large empirically)--Forced exit of inefficient producers--Disciplinary effect on surviving industries for constant improvement--Importing more effective rules and systems from abroad--Defeating domestic monopoly (whether natural or policy-created)--Protect the government against political capture by interest groups--Avoiding retaliatory trade measures by other countries (reciprocity)9Risks of premature free trade commitments
However, commitment to trade liberalization also carries risks for latecomers. Quick
integration with very unstable and competitive global markets, without proper preparationsin industrial competitiveness, policy capability and institutional building would lead to thefollowing:--Sudden loss of output and employment beyond socially tolerable limits--De-industrialization and primary commodity lock-in--Increased price and demand shocks from abroad--Emergence of new income gaps between rich and poor and across regions--Foreign economic dominance--Environment destruction and resource exploitation beyond recovery--Social and political instability--Loss of cultural and national identities
Brutal markets and the lock-in effectSome of these risks may be further elaborated.
Forceful penetration of the global market system into domestic society not only canunleash positive dynamism but also may bring serious social tension. Economic
anthropologist Karl Polanyi has been most eloquent on this inherent dilemma [Polanyi 1957].
He argued that economic systems prior to the 19th century were all “embedded” in society.
That is to say, economic activities such as production, exchange and consumption were all
subordinated to the unique structure of each society. However, after the British Industrial
Revolution, the market system based on machinery and factory production began to invade
society. The market system is so powerful and “self-regulating” that it transforms society
according to its requirements rather than being shaped by it. If the market system demandsa large number of wage earners, contract-based transactions, modern firms and a stock
exchange, society is obliged to supply them. For Polanyi, it was particularly worrisome thatprimary factors of production—labor, land and money—which were not originally intended to
be bought and sold were now transformed into pseudo-commodities. Uninhibited, the logic of
the market economy—which he called “Satanic Mill”—would destroy human character, social
relationship and natural environment. The brutality of unrestrained markets is so severethat it spontaneously triggers the emergence of defense mechanisms by workers, businesses,
charity groups and the government.

10Another aspect of the unrestrained global market system is to widen the gap
between early comer and latecomer countries. In a world of increasing returns (i.e., a large
set-up cost followed by a subsequent rise in productivity), free trade tends to solidify the
position of initial achievers and condemn latecomers to economic underdevelopment. If alatecomer country joins the global market prematurely, its economic structure may evenregress backwards (de-industrialization is actually observed in CIS and Mongolia). As theexisting weak industrial base collapses under severe foreign competition, its economy islocked into the status of a primary commodity producer, in which its current comparativeadvantage lies. As IT and advanced manufacturing are monopolized by early comers, it isdifficult for latecomers to enter these fields, let alone excel in them.
Some latecomers resist this natural tendency of “winner-takes-all” and try to catch
up. The driving force for this deviation does not come from laissez-faire but from combined
efforts of government and businesses under a strong sense of nationalism. Temporary importprotection has been a key ingredient in the catching up strategy, but under globalization its
use is highly restricted. Some argue that, even under free trade, today’s developing countries
can have certain new industries with FDI promotion and non-trade measures not prohibitedby WTO. However, permissible industries are often concentrated in light and low-techindustries (such as food processing, textile and garment, footwear, tourism, etc.). Heavy
industries and advanced manufacturing which require large initial investment underincreasing returns (such as steel, chemicals, fertilizer, machinery, automobile, etc.) are likely
to be ruled out. Whether that is an acceptable development path is an open question. Anotherunresolved issue is whether leapfrogging into high technology (such as information,
telecommunications, finance) is possible or even desirable from the viewpoint of the national
economy.

4. Lack of Domestic Capability
Desirability of catching up is one thing. Feasibility of such a strategy is quite
another problem. Industrialization under integration pressure requires strong capability ofboth government and business enterprises. Without it, the country would repeat the many
misapplications and outright failures of protection policies of other countries in the past.
Risks involved in temporary import protection are proportionally greater if the country lacks
such capability. At present, whether the Vietnamese government and business community
possess such capability is seriously in doubt. These domestic weaknesses are the mostserious barrier against integration. Since this point is well recognized in Viet Nam, this11

section can be brief.
Underdevelopment of market and limited private response
A vigorous market economy does not spontaneously emerge in any society. On thecontrary, societies that achieve it are relatively rare. And even for those countries which are
now fully industrialized, development of the market economy has been a long evolutionary
process with many pitfalls; it was not created by short-term social engineering. The growth ofthe market economy requires certain historical preconditions regarding productivity,
distribution system, social organization, etc. Today’s remaining low-income countries are
generally not well equipped with these conditions. In fact, it can be even said that the lack ofthese conditions is the main reason why they remain unindustrialized. Underdeveloped
private businesses may fail to respond positively to policies intended to help them, such as
deregulation, privatization, trade liberalization, SME promotion, creation of a stock
exchange, or establishment of an internationally accepted legal framework.
Weak government and political capture
Another serious problem is the inability of government to properly design andimplement industrial promotion under temporary import protection. In the standard
economics textbook, the roles of government include correcting market failure, supplying
public goods, macroeconomic management and income redistribution. In a latecomer country,
government has additional and even more important roles: it has to implant a new market
economy in society as well as manage the external integration process. However, as is wellknown, governments in these countries are often characterized by low capacity, rigidity, redtape, corruption, low salary, political influence, etc. Not only the economy is underdeveloped
but government which is supposed to guide it is also underdeveloped.
When the government is incapable of distinguishing infant industries frominefficient senile industries, policy intervention only distorts resource allocation without
accelerating growth. If the government is additionally susceptible to political pressure,
protection policy can easily be hijacked by interest groups, leading to permanent protection ofhopeless industries. Analyses of “neoclassical political economy” by economists in support offree trade such as Anne Krueger (rent-seeking); Jagdish Bhagwati (directly unprofitableprofit-seeking, or DUPS) and Ronald Findlay (interest lobbying) highlight these political12

risks.5
World Bank and institution-building
The World Bank’s view on the institutional capability of developing countries
evolved substantially during the 1990s. Previously, under the strong influence of neoclassicaldevelopment economics, the World Bank promoted openness and small government in all
member countries and counseled against selective industrial policy. However, in its 1993
“East Asian Miracle” report, the Bank noted that some economies with strong institutions(Japan, Korea, Taiwan, etc.) successfully conducted financial and trade interventions. In the1997 World Development Report, the Bank further rejected the idea of minimalist state andagreed that the state’s role in development was very important. A two-part strategy was
proposed in which (i) the state’s role must be in proportion to its present capability; and (ii)capability should be improved over time. Theoretically then, for countries achieving highcapability, even selective industrial policy is permissible. Today, however, the World Bank
policy under CDF and PRSP seems to have degenerated into imposing uniform and abstract
programsforinstitutional

improvement,

such

as

partnership,

goodgovernance,accountability, transparency, civil society, etc, regardless of the initial conditions of aparticular country. Whether such an undifferentiated approach is useful at all remains to beseen.

5. Current Issues for Viet Nam
In the remainder of the paper, Viet Nam’s integration policy questions are discussed
more in detail.
Need for policy consistency
When a developing country faces strong pressure to integrate, there can be a varietyof policy responses. For example:

One historical example of managing integration while strengthening domestic capability isprovided by Japan’s accession to GATT and OECD during the 1960s. Using international
commitments to guard against inefficient protectionism, MITI urged domestic producers to
improve competitiveness before trade barriers were lifted, rather than lobby for more
protection. At the same time, the government provided result-oriented incentives toenterprises which successfully raised productivity.
5

13

Pattern 1—Successful integration: under national consensus, both government andbusinesses, though encountering many problems, endeavor to improve productivity,
policies and institutions to achieve industrialization under integration (Meiji Japan,
NIEs).
Pattern 2—Gradual integration with ownership: regardless of external pressure, thecountry proceeds gradually and experimentally to introduce markets and open up its
economy at its chosen speed, thus avoiding both radicalism and back-tracking(China—but only large countries with political clout can choose this path).
Pattern 3—Big bang integration: although domestic capability is still weak, boldintegration and marketization measures are adopted as a matter of principle, causing
serious harm to people’s living and domestic industries (Mongolia, Kyrgyzstan).
Pattern 4—Reversal: realizing the danger of integration, the country regresses back tocontrol and regulation (temporarily?) to protect itself, antagonizing IMF (Uzbekistan,
Turkmenistan; emergency measures against currency crisis adopted by Malaysia andKazakhstan can be interpreted as a mild form of this).
Pattern 5—Inconsistency and delay: While the country clearly understands the needfor integration in general, it is unable to make concrete preparations due to the lack ofpolitical will or policy capability. As a result, mutually inconsistent policies are
implemented, such as committing to AFTA while introducing trade barriers (Viet Nam).
If left uncorrected, the country may fall into either Pattern 3 or 4.
Each country going through integration is unique. Some countries continue to argue
the general merits and demerits of market versus government, or the superiority of big bangtransition versus gradualism. But Viet Nam is relatively free from such abstract debates andknows well that market and government must be combined properly and that extreme
policies should be avoided. However, the main problem with Viet Nam is the lack of concrete
action. During the past five years of the Japan-Viet Nam Research Project, initially identified
problems—such as the need to temporarily promote selected industries—remain basicallythe same, but no effective effort to identify candidate industries has been made (see below).
In 1998-99, the Project urged the Vietnamese authorities to officially declare a firm
long-term commitment to integration and marketization while utilizing the limited time andmethods to promote a small number of carefully selected industries with temporary

14

protection. However, no action has been taken so far. In the mean time, the AFTA deadline isapproaching quickly.
Viet Nam’s inability to act promptly comes from various sources. For example,
consensus-based decision making, decentralized responsibility among various ministries andorganizations, political tug-of-war between central and local governments, pressure from
affected industries, shortage of experienced officials and a general lack of time andknowledge, all contribute to slow action. While policy rigidity provides stability in normal
times, it would lead to economic stagnation when the country must respond quickly tochanging circumstances. Although the governing system cannot be altered immediately,
there should be a constant effort to concentrate and speed up the decision-making processeven under the existing system. At present, the Vietnamese government and industries are
ill-prepared to face the challenge of integration. If consistent policies cannot be designed,
temporary import protection for selected industries should not be implemented. This is so not
only because such policy would invite international criticism but also because of the expectedenormous cost to the national economy.
Selecting industries
For temporary import protection, the first crucial step is to select a small number ofcandidate industries for promotion. This point has been clearly recognized in Viet Nam, but
no effective procedure for industry selection has so far been discovered. Existing economic
theories are too abstract to be useful for such a practical problem. Therefore, Viet Nam must
devise its own method to identify prospective industries (although other latecomer countries
also face the same problem).
One possible methodology is to list the general criteria by which to choose candidate
industries. For example,--Labor intensity and employment impact--Forward and backward industrial linkage--Possibility of rapid productivity growth and technology absorption--High income and price elasticities of demand (domestic and overseas)--International market conditions and competitors’ behavior--Balance of payments impact--Social impact and regional equality within the country--Possibility of use of domestically available raw materials

15

Problems with this approach are two-fold. First, information requirement isenormous. Unless each industry is studied very intensively, these criteria cannot be actuallyused to select candidate industries, but no organization—domestic or foreign—has conducted
in-depth research on so many aspects of so many industries. Second, even if necessary
information is gathered, how to consolidate these multiple criteria into one and rank
industries is unknown. At present, this approach remains too general to be operational.
Another approach is to infer the competitiveness of each industry from a relatively
simple indicator, such as the price gap between domestic and foreign products or the current
level of import protection. One such approach has been taken by the Vietnamese government
itself. It is reported that the government has been conducting an internal study to assess thecompetitiveness of some (but not all) industries on an experimental basis and without direct
policy implications. According to the press report, industries are classified in three groups:--Group 1: Competitive—coffee, cashew, rice, pepper, aqua-products, garment, footwear,
small diesel engine, tourism, construction service;--Group 2: Competitive if proper support is provided—tea, rubber, vegetable, wood
product, industrial salt, some tropical fruits, some flowers, poultry, electronic
assembling,

engineering,chemicals,

cement,shipbuilding,banking,

telecommunications, sea transport, air transport, auditing, software, insurance service,legal consultant service, healthcare;--Group 3: Not competitive—sugarcane, cotton, oil-generating plant, soyabean, corn,
cow milk, pork products, steel.
However, this classification may be challenged, as some industries look misclassified.
Moreover, it is not clear what analytical method is used to arrive at this conclusion. It is also
reported that this classification is mainly based on the “effective” rate of protection (the tariff
rate on the value-added component of each product). However, the current level of protection
cannot be used to judge the potential of an industry in the future. A more careful approachshould be used to evaluate the dynamic comparative advantage of a country. Among highly
protected industries, we should distinguish truly infant industries from dying industries
with no future.
Our alternative proposal is to accumulate good studies on individual industries.
Rather than searching for general criteria or a simple indicator, in-depth studies of a dozen
or so key industries should be conducted, one by one, on a continuous basis. At the same time,
concrete policy issues for each individual industry should be identified and discussed among
government officials, business leaders, industrial experts and international donors. This will16

be a time-consuming process, but without accumulating such specific information, usefulpromotion policy cannot be designed or implemented. Past industry studies by either
domestic or foreign experts (including those by JICA and UNDP) have often been too generalor superficial. However, in the past several years JICA has mobilized a number of Japaneseexperts and economists to study Viet Nam’s steel industry from various angles, andimportant policy issues have now been identified (see my other paper). Such effort should
also be extended to other industries so that policy makers will be able to prioritize industries
from a broader perspective, not just from the viewpoint of one industry.
Tariff reduction strategy
Before Viet Nam can effectively negotiate WTO entry, it has to prepare a tariff
reduction schedule. But to do so, a long-term, concrete and mutually consistent policies forindividual industries must be designed first. That in turn requires in-depth studies of eachindustry as mentioned above. Without such a national development strategy, individual tariff
lines cannot be calculated or negotiated in a meaningful way. The currently preparedfive-year plan and ten-year strategy are too general. The problem with Viet Nam is that it
has no such national development strategy even after several years of international
integration.
Without clear tariff strategies for individual industries, we can only point out twogeneral principles that Viet Nam must adhere to.
First, all non-tariff barriers (NTBs) including especially quantitative restrictions
such as import bans and import licenses must be converted to corresponding tariffs as an
initial step (“tariffication”). This task has been already started, but it would require asignificant systemic change in Viet Nam’s trade regime; removal of quantitative restrictions
should not be offset by new hidden barriers such as operational procedure and domestic
policy.
Second, under the regional obligation of AFTA and the global obligation of (future)
WTO, permanent protection of any industry is out of question, and all industries should as amatter of principle expect free trade except for very special circumstances. These
circumstances include temporary protection of a limited number of industries for the reasonof either (i) industrial promotion under a very specific and realistic development plan; or (ii)severe injury of domestic producers due to sudden penetration of imports. In either case,protection must be conducted within the framework of AFTA and WTO.

17

Conceivable tariff proposals for a currently protected product are presented
schematically in the diagram below (assume that the initial tariff is 30%). Among these,
maintaining the tariff permanently above the AFTA ceiling is unlikely to be accepted by theinternational community, whether at 30% or 15%. The only permissible tariff proposal iseither strictly adhering to AFTA or temporarily deviating from it, provided that suchdeviation is moderate and accompanied by a reasonable and concrete development strategy
for that industry. Note that tariff rates in the diagram are for illustrative purposes only. It is
not certain, for example, whether 15% can be accepted even for temporary protection.

Conceivable Tariff Proposals for A Currently Protected Product%35

Maintain at 30%

30
25

Reduce to 15%

Not permissible
20

Temporary deviation from
AFTA

15
10

Observing AFTA

5

2022

2020
2021

2018
2019

2016
2017

2014
2015

2012
2013

2010
2011

2008
2009

2006
2007

2004
2005

2002
2003

2001

0

For a currently unprotected product (assume that the initial tariff is zero since there
is no corresponding domestic industry at present), if Viet Nam wishes to create that industry
in the future, the tariff can be raised to a non-zero level. In that case also, similar constraints
will apply. The new tariff must be 5% or less, or if going above that level, it must be moderate,
temporary and accompanied by a reasonable and concrete development strategy.

18

Conceivable Tariff Proposals for A Currently Unprotected Product%35

Raise to 30%

30
25

Raise to 15%

Not permissible

20

Raise to 15% then reduce to
5%

15
10

Raise to 5%

5

2022

2020
2021

2018
2019

2016
2017

2015

2013
2014

2011
2012

2009
2010

2008

2006
2007

2004
2005

2002
2003

2001

0

In addition, the tariff system must be consistent across different industries.
Protecting one industry often harms other industries which use the output of that industry.
When industries are linked through input-output relations, the cascading pattern of tariffs(higher tariffs for downstream industries relative to upstream) is usually advisable.
WTO entry problem
As of June 2000, WTO has 137 member countries accounting for over 90 percent of
global trade. For latecomer non-member countries, merits of joining WTO include (i)forestalling unfair commercial treatment by other countries; (ii) catalyst for domestic
reforms; and (iii) access to WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism. On the other hand,possible demerits are industrial collapse, unemployment, foreign dominance, etc. associatedwith rapid liberalization without adequate preparations, as discussed earlier. Generally
speaking, today’s WTO membership applicants lack necessary information or preparation toenter WTO. In a hasty attempt to join WTO, some countries even accept many unreasonable
demands imposed by the existing members. For transition economies, understanding theprinciples of WTO, revising domestic laws, and implementing them will take enormous timeand energy.
Moreover, countries wishing to enter WTO today face a number of additionaldifficulties.
First, the negotiation process tends to be costly, complex and prolonged. As an initialstep, preparing the Memorandum and answering questions addressed to it already requires
great effort. Bilateral negotiations with certain large member countries are excruciating. For

19

very poor countries, negotiation and traveling costs of the official delegation are notnegligible.
Second, demands from existing members are escalating. WTO does not stipulate theprecise condition for entry, and everything is up to the negotiating parties. In the accession
process, existing members are extremely powerful and applicants are disproportionately
powerless, and this power imbalance leads to unreasonable demands being imposed on newmembers. Privatization, price liberalization, and export tax elimination are outside thejurisdiction of WTO, but they are nonetheless often required (called “WTO plus”). New
members are regularly denied of waiver, exemption, or delayed execution enjoyed by existing
LDC members. As a result, new members are forced to implement tariff reduction, TRIPs,
TRIMs, export subsidy cuts, service trade liberalization, etc. much faster than the existing
LDC members with similar levels of development.
Third, special treatment for low-income countries are often denied to new members.
WTO is supposed to grant the following privileges to LDC members: (i) import protection forindustrial development or against payments crisis (GATT article 18); (ii) access to developed
country markets (GATT Part 4); and (iii) lower tariffs on LDC exports (GSP). However, in
actual accession talks, these LDC “rights” are rarely conferred. Even the definition of“low-income country” is on the negotiation table, as in the case of China.
Fourth, with each passing year the conditions for entry are tightened. Thus,
latecomers face the dilemma of joining now by yielding to unreasonable demands, orparticipating later with better preparations but with tougher requirements. Slow
preparations as in the case of Viet Nam will make this dilemma even more serious.
Need for integration-friendly international environment
While most of the preparations for integration must be made on the Vietnamese side,
the world economy must also change significantly to encourage and assist the integration oflatecomer countries. At present, both in trade and finance, global markets are too unstable
and competitive for latecomer countries to join safely. Moreover, the rules and mechanismsthat regulate the world economy—including those of IMF, World Bank, WTO, ASEAN—areoften unfair to latecomers (as in WTO entry negotiations discussed above), without
consideration of the unique characteristics of each country (as in most IMF conditionality), or
unable to prevent or cope with economic crises (in the Asian crisis, high interest rates andbold structural reforms during the panic may have worsened the situation).

20More specifically, the following areas should be reformed before latecomer countries
are asked to implement a rapid liberalization and integration program.
--Multiple integration rules should be applied to countries with different initialconditions and stages of development, rather than imposing uniform rules on all.
--Similarly, procedures which suppress the ownership and uniqueness of each country,
such as an excessive application of CDF or IMF conditionality, should be avoided.
--Conditions under which latecomer countries can use temporary import protection
must be clearly spelled out.
--Power imbalance between new entrants and existing members of WTO and otherorganizations should be corrected; there should be a “level playing field” forintegration. Existing WTO members should not make unreasonable entry demands.
--Global financial and exchange rate instability must be regulated and reduced.
--IMF’s capability to prevent and cope with currency crisis must be greatly improved.
Of course, Viet Nam alone cannot solve these global problems. Improving thesesystems is mainly the joint responsibility of large countries (including Japan) andinternational organizations. However, smaller countries can also raise issues and influence
the global debate, as Malaysia did at the time of the Asian crisis. When developing countries
have a legitimate cause for concern, they can jointly exert significant pressure on advanced
countries. But to do so, the claimant country should have clear economic philosophy, gooddomestic policies and effective diplomacy.

21

References
Alcock, Sir Rutherford [1863], The Capital of the Tycoon, London.
Gerschenkron, Alexander [1962], Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective, Harvard
University Press.
Irwin, Douglas A. [1996], Against the Tide: An Intellectual History of Free Trade, Princeton
University Press.
Ishikawa, Shigeru [2000], Japan’s Economic Cooperation Policy in Quiet Revolution,
IDE-JETRO, forthcoming.
Kojima [2000], “Gankogata Keizaihatten Ron: Saikento” (Economic Theory of Flying Geese
Pattern: A Reappraisal), Surugadai Keizai Ronshu, vol.9, no.2, in Japanese
Kuznets, Simon [1971], Economic Growth of Nations: Total Output and Production Structure,
Harvard University Press.
Polanyi, Karl [1957], The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our
Time, Beacon Press (originally published in 1944).
Watanabe [1995], Shinseiki Aia no Koso (Designing Asia in the New Century), Chikuma
Shinsho, in Japanese.

22