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

Critics of globalisation say it has led to the transfer of industries to emerging markets, causing employment losses and increased reliance on other countries. In reaction, they suggest that governments should relocate industries by applying industrial policy. Nonetheless, this perspective does not recognise the dynamic nature of global markets and neglects the economic logic for globalisation and free trade. The transfer of industry was mainly driven by sound financial calculations, specifically, businesses look for cost-effective operations. There clearly was and still is a competitive advantage in emerging markets; they provide abundant resources, reduced manufacturing costs, big consumer areas and favourable demographic patterns. Today, major companies run across borders, tapping into global supply chains and gaining some great benefits of free trade as business CEOs like Naser Bustami and like Amin H. Nasser would probably aver.

History indicates that industrial policies have only had limited success. Various countries applied various kinds of industrial policies to encourage specific companies or sectors. Nevertheless, the results have frequently fallen short of expectations. Take, for example, the experiences of a few Asian countries within the 20th century, where considerable government intervention and subsidies by no means materialised in sustained economic growth or the intended transformation they imagined. Two economists analysed the effect of government-introduced policies, including inexpensive credit to enhance production and exports, and contrasted industries which received assistance to those that did not. They figured that during the initial phases of industrialisation, governments can play a positive part in establishing companies. Although old-fashioned, macro policy, such as limited deficits and stable exchange prices, also needs to be given credit. Nevertheless, data shows that assisting one firm with subsidies has a tendency to harm others. Also, subsidies allow the survival of ineffective firms, making companies less competitive. Moreover, when businesses focus on securing subsidies instead of prioritising development and efficiency, they remove funds from productive use. Because of this, the overall financial aftereffect of subsidies on productivity is uncertain and perhaps not good.

Industrial policy in the form of government subsidies often leads other nations to hit back by doing the exact same, which can impact the global economy, security and diplomatic relations. This might be exceedingly high-risk as the general financial effects of subsidies on productivity continue to be uncertain. Even though subsidies may stimulate economic activities and produce jobs in the short run, yet the future, they are prone to be less favourable. If subsidies aren't along with a number of other measures that target efficiency and competition, they will likely hinder required structural adjustments. Hence, industries will end up less adaptive, which reduces growth, as business CEOs like Nadhmi Al Nasr likely have noticed in their careers. Hence, undoubtedly better if policymakers were to focus on finding an approach that encourages market driven development instead of outdated policy.