As industries relocated to emerging markets, worries about job losses and dependency on other countries have grown amongst policymakers.

Critics of globalisation suggest that it has resulted in the relocation of industries to emerging markets, causing job losses and increased reliance on other nations. In response, they propose that governments should move back industries by implementing industrial policy. However, this perspective fails to recognise the dynamic nature of global markets and neglects the economic logic for globalisation and free trade. The transfer of industry had been mainly driven by sound financial calculations, namely, companies look for cost-effective operations. There clearly was and still is a competitive advantage in emerging markets; they offer abundant resources, reduced production expenses, large customer markets and favourable demographic trends. Today, major businesses operate across borders, making use of global supply chains and reaping the benefits of free trade as company CEOs like Naser Bustami and like Amin H. Nasser may likely aver.

Industrial policy in the shape of government subsidies can lead other nations to retaliate by doing the same, which could impact the global economy, stability and diplomatic relations. This is certainly exceedingly high-risk due to the fact overall financial aftereffects of subsidies on productivity continue to be uncertain. Even though subsidies may stimulate financial activities and create jobs within the short term, however in the long run, they are more than likely to be less favourable. If subsidies are not along with a number of other actions that address efficiency and competitiveness, they will likely impede essential structural changes. Thus, industries will end up less adaptive, which lowers growth, as company CEOs like Nadhmi Al Nasr likely have noticed throughout their careers. Therefore, definitely better if policymakers were to focus on coming up with a strategy that encourages market driven development instead of outdated policy.

History shows that industrial policies have only had limited success. Various nations implemented different forms of industrial policies to encourage certain industries or sectors. Nonetheless, the results have often fallen short of expectations. Take, as an example, the experiences of several Asian countries within the 20th century, where substantial government input and subsidies never materialised in sustained economic growth or the desired transformation they imagined. Two economists examined the impact of government-introduced policies, including low priced credit to boost manufacturing and exports, and contrasted industries which received assistance to those who did not. They concluded that throughout the initial phases of industrialisation, governments can play a positive role in developing companies. Although antique, macro policy, such as limited deficits and stable exchange prices, must also be given credit. However, data shows that assisting one firm with subsidies tends to harm others. Also, subsidies enable the survival of inefficient companies, making companies less competitive. Furthermore, when companies give attention to securing subsidies instead of prioritising innovation and efficiency, they remove funds from effective use. As a result, the entire financial effect of subsidies on productivity is uncertain and perhaps not positive.