The first thing to come to mind would be protecting local companies from foreign competition, with the goal of preventing bankruptcies and granting them a consumer base to get sales, letting them persist and improve. But that isn't really mainstream in economics.
Of course, law enforcement/national security/enforcing sanctions, are outside the scope of this question. Everyone understands preventing, for example, drug trade would require some level of trade control, or that not relying on food imports is valuable even if it comes at a cost.
What reasons against unrestricted free trade would mainstream economics agree with?
byu/KING-NULL inAskEconomics
Posted by KING-NULL
2 Comments
The support for restricting free trade is when you think there is a benefit that is greater than the costs. You’ve listed 3 very common arguments.
Protect domestic industry
Harmful products
National security
Biosecurity, in the case of NZ. That’s restrictions on imports that may introduce new foreign species to the country. Including inspecting arrivals for potential hitch-hikers. NZ biosecurity: “If you see a family with three kids under five, you know that somewhere in their bags there’s a forgotten banana.”