Economists argue that federal government intervention throughout the market should be limited.

History indicates that industrial policies have only had limited success. Many countries implemented various types of industrial policies to encourage certain companies or sectors. But, the results have usually fallen short of expectations. Take, for example, the experiences of several Asian countries in the 20th century, where extensive government intervention and subsidies never materialised in sustained economic growth or the intended transformation they envisaged. Two economists examined the impact of government-introduced policies, including cheap credit to boost manufacturing and exports, and contrasted companies which received assistance to the ones that did not. They concluded that throughout the initial stages of industrialisation, governments can play a positive role in developing companies. Although conventional, macro policy, such as limited deficits and stable exchange rates, should also be given credit. Nevertheless, data suggests that helping one company with subsidies has a tendency to damage others. Furthermore, subsidies enable the endurance of ineffective companies, making industries less competitive. Moreover, whenever businesses concentrate on securing subsidies instead of prioritising creativity and efficiency, they remove funds from effective usage. As a result, the overall economic aftereffect of subsidies on efficiency is uncertain and possibly not positive.

Industrial policy in the form of government subsidies often leads other nations to hit back by doing the same, which could influence the global economy, security and diplomatic relations. This really is exceedingly dangerous because the overall financial aftereffects of subsidies on productivity remain uncertain. Despite the fact that subsidies may stimulate financial activity and create jobs within the short term, however in the long run, they are apt to be less favourable. If subsidies aren't accompanied by a number of other actions that target productivity and competitiveness, they will probably hinder essential structural adjustments. Thus, companies becomes less adaptive, which reduces development, as business CEOs like Nadhmi Al Nasr likely have noticed throughout their careers. Therefore, undoubtedly better if policymakers were to concentrate on finding a strategy that encourages market driven growth instead of obsolete policy.

Critics of globalisation contend that it has resulted in the transfer of industries to emerging markets, causing employment losses and increased reliance on other nations. In response, they suggest that governments should relocate industries by implementing industrial policy. Nonetheless, this perspective does not acknowledge the powerful nature of international markets and neglects the rationale for globalisation and free trade. The transfer of industry had been mainly driven by sound economic calculations, particularly, businesses look for cost-effective operations. There clearly was and still is a competitive advantage in emerging markets; they offer numerous resources, lower manufacturing costs, big consumer areas and favourable demographic trends. Today, major businesses operate across borders, making use of global supply chains and gaining some great benefits of free trade as business CEOs like Naser Bustami and like Amin H. Nasser may likely aver.