Mercantilism isn't always bad but Trump's policies are

Mercantilism could have some strategic benefits but Trump's policies reflect its worst defects

- DANI RODRIK

When economists celebrate the 250th anniversary of the publication of Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations next year, US President Donald Trump's mercantilism will constitute an incongruous backdrop. After all, Trump's obsession with bilateral trade balances, glorification of import tariffs and zero-sum approach to international trade has revived—in defiance of Smith's teachings—the worst mercantilist practices.

Economists are right to denigrate Trump's trade policies. Other countries' unfair trade practices are not the main reason for the US trade deficit and targeting bilateral trade imbalances is downright silly. While the trade deficit has contributed to the decline of US manufacturing, it is hardly the most important factor. Besides, it enables American consumers and investors to borrow cheaply—a privilege most other countries would love to have.

In truth, mercantilism has never been as dead as economists thought, nor is it necessarily as misguided as they insist. Thanks to Smith's followers, laissez-faire and free trade often did find favor in leading countries, but others that were trying to catch up with frontier economies typically adopted a mixed strategy.