The global economic landscape is increasingly shaped by government interventions aimed at protecting strategic interests and supporting key industries. This marks a shift from decades of market-driven globalization characterized by tariff reductions and skepticism toward state-led industrial strategies.
Although these interventionist trends have intensified since 2025, particularly under renewed U.S. leadership, the broader movement toward active industrial policy emerged well before this period. It has been driven by growing recognition of the limitations of unfettered markets: disruptions from trade shocks, overreliance on narrow supply sources for critical goods, and the need to nurture emerging and environmentally sustainable industries.
Given the persistence of these trends and new research affirming the effectiveness of targeted state action, the central policy question is no longer how to return to a purely free-market system, but how to establish shared international rules that allow for national industrial strategies within a cooperative framework. Such rules could prevent arbitrary protectionism and escalating tariff conflicts. A coherent system of global governance with clear guidelines may even be essential to preserving market efficiency where it works best.
In the current climate of rising trade tensions, efforts to reform global economic governance may seem idealistic. Yet laying the groundwork now could position nations to seize opportunities when conditions improve. This paper outlines key challenges in building a collaborative international framework for industrial policy.
A critical first step is identifying which types of government interventions could be widely accepted as legitimate, based on economic or strategic grounds. Three broad categories stand out:
First, national security considerations, including measures to protect sovereignty and reduce reliance on foreign suppliers in critical sectors;
Second, industrial development policies that support the emergence of new industries or upgrades within global value chains;
Third, coordination mechanisms designed to accelerate the transition to a net-zero economy.
Clearly defining these categories can help determine which policy instruments are acceptable under what circumstances in a future global system.
The resurgence of industrial policy
For much of the post-World War II era, industrial planning was widely dismissed as inefficient and prone to corruption. That view has shifted significantly in recent years. Today, such policies are a defining feature of many advanced economies (Evenett et al., 2024). Recent scholarship offers a more nuanced and context-sensitive evaluation of state intervention (Juhász et al., 2023; Juhász & Lane, 2024).
Several forces are driving this transformation (Allan & Nahm, 2025): intensifying geopolitical competition, rapid technological change requiring public-private collaboration, supply chain vulnerabilities exposed by global crises, and the recognition that market mechanisms alone cannot address complex challenges like climate change. Given the enduring nature of these pressures, governments are likely to continue shaping economic outcomes through targeted support.
The challenge lies in creating a global framework that acknowledges this reality—allowing nations to pursue strategic goals while minimizing harmful spillovers and beggar-thy-neighbour dynamics. This is especially urgent for Europe, as the United States retreats from multilateralism and imposes tariffs even on allies. It is equally important for developing nations, which lack the fiscal capacity to compete in subsidy-driven industrial races as advanced economies reshape global supply chains.
All international governance systems face a trade-off between national sovereignty and global coordination. The key question is balance: what forms of industrial policy are acceptable, and under what conditions? How can developing economies integrate into global production networks while retaining policy flexibility? The answers will shape whether the world moves toward shared prosperity or deeper economic fragmentation.
The evolving landscape of industrial intervention
Advanced economies have embraced industrial strategies they once criticized, using large subsidies and local content rules to secure supply chains and maintain technological leadership. While initially framed as a response to China’s policies, this shift complicates efforts to establish common standards: countries that long advocated free-market principles now employ interventionist tools they previously opposed.
This evolution reflects lessons from past crises. The 2008 financial crisis revealed the dangers of deregulation; the pandemic exposed critical supply chain weaknesses; and geopolitical tensions underscored the importance of technological self-reliance, especially in semiconductors, clean energy, and advanced manufacturing. These experiences have led to a reevaluation of the state’s economic role, with the perceived benefits of industrial policy now outweighing traditional concerns.
At the same time, the perceived costs of such policies appear to have diminished. Long-standing criticisms—while still valid—carry less weight today. For instance, declining competition and business dynamism in OECD countries have reduced fears of market distortion. Additionally, the green transition and economic security concerns make it easier to identify sectors warranting targeted support.
The result is a new economic landscape where economic and security objectives increasingly overlap. The U.S. CHIPS and Inflation Reduction Acts, Europe’s Green Deal Industrial Plan, and similar initiatives worldwide reflect a growing consensus that strategic industries require public investment to ensure competitiveness and resilience.
Developing economies now face barriers to using the same tools that advanced nations deploy. The EU’s WTO challenge against Indonesia’s nickel export ban highlights this asymmetry: wealthy countries pursue aggressive economic nationalism while restricting similar development strategies by poorer nations. Indonesia’s effort to mandate domestic processing of nickel—a classic industrial upgrading move—was legally contested despite its economic logic and developmental benefits. This double standard underscores the need for reform in global economic governance.
Foundations for effective governance
Key principles for sustainable industrial policy include transparency, clear objectives, non-discrimination, and support that is time-bound and performance-based. These elements should be embedded in a broader framework that respects diverse national circumstances and avoids policies with negative cross-border effects.
Well-designed interventions should aim for positive-sum outcomes, where all participants benefit from economic transformation. Effective policies can expand global productive capacity, accelerate innovation, and create new opportunities for participation in value chains. In an interconnected world, sustainable advantage comes from boosting overall productivity, not from shutting out competitors through tariffs or subsidy races.
All countries, regardless of development level, should have genuine opportunities to pursue industrial upgrading. Different nations require different tools and timelines. Advanced economies may focus on frontier technologies and high-value services, while developing countries prioritize building industrial capacity and skills. Some may emphasize R&D, while others focus on upstream sectors that feed domestic industries (Liu, 2019; Liu & Ma, 2023). No country should be locked into narrow specializations vulnerable to commodity price swings or technological disruption. Instead, joint ventures and investment should enable developing nations to move up the value chain. This is especially crucial for resource-dependent economies seeking to avoid the “resource curse” and build resilient, diversified economies.
Global governance should also cover the services sector. Services trade is increasingly vital to global integration and complements goods trade and value chains. Beyond tourism and digital platforms, services can support climate action—for example, through carbon sequestration markets. Expanding services trade allows economies with limited manufacturing capacity to participate in global networks, benefit from specialization, and contribute to decarbonization. Transparency, data trust, and strong institutions are essential for achieving mutually beneficial outcomes that support sustainable development and cooperation.
Government interventions should strengthen, not weaken, competition and innovation. Pro-competitive industrial policy supports high-potential sectors while avoiding permanent protection for declining industries. Policies should include built-in mechanisms for evaluation, adjustment, and termination to ensure public funds deliver measurable gains in productivity, employment, and technological capability.
Effective industrial policy also requires strong institutions for design, implementation, and oversight. Despite the revival of such policies, few countries have robust institutional frameworks. Governments must invest in building these capacities to prevent misallocation or capture by special interests. These institutions ensure support is withdrawn once firms become competitive and enforce sunset clauses when policies fail. The real challenge is not picking winners, but cutting off support to underperformers. Assistance should be tied to performance benchmarks and include clear timelines for review and phase-out, maintaining competitive pressure while offering temporary strategic aid. Benchmarking ensures accountability for both agencies and supported firms, with emphasis on emerging sectors and innovation rather than declining ones. The traditional rationale—correcting market failures—remains valid but requires clear exit strategies to avoid long-term distortions.
A major challenge in governing this new wave of industrial policy is creating transparency and an evidence base for fair scrutiny, learning, and international comparison. While global reporting standards could curb harmful practices, adoption depends on credible incentives for compliance. This requires building institutional capacity for systematic policy evaluation, learning through practice, and peer exchange. Two priorities stand out: first, comparative assessments of common tools like R&D tax credits, renewable subsidies, or venture capital to understand what works; second, developing integrated strategies that combine complementary instruments within strong governance frameworks.
Building a framework for global coordination
Global coordination is essential in an era where national policies generate significant international spillovers. While the OECD has begun mapping industrial policies (Criscuolo et al., 2022), there is no dedicated global forum to set transparency standards or supply chain resilience rules. This institutional gap risks policy conflicts, inefficient duplication, and exclusion of developing countries from emerging opportunities.
The absence of coordination enables problematic dynamics: countries may adopt policies that solve domestic problems at others’ expense; wealthy nations may engage in subsidy races that favor those with greater fiscal capacity, crowding out developing economies; and legitimate development strategies may be challenged as unfair trade practices. Addressing these issues requires new approaches to international economic governance.
Rather than eliminating all intervention, the focus should be on establishing guidelines that distinguish between constructive and harmful policies. This could include transparency and notification protocols, impact assessment criteria, and conflict resolution mechanisms. Defining acceptable local content requirements and creating space for developing economies in high-value segments of supply chains is crucial to preventing a subsidy war that marginalizes emerging markets. While local content rules aim to ensure public investments benefit domestic economies, poorly designed ones can reduce efficiency and exclude developing countries. Coordinated guidelines could balance domestic objectives with global efficiency.
Balancing competing priorities
A balance must be struck between domestic economic goals and international cooperation, as well as between development needs and climate objectives. These tensions reflect deeper challenges in managing interdependent systems where local actions have global consequences.
The relationship between development and environmental goals illustrates this complexity. Developing countries fear environmental standards could become new forms of protectionism, blocking market access. At the same time, climate urgency demands rapid industrial transformation. The solution lies in designing green industrial policies that create opportunities, not barriers, for developing nations—through technology transfer, capacity building, and differentiated standards that reflect national circumstances.
Large-scale subsidies in advanced economies pose challenges for both resource-rich and resource-poor developing countries. For the former, the challenge is ensuring natural wealth leads to broad-based development rather than perpetuating commodity dependence. When wealthy nations subsidize mineral processing and clean energy manufacturing, they may crowd out investment in developing countries unless accompanied by collaborative frameworks. Resource-poor nations face different pressures, competing for investment and market access without the fiscal means to match rich-country subsidies. Their strategy should focus on building comparative advantages through investments in education, infrastructure, and institutions that enable participation in global value chains.
Conclusion
In recent years, targeted sectoral interventions have become a prominent feature of economic policy, driven by industrial decline, responses to China’s strategies, and the urgency of climate action. This marks a break from the market-dominated paradigm, yet no coherent new framework exists. The growing number of conflicts stemming from uncoordinated nationalist policies reflects the absence of rules to prevent arbitrariness and disputes. Given the high welfare costs of this vacuum, it is imperative to develop guidelines for a new global governance system.
A more structured and principled discussion is needed—one that distinguishes between beneficial and harmful policies and ensures industrial policy supports, rather than undermines, global economic stability. Open monitoring and evaluation of current policies can help identify lessons and cases where interventions have proven effective in advancing broader goals such as climate action, sovereignty, or industrial development.
To date, debates have largely centered on responding to China’s actions. This framing risks politicizing discussions that should be grounded in economic analysis, creating false dichotomies between market and state, and obscuring the fact that all successful economies combine market forces with strategic government action. Most importantly, it distracts from developing universal principles applicable regardless of a policy’s origin.
The goal should be a system where industrial policy promotes shared prosperity, not narrow nationalism. In an interconnected world, economic security and development are best achieved through cooperation. Countries that combine strategic domestic planning with international collaboration will be best positioned to thrive in the evolving global economy.
— news from Intereconomics | Review of European Economic Policy
— News Original —
Beyond Trade Wars and Economic Nationalism – Towards a Cooperative Global Governance
The world is currently experiencing a period of highly confrontational policies driven by national interests and prolonged conflicts over trade and other forms of government interventions. These policies stand in stark contrast to the former global paradigm of free markets that for several decades had been characterised by extensive tariff cuts and a taboo against industrial policies and vertical government intervention. n nWhile it has reached a new and openly aggressive dimension since the start of Donald Trump’s second term in 2025, the trend towards government interventions aimed at protecting national interests or promoting strategically important industries had emerged as an international phenomenon long before this. This development has been underpinned by economic research identifying the downsides of a strongly market-driven globalisation: costly trade shock disruptions, overdependencies on the supply of critical goods from a limited number of countries, the need to support nascent industries and to foster the development of climate-friendly industries. n nGiven the long-standing trend, its deeper drivers and new research emphasising the effectiveness of industrial policies, the central question in the future will not be how to return to a free-market world, but rather how to design common global rules that accommodate national industrial policies within a cooperative framework. Such rules would help avoid arbitrary protectionist interventions or escalating conflicts in the form of tariff wars. Defining a coherent system of cooperative global governance and clear guidelines for industrial policies may even become the precondition for preserving free markets wherever they are efficient. n nIn the current context of escalating trade conflicts, thinking about reforming the global order may appear utopian. Nevertheless, beginning preparations for such governance now may help seize future opportunities. In this sense, this paper seeks to identify some of the main challenges ahead in building a new cooperative governance framework. n nTo develop such a framework, it is crucial to identify which types of government interventions could become broadly accepted and thus be recognised as legitimate, whether for economic or other reasons, on a consensual basis. Three major categories of industrial policy that appear to fit this description are the following: n nNational security concerns involve measures aimed at defending national sovereignty and reducing dependencies of strategically important sectors; n nDevelopment of the industrial base includes policies supporting the emergence of new industries or facilitating an upgrade within global value chains; n nCoordination problems require policies designed to accelerate the transition to a net-zero economy. n nClearly defining these cases will, in turn, allow for a better understanding of which instruments under which circumstances may be tolerated in a future global setting. n nThe new case for industrial policies n nDuring much of the post-World War II period, industrial policies were widely discarded as inefficient and vulnerable to rent-seeking. This has profoundly changed in recent years. Industrial policies today have even become a defining feature of the global economy (Evenett et al., 2024). In addition, recent research takes a more positive stance, offering a more nuanced and contextual understanding of industrial policy (Juhász et al., 2023; Juhász & Lane, 2024). n nMultiple pressures are accelerating this paradigmatic shift (Allan & Nahm, 2025): geopolitical competition with China, technological change demanding coordinated public-private responses, supply chain vulnerabilities exposed by global crises and recognition that complex challenges like climate transition require more than just market solutions. Given the apparent permanence of these challenges, governments are likely to continue actively shaping economic outcomes through targeted interventions. n nThe key challenge is to establish a global framework that reflects this new reality by allowing for national strategic objectives while ensuring a certain level of coordination to limit beggar-thy-neighbour policies. This task is particularly urgent for Europe, given the United States’ retreat from multilateral cooperation and its imposition of tariffs even on allies. But it is also important for the global south, whose countries cannot compete in (green) industrial policy races as advanced economies seek to carve up global supply chains and markets. n nEvery international governance system faces a trade-off between global coordination and national sovereignty; in the end, it is a question of balance. What industrial policies are acceptable and on what terms? How can developing economies integrate into global supply chains while retaining policy space? The answers will determine whether current trends lead towards shared prosperity or further economic fragmentation. n nThe challenges of contemporary industrial policies n nIn recent years, advanced economies have embraced industrial policies that they once criticised, implementing large-scale subsidies and local content requirements to secure supply chains and maintain strategic control. While this shift was initially a response to China’s policies, it complicates engagement with China (and others) on acceptable industrial policy standards: the very nations that championed free-market orthodoxy through international institutions now deploy interventionist tools they previously discouraged. n nIn part, this transformation reflects hard-learned lessons about market limitations. The 2008 financial crisis revealed the dangers of excessive deregulation, while the COVID-19 pandemic exposed critical supply chain vulnerabilities. Geopolitical tensions highlighted the strategic importance of technological sovereignty, particularly in semiconductors, clean energy and advanced manufacturing. A new awareness of strategic vulnerabilities triggered a fundamental rethinking of the state’s economic role. Altogether, the perceived benefits of industrial policies appear to be growing. n nAt the same time, the perceived costs of industrial policies seem to be decreasing. The reason is that some of the long-standing criticisms of industrial policies, albeit still relevant, no longer deter policymakers as they once did. For example, the decline of competition and business dynamism in OECD countries over the past 20 years has mitigated the potential negative consequences of industrial policies. In addition, the green transition and threats to economic security potentially facilitate the identification of relevant critical sectors. n nThe shift towards more economic interventionism has created a complex new landscape: economic and security considerations now increasingly overlap. The United States’ massive investments in semiconductor manufacturing through the CHIPS Act and Inflation Reduction Act, Europe’s Green Deal Industrial Plan and similar initiatives worldwide reflect a growing consensus that strategic industries require government support to ensure national competitiveness and security. n nDeveloping economies now face barriers to using the same industrial strategies that Western nations themselves deploy. The EU’s successful WTO challenge to Indonesia’s nickel export ban illustrates this asymmetry: advanced economies pursue aggressive economic nationalism while constraining similar efforts by developing nations. Indonesia’s attempt to require domestic processing of nickel – a classic strategy for moving beyond raw material exports – faced international legal challenges despite being economically sound and developmentally beneficial. This double standard underscores the need to reform the current global economic governance system. n nBuilding blocks for effective economic governance n nKey principles for sustainable global industrial policy include transparency, clear objectives, non-discrimination and government support that is both time-limited and performance-linked. These basic elements must be woven into a more comprehensive framework that accounts for diverse national circumstances and development needs, and avoids beggar-thy-neighbour policies with negative spillovers. n nEffective industrial policies should in principle aim to create positive-sum outcomes, where all participants gain from economic transformation. Well-designed interventions can expand global productive capacity, accelerate innovation and create new opportunities for participation in global value chains. This approach recognises that in an interconnected global economy, sustainable competitive advantages come from interventions that increase overall productivity rather than shut out potential competitors through tariff barriers or poach investment across borders through subsidy races. n nRegardless of their development level, all countries must have genuine opportunities to pursue economic upgrading strategies. Different countries require different tools and timelines to achieve their development objectives. Advanced economies may focus on coordination challenges, frontier technologies and high-value services, while developing countries might prioritise industrial capacity building and skills development. Societies with longer-term horizons may target research and development, while those with shorter-term priorities may focus on producing upstream sectors that feed domestic downstream industries (Liu, 2019; Liu & Ma, 2023). No nation should remain permanently locked into narrow specialisations that expose them to volatile commodity prices or technological obsolescence. Instead, emphasis should be on joint ventures and investment that allow production in developing countries to move up the value chain. Particularly in the global south, countries must retain the ability to diversify their economies beyond extractive sectors and participate in higher-value economic activities. This is especially important for resource-dependent economies seeking to avoid the “resource curse” and build more resilient economic foundations. n nGlobal governance of industrial policy should also extend to the service sector. Trade in services is increasingly vital to global economic integration and complements traditional goods trade and value chains. Beyond tourism and digital services, services can enable climate action through mechanisms such as ecosystem services markets, allowing countries to exchange certificates for carbon sequestration or other environmental benefits. Expanding trade to services enables economies with limited goods production capacity to integrate into global value chains, benefit from specialisation and contribute to shared decarbonisation goals. Ensuring transparency, trust in data and robust institutional frameworks is essential to deliver global “win–win” outcomes, supporting sustainable development and international cooperation. n nGovernment interventions should enhance, rather than diminish, competition and innovation. Pro-competitive industrial policy supports emerging sectors with growth potential while avoiding indefinite protection of declining industries. Policies should include built-in mechanisms for evaluation, adjustment and removal, ensuring public resources generate measurable improvements in productivity, employment and technological capability. n nEffective industrial policy also requires robust institutions for design, implementation and monitoring. Despite the resurgence of industrial policy, few nations currently possess such institutions. Governments must invest in building these capabilities to prevent resource misallocation or policy capture. These institutions ensure that interventions do not remain in place after firms achieve competitiveness and enforce sunset clauses when policies fail to build competitive firms. The central challenge is not picking winners but cutting off support to underperforming firms. Accordingly, government assistance should be linked to performance targets and include predetermined timelines for evaluation and phase-out, maintaining competitive pressures while providing temporary strategic support. Benchmarking creates accountability for both agencies and supported industries, with emphasis on emerging industries and technological advancements rather than declining sectors. The traditional rationale – addressing market failures – remains relevant but requires clear exit strategies to prevent long-term distortions. n nA central challenge in governing the new wave of industrial policies is creating transparency and building an evidence base for fair scrutiny, policy learning and international comparison. While global reporting standards could help curb harmful practices and spillovers, their adoption depends on credible incentives for countries to comply. This requires investing in institutional capacity to evaluate policies systematically, learning by doing and drawing on international peer exchange. Two priorities stand out: first, conducting comparative evaluations of common instruments such as research and development tax credits, renewable subsidies or venture capital to understand what works in practice; and second, developing coherent strategies that combine complementary tools within robust governance frameworks. n nCreating architecture for global coordination n nGlobal coordination is essential in an era where national policies increasingly generate international spillovers. While the OECD has begun mapping industrial policies (Criscuolo et al., 2022), there is no dedicated global forum to establish transparency standards or supply chain resilience rules. This institutional vacuum creates risks of policy conflicts, inefficient duplication and exclusion of developing countries from emerging opportunities. n nThe lack of coordination mechanisms enables several problematic dynamics. Countries may pursue beggar-thy-neighbour policies that solve domestic problems by creating costs for others. Wealthy nations might engage in subsidy races that primarily benefit those with greater fiscal capacity while crowding out developing country opportunities. Without agreed standards, legitimate development strategies may be challenged as unfair trade practices. Addressing these challenges requires new approaches to international economic governance. n nRather than trying to eliminate all government intervention, the focus should be on establishing guidelines that distinguish between beneficial and harmful policies. This might include protocols for transparency and notification, criteria for evaluating policy impacts, and mechanisms for dialogue when conflicts arise. Defining permissible local content requirements and creating space for developing economies to participate in high-value segments of global supply chains are crucial to avoiding a subsidy war between major economies that would marginalise emerging markets. Local content policies have become popular tools for ensuring that public investments generate domestic benefits, but poorly designed requirements can reduce efficiency and exclude developing countries. Coordinated guidelines could help balance legitimate domestic objectives with international economic efficiency. n nNavigating trade-offs n nA balance must be struck between domestic economic goals and international cooperation, as well as between development needs and climate policy. These tensions reflect deeper challenges in managing interdependent systems where local actions have global consequences and where multiple objectives must be pursued simultaneously. n nThe relationship between development and environmental goals exemplifies these complexities. Developing countries worry that environmental standards might become new forms of protectionism that prevent their access to global markets. Simultaneously, climate urgency demands rapid industrial transformation worldwide. The solution requires designing green industrial policies that create opportunities rather than barriers for developing countries, potentially through technology transfer, capacity building and differentiated standards that recognise varying national circumstances. n nLarge-scale subsidies in advanced economies create challenges for resource-rich and resource-poor developing countries alike. For resource-rich nations, the challenge involves ensuring that natural wealth translates into broader economic development rather than perpetuating commodity dependence. When advanced economies subsidise mineral processing and clean energy manufacturing, they may crowd out potential investments in developing countries unless accompanied by collaborative arrangements. Resource-poor developing countries face different pressures as they compete for investment and market access without the fiscal resources to match wealthy country subsidies. Their strategy must focus on identifying comparative advantages through strategic investments in education, infrastructure and institutions that enable participation in global value chains. n nConclusion n nIn recent years, targeted intervention in particular sectors of the economy has become a prominent political phenomenon, driven by crises in traditional industrial regions, reactions to China’s more aggressive policies and the urgency of tackling climate change. This has led to a fundamental political break with the former market-dominated paradigm, yet without a well-developed new framework. The growing number of conflicts arising from this uncoordinated shift towards nationalist industrial policies reflects the absence of a new set of rules to prevent arbitrariness and disputes. Given the high welfare losses that such a vacuum may produce, it is imperative to develop guidelines that could form the basis of a new global governance framework. n nA more structured and principled discussion is needed – one that distinguishes between beneficial and harmful policies and ensures that industrial policy supports rather than undermines global economic stability. In this context, it is increasingly important to openly discuss, monitor and evaluate current industrial policies to identify what lessons can be learned. This evaluation can help identify cases in which industrial policies have proven legitimate and effective in serving broader objectives, be it climate action, national sovereignty or the development of new industries requiring (initial) government support. n nTo date, discussions of industrial policy have largely focused on responding to China’s initiatives. This focus may impede productive dialogue: it politicises debates that ought to be grounded in economic analysis, creates false binaries between market and state approaches, and obscures the reality that all successful economies combine market mechanisms with strategic government action. Most importantly, it distracts from the development of universal principles that could guide policy evaluation regardless of national origin. n nThe ultimate objective is to create a system where industrial policy serves collective prosperity rather than narrow nationalism. This vision recognises that in an interconnected world, economic security and development are best achieved through cooperation rather than confrontation. Countries that successfully combine domestic strategic thinking with international collaboration will be best positioned to thrive in the emerging global economy. n nReferences n nAllan, B. B., & Nahm, J. (2025). Strategies of green industrial policy: How states position firms in global supply chains. American Political Science Review, 119(1), 420–434. n nCriscuolo, C., Gonne, N., Kitazawa, K., & Lalanne, G. (2022). An industrial policy framework for OECD countries: Old debates, new perspectives. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 127. OECD Publishing. n nEvenett, S., Jakubik, A., Martín, F., & Ruta, M. (2024). The return of industrial policy in data. The World Economy, 47(7), 2762–2788. n nJuhász, R., & Lane, N. (2024). The political economy of industrial policy. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 38(4), 27–54. n nJuhász, R., Lane, N., & Rodrik, D. (2023). The new economics of industrial policy. Annual Review of Economics, 16, 213–242. n nLiu, E. (2019). Industrial policies in production networks. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 134(4), 1883–1948. n nLiu, E., & Ma, S. (2023). Innovation networks and R&D allocation. NBER Working Paper, No. 29607. National Bureau of Economic Research.