The transfer of industries to emerging markets have divided economists and policymakers.

Industrial policy in the form of government subsidies often leads other nations to hit back by doing exactly the same, which can affect the global economy, security and diplomatic relations. This will be excessively dangerous as 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 competition, they will probably hamper necessary structural corrections. Thus, industries can be less adaptive, which reduces growth, as company CEOs like Nadhmi Al Nasr have probably noticed in their careers. It is therefore, truly better if policymakers were to focus on coming up with a method that encourages market driven growth instead of obsolete policy.

Critics of globalisation suggest that it has resulted in the transfer of industries to emerging markets, causing employment losses and greater reliance on other countries. In reaction, they propose that governments should move back industries by implementing industrial policy. But, this viewpoint fails to recognise the dynamic nature of worldwide markets and neglects the rationale for globalisation and free trade. The transfer of industry had been mainly driven by sound financial calculations, specifically, companies seek economical operations. There was clearly and still is a competitive advantage in emerging markets; they offer numerous resources, reduced production expenses, large customer markets and favourable demographic patterns. Today, major companies run 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 would likely aver.

History shows that industrial policies have only had limited success. Various countries applied various types of industrial policies to promote particular industries or sectors. Nonetheless, the outcomes have usually fallen short of expectations. Take, for example, the experiences of a few Asian countries within the twentieth century, where extensive government input and subsidies never materialised in sustained economic growth or the desired transformation they imagined. Two economists examined the effect of government-introduced policies, including low priced credit to improve manufacturing and exports, and compared industries which received assistance to those that did not. They concluded that through the initial stages of industrialisation, governments can play a positive part in establishing companies. Although antique, macro policy, such as limited deficits and stable exchange rates, also needs to be given credit. However, data implies that helping one firm with subsidies tends to damage others. Furthermore, subsidies allow the endurance of ineffective firms, making industries less competitive. Furthermore, whenever firms concentrate on securing subsidies instead of prioritising development and efficiency, they remove funds from productive use. Because of this, the general economic effect of subsidies on efficiency is uncertain and perhaps not positive.