Microeconomic Reform in a Protected Industry
A government is reviewing tariffs on imported automotive components, currently at 15%. Domestic component producers employ 8,000 workers, many in a marginal electorate, and have a cost structure 25% above world best practice. Downstream car assemblers say the tariff raises their input costs and makes exports uncompetitive; they estimate 3,000 assembly jobs are at risk if costs stay high. Removing the tariff would likely cut component employment by 2,000 over five years but lower input costs for assemblers and consumers. The government also has a structural budget deficit and a productivity growth rate of 0.8%, well below the 1.5% historical average.
1. Using the concepts of effective rate of protection and resource allocation, assess the case for removing the tariff.
Read the worked answer
The nominal tariff is 15%, but the effective rate of protection is higher because components are an input to assembly. If assemblers face a 15% tariff on inputs while their output is unprotected, they are disadvantaged - the tariff taxes downstream production. In effect, the tariff transfers income from assemblers and consumers to component producers, and it does so at a high cost: domestic costs are 25% above world best practice, so each protected job costs consumers and downstream firms more than the wage it supports.
From a resource-allocation perspective, the tariff keeps labour and capital in an activity where Australia lacks comparative advantage, lowering aggregate productivity - relevant given productivity growth of just 0.8%. Removing it would lower input costs, improving assemblers' export competitiveness and potentially preserving the 3,000 assembly jobs the industry says are at risk.
Judgement: the efficiency case for removal is strong. The distributional cost (2,000 jobs over five years) is real but manageable if phased and paired with adjustment assistance. A sudden removal would be unnecessarily disruptive; a staged reduction over three to four years, announced in advance, would allow firms and workers to adjust while capturing most of the efficiency gain.
2. The government is worried about the marginal electorate. Recommend a package that addresses both efficiency and equity, and justify the trade-off.
Read the worked answer
A defensible package has four elements. First, a pre-announced phased tariff reduction (for example, 15% to 5% over three years, then zero) so firms can plan investment and workers can retrain before shocks hit. Second, adjustment assistance targeted at the 2,000 affected workers - wage insurance, relocation support and retraining subsidies - which is far cheaper per worker than continued protection. Third, regional investment in infrastructure or industry attraction to replace the lost activity base, addressing the geographic concentration of the cost. Fourth, competition and skills measures for downstream assemblers so the input-cost saving is actually passed through rather than captured as margin.
The equity-efficiency trade-off is real: protection preserves 2,000 jobs but at a cost to consumers and 3,000 downstream jobs, and it slows the productivity growth the budget deficit urgently needs. The package shifts the burden from consumers and exporters to targeted fiscal support, which is more transparent and better targeted. Judgement: the package is justified because the structural deficit and weak productivity mean the economy cannot afford to subsidise 25% cost gaps indefinitely. The political constraint should shape the pace and compensation, not the direction.