‘Progressive Protectionism’ details why ever more open borders are increasing inequality, reducing economic activity and threatening the environment. It explains how countries could rebuild and rediversify their economies by limiting what finance and goods they allow to enter their borders, and in the process wean themselves off export dependence. Domestic businesses and funding sources would then meet the needs of the majority in society in all countries. The prospect of such increasing economic security for the majority could gain widespread political support ranging from those on the left, the centre, the greens through to small ‘c’ conservatives. 
The Occupy Movement should consider 'Progressive Protectionism' and chants of 'The State is Great'.
The strengthening and spreading of the ‘Occupy’ movement is extremely heartening for those of us involved in proposing alternatives to economic globalisation during and after the World Trade Organisation’s rout in the 1999 Battle of Seattle. Our victory turned into a false dawn however as the global debt boom allowed the neoliberal system to continue strutting its stuff through much of the noughties. To hasten its present demise today’s protestors will need a clearly articulated alternative. This must take us from austerity, growing inequality and the unquestioning acceptance of international competitiveness to an economic system where citizens and their communities can protect themselves and the environment, whilst having a sense of security and hope for the future.
To help develop this counter vision it is crucial to remember the central critique of previous anti globalisation movements. This was a rejection of the destructive model of evermore open borders pushed by international big business and finance. The alternative usually proposed was a localisation which emphasised the centrality of tacking back national economic control to improve local conditions globally.
The Occupy movement could update this approach by calling for a ‘progressive protectionism’ whereby countries rebuild and rediversify their economies by limiting what finance and goods they allow to enter their borders, and in the process wean themselves off export dependence. This would allow space for domestic funding and business to meet the needs of the majority in society. Such a policy renders impotent the threat of relocation that bankers and big companies invariably invoke should any nation have the temerity to call for an end to banker’s bonuses or increased taxation of the richest 1%.
This approach would not lead to a rerun of the thirties since the ‘regressive protectionism’ introduced then, with its increased national barriers to imports allied to the fantasy that others would keep their economies open was oxymoronic. Progressive protectionism by contrast is geared to ensuring that the controls on imports and inward investment are imposed to help ensure a transition to societies ever less dependent on exports.
There is little today that can’t be manufactured inside a country or grouping of neighbouring states. Long distance trade will shrivel to its original priorities- the quest for raw materials and cash crops that can not be found domestically. Such trade will still be governed by international trade rules, but ones which ensure that the rebuilding of sustainable local economies are their raison d’etre, rather than evermore open markets and exports. I have proposed trade rules that can achieve this via a World Localisation Organisation to replace the free market WTO, and a ‘Treaty of Home’ to revitalise an EU fragmenting under pressures caused by the open borders obsession of the Treaty of Rome.
Economic globalisation has put the clock back for the majority with its rising inequality, personal insecurity and the neutering of the nation state. Progressive protectionism therefore has at is heart the concept that ‘The State is Great'. This is due to its ability to tax income to ensure social improvements and to tax wasteful resource use to increase environmental improvements. It could also introduce appropriate regulation and act as a guarantor to encourage use of the wall of money in personal savings and pensions to help fund the transition to localisation. The first step could be a public and privately funded Green New Deal programme to make all UK buildings energy efficient and provide huge numbers of jobs where people actually live. Such a multi decade programme will provide a new career path, particularly for the young, and would promote intergenerational solidarity since funding such jobs would provide a safer haven for the savings of an increasingly ageing population.
Progressive protectionism could not only become a concrete rallying cry for the Occupy movement it could also attract support across the political spectrum The economic activity inherent in this shift to localised economies could see off the imminent economic decline by providing a more secure future for local businesses, savers, the young, as well as protecting the environment. It should therefore appeal to those on the left, the centre, the greens through to small 'c' conservatives.
Of course such a radical change in economic direction could not be introduced in one country alone, since the money markets would ferociously destabilise such a challenge to their present dominance of the world economy. Europe, under huge threat from the forces of international finance as it is, would however be a powerful enough bloc to implement such a programme, particularly if the ‘Occupy’ movement and the politically active started to campaign for it. Winston Churchill identified a stable society as the balance required between what he termed the ladder and the net. Today the ‘Occupy ‘ movement is clear that the ladder has rungs that need to be bought very much closer together and the net dramatically strengthened – progressive protectionism could achieve just that.
Colin Hines is the convener of the ‘Green New Deal’ group. He coined the term in 2007 and brought together a group of finance, tax, energy and environmental experts to make the case for massive spending on energy savings to help solve the economic crisis. He is at present working on a project in which Birmingham City Council, the largest local authority in Europe, intends to raise £100s of millions to make more than 100,000 properties energy efficient.
