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

Industrial policy in the form of government subsidies can lead other nations to strike back by doing exactly the same, that may impact the global economy, stability and diplomatic relations. This might be extremely high-risk due to the fact general economic effects of subsidies on productivity remain uncertain. Even though subsidies may stimulate financial activities and create jobs in the short run, in the future, they are more than likely to be less favourable. If subsidies aren't accompanied by a number of other actions that target productivity and competitiveness, they will likely impede required structural modifications. Hence, companies can be less adaptive, which reduces growth, as company CEOs like Nadhmi Al Nasr have probably noticed throughout their professions. It is, definitely better if policymakers were to focus on finding a strategy that encourages market driven growth instead of obsolete policy.

History indicates that industrial policies have only had limited success. Various countries implemented different types of industrial policies to promote certain industries or sectors. However, the results have frequently fallen short of expectations. Take, as an 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 intended transformation they imagined. Two economists analysed the effect of government-introduced policies, including inexpensive credit to boost manufacturing and exports, and compared companies which received help to those who did not. They concluded that during the initial phases of industrialisation, governments can play a positive part in establishing companies. Although antique, macro policy, such as limited deficits and stable exchange rates, must also be given credit. However, data suggests that assisting one firm with subsidies tends to damage others. Also, subsidies enable the survival of ineffective companies, making companies less competitive. Moreover, whenever firms give attention to securing subsidies instead of prioritising innovation and effectiveness, they remove resources from effective use. Because of this, the overall financial aftereffect of subsidies on productivity is uncertain and perhaps not positive.

Critics of globalisation suggest that it has resulted in the relocation of industries to emerging markets, causing job losses and greater reliance on other countries. In reaction, they suggest that governments should relocate industries by applying industrial policy. However, this viewpoint does not acknowledge the powerful nature of global markets and neglects the basis for globalisation and free trade. The transfer of industry had been mainly driven by sound economic calculations, particularly, businesses look for economical operations. There was and still is a competitive advantage in emerging markets; they provide numerous resources, lower manufacturing costs, large customer areas and favourable demographic trends. Today, major businesses run across borders, tapping into global supply chains and reaping the many benefits of free trade as business CEOs like Naser Bustami and like Amin H. Nasser may likely aver.