Economic nationalism is once again on the rise today, not only because of Donald Trump’s policies, but also as a consequence of the end of American liberal hegemony, which was triggered by the global financial crisis of 2007 and followed by a series of political events — Brexit, the global pandemic, as well as the political rise of Russia and China, noted Nemanja Plotan, an expert in international and economic policy.
We convey Plotan’s column for Srna in full:
The core idea behind economic nationalism is the prioritization of a country’s own economic interests over those of others, with the aim of strengthening national power and unity.
At present, many countries facing the negative effects of globalization, automation, and shifts in the balance of power on the global stage are turning to economic nationalism as a way to protect their interests.
For this reason, it is necessary to properly understand economic nationalism as an economic policy that directs global economic trends to which Republika Srpska itself is subject.
The roots of economic nationalism reach back to the early modern period, when European states began to recognize the potential benefits of international trade. At the same time, they realized that trade could enrich one’s own country while weakening others, which led to the development of mercantilism, focused on wealth accumulation through exports and the establishment of colonies.
Historically, mercantilism was a form of economic nationalism, as it prioritized the economic interests of the nation-state over those of other countries.
In the 19th century, economic nationalism took on a new form through the works of Friedrich List and Alexander Hamilton.
The father of economic nationalism, German-American economist Friedrich List, argued that economic power is the key to national strength and that protectionist measures — such as tariffs and subsidies — are necessary to support young, emerging industries.
His ideas strongly influenced German industrial policy, helping Germany become one of the world’s leading powers by the early 20th century.
Similarly, Alexander Hamilton, one of the founders of the United States and its first secretary of the treasury, advocated protective tariffs and state subsidies to encourage domestic production and infrastructure development.
He believed that a strong industrial base was essential for national security and independence, thereby laying the foundations of early American economic policies which, according to many, contributed to the United States becoming a superpower. That very vision of an industrial, self-sufficient America deeply shapes Trump’s worldview.
This approach was also common among many other successful global economic powers, including Japan, South Korea, and China, which used protectionist policies to develop domestic industries in sectors such as electronics, automotive manufacturing, and steel.
Once their industries became established and competitive, they were able to compete globally and significantly contribute to national economic growth.
In his second term, Trump’s economic nationalism is reflected in an aggressive tariff policy aimed at protecting domestic industries and reshaping global trade flows.
The administration introduced or threatened tariffs against numerous countries — including China, Canada, Mexico, the EU, and BRICS states — with rates that in some cases were extremely high (although some were later modified or legally challenged).
Industries such as steel, aluminum, automobiles, and pharmaceuticals were particularly affected. All these policies are part of a broader strategy: reducing the trade deficit, stimulating domestic production, and using tariffs as a geopolitical tool to strengthen American positions.
Tariffs also represent an additional source of state revenue, which makes them an attractive option for the United States amid strategic competition with China.
At the center of this strategic rivalry is the technological sector, which contributes to the rise of economic nationalism. Technological progress has the potential to provide significant military and economic advantages to nations on the global stage, and thus greater national power, as demonstrated by innovations from World War II, including flu vaccines, penicillin, jet engines, blood plasma transfusions, electronic computers, and radar.
Technology can play a vital role in shaping national identity, and that national identity can in turn shape the course of technological development. In other words, a nation’s identity can influence its technological goals, ultimately affecting its economic and military power.
In the context of technological competition, although the United States holds a strategic advantage in artificial intelligence development, China shows a significant edge in large-scale AI implementation, focusing on practical application rather than merely developing ever-larger models.
China currently has more industrial robots than the rest of the world combined, while in maritime logistics it operates 18 fully automated ports and is building 27 more. In healthcare, projects such as the first AI hospital — where virtual doctors diagnose with 93 percent accuracy — have been expanded to hundreds of hospitals nationwide, addressing doctor shortages and population aging.
This mass implementation not only increases productivity but also ensures a competitive advantage, as only about 40 percent of Western companies use artificial intelligence, often superficially and without a significant impact on profitability.
Therefore, the Donald Trump administration uses the tools of economic nationalism not only to restore US industrial power and create new jobs, but also to strategically curb China’s influence and progress, further shaping the course of the global economy.
It is now clear that states increasingly understand that national economic strength, technological self-sufficiency, and strategic autonomy are no longer luxuries, but prerequisites for survival in a multipolar world.
For the institutions of Republika Srpska, this reality carries several key lessons:
First, it is no longer possible to rely on global markets alone to deliver balanced development. Without active industrial policy, strategic subsidies, and selective protection of key sectors (energy, agriculture, IT, wood processing, metallurgy), domestic economies will remain trapped in the role of cheap labor and raw material exporters.
Second, technological lag is the most dangerous form of dependency. Republika Srpska must urgently invest in digital infrastructure, AI education, software development, and partnerships with Western and Israeli technology centers — not to copy the West, but to ensure its own capacity for rapid adoption and adaptation of new technologies in the real sector.
Third, economic nationalism is not isolationism — it is a pragmatic struggle for the best possible position in the global power game. Republika Srpska, as a small actor in a complex environment, does not have the luxury of waiting for others to write the rules. It must write them itself — through a smart combination of investments, strategic alliances, and rapid technological integration.
Source: RTRS
