The Future of American Industrial Policy: Can “Made in America” Initiatives Reignite the Domestic Manufacturing Economy?

---

In the mid-1950s, manufacturing accounted for roughly one quarter (21-25%) of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP), defining America's role as the world’s industrial powerhouse. Today, that figure has plummeted to around 10% of GDP (Yuskavage and Fahim-Nader 75). Out of necessity, The United States is undergoing one of the most significant economic shifts in decades as federal policymakers embrace a revived form of industrial policy aimed at rebuilding domestic manufacturing, securing critical supply chains, and enhancing long-term competitiveness. Despite its reputation as a largely free-market economy, the United States is now investing hundreds of billions of dollars into specific industries, including semiconductors, clean energy, electric vehicles, and high-tech research. This transformation raises a central question: can targeted government intervention successfully rebuild American industrial capacity and strengthen economic resilience, or is the country repeating past policy failures marked by high costs, inefficiency, and unintended consequences? The bottom line is contemporary industrial policy can strengthen American competitiveness when implemented with transparency, strong oversight, and complementary investments in workforce development.

The answer is crucial because the stakes for the future of the U.S. economy are historically high. Between 2000 and 2020, the United States lost more than five million manufacturing jobs, while its share of global semiconductor production fell from 37% in 1990 to only 12% by 2020 (U.S. Department of Commerce 4). The COVID-19 pandemic further exposed the fragility of American supply chains, revealing how deeply the nation depended on foreign production for medical supplies, microchips, and clean-energy components. As geopolitical tensions with China intensified, both Republican and Democrat policymakers concluded that market forces alone were insufficient to address vulnerabilities in industries vital to national security and economic stability. Although challenges remain, the evidence below suggests that targeted, well-designed public investment has the potential to reshape key sectors of the U.S. economy.

Why Industrial Policy has Returned: Economic Pressures and Market Failures

Modern industrial policy has emerged in response to several interconnected economic pressures, including rising global competition, chronic underinvestment in key technologies, and severe supply chain vulnerabilities. Economists argue that the United States is now engaged in “production-based competition” with countries like China, which spends the equivalent of more than 1.7% of its GDP annually on industrial subsidies, far outpacing the United States prior to 2021 (OECD; Bonvillian 34). One of the core economic arguments for industrial policy centers on the challenge of high upfront costs. Industries such as semiconductor fabrication, battery manufacturing, and advanced research facilities all require multibillion-dollar capital expenditures that private firms are often unwilling to undertake, particularly in sectors where global competitors already benefit from existing state support and due to large risk expenditures. Currently, building a single advanced chip fabrication plant costs between $10 and $20 billion (SIA 7). Without government incentives, firms face strong pressure to locate production in countries with drastically lower costs and substantial subsidies, which leads to long-term erosion of American domestic industrial capacity.

A second key rationale involves positive spillovers that private firms cannot capture. High-tech research often produces innovations that benefit entire regions or industries, including the development of skilled labor pools, new patents, and supplier networks. When these spillovers are significant, the free market tends to underinvest because firms cannot fully profit from the benefits their investments generate. Public support helps correct this market failure by aligning societal gains with private incentives; a benefit often ignored (for good reason) by large corporations.

A third major justification involves national security. The Department of Defense has repeatedly warned that reliance on foreign suppliers for high-precision chips, rare earth minerals, and certain metal components threatens military readiness. Industrial policy seeks to restore domestic production of goods considered too essential to leave vulnerable to variable geopolitical shocks. For these reasons, scholars argue that modern industrial policy is “less an ideological choice than an economic necessity” in an era of strategic technological rivalry (Duesterberg 12).

Semiconductor Manufacturing: CHIPS and Science Act

The economic effects of the landmark industrial legislation passed since 2021, the CHIPS and Science Act, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) each provide a rich dataset for evaluating the early outcomes of this policy shift. Early evidence suggests substantial growth in private-sector investment as firms respond to federal incentives; The CHIPS Act alone, which provides approximately $52 billion in subsidies and tax credits, has already led to more than $200 billion in private investment announcements from semiconductor companies (U.S. Department of Commerce 2). Figure 1. U.S. Share of Global Semiconductor Manufacturing, 1990–2024. Source: Semiconductor Industry Association.

As shown in Figure 1, the U.S. share of global semiconductor manufacturing has collapsed from 37% in 1990 to around 12% in 2020, illustrating the scale of industrial decline the CHIPS Act aims to reverse. Specific examples of the positive effects of the CHIPS Act include the fact that Intel has committed to major plant expansions in Ohio, Arizona, and Oregon, TSMC is constructing multiple fabs in Arizona, Samsung is building a $17 billion semiconductor facility in Texas, and Micron has announced plans for a multi-decade, $100 billion project in New York. These investments are expected to create tens of thousands of manufacturing and engineering jobs and significantly expand domestic chip production by the end of the decade. Economic indicators support the view that government incentives have “crowded in” private capital, reversing decades of offshoring trends. Although some semiconductor markets experienced short-term oversupply during 2023 and 2024, long-term demand for advanced chips tied to artificial intelligence, 5G technologies, and cloud computing remains strong.

Figure 2. Private-Sector Manufacturing Investment Announcements, 2019–2024. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce.

Figure 2 demonstrates the surge in private-sector investment that followed the passage of the CHIPS Act and the IRA, supporting the argument that strategic federal incentives successfully encourage large private commitments.

Clean‑Energy Manufacturing: The Inflation Reduction Act

The Inflation Reduction Act, signed into law in August 2022, has produced similarly dramatic results in clean-energy manufacturing. More than $110 billion in new manufacturing investments in solar components, EV batteries, heat pumps, and clean hydrogen facilities have been announced since the IRA passed (WRI 4). Analysts at Goldman Sachs predict that the IRA could mobilize more than $3 trillion in public and private capital by 2032 (Goldman 6). Domestic EV battery manufacturing capacity under construction has tripled, and U.S. solar panel production is rising sharply after years of dependence on Chinese imports. The Southeast and Midwest. regions long affected by industrial decline, are experiencing a resurgence in manufacturing investment as companies seek to take advantage of federal production credits and domestic-content requirements.

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

To a similar effect, The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, while not traditionally classified as industrial policy, plays a key supporting role by upgrading transportation networks, power grids, and broadband infrastructure needed to make newly emerging industrial corridors competitive. More than 7,800 infrastructure projects have already begun, and improvements in ports, bridges, and rail networks are expected to provide long-term productivity gains (IIJA Projects). Economic research consistently shows that infrastructure investment increases long‑run productivity by lowering transportation and energy costs.

Are These Policies Working? Early Patterns and Regional Effects

Taken together, these initiatives indicate that federal industrial policy is reshaping the investment landscape for advanced manufacturing in the United States. Early economic analysis suggests that every federal dollar committed to industrial subsidies has attracted between three and six private-sector dollars, a multiplier effect consistent with historical patterns seen in earlier eras of U.S. technological leadership, such as the aerospace and biotechnology sectors (Garin and Rothbaum). Regional economic clustering is emerging as well, with cities such as Phoenix, Columbus, and Austin forming dense networks of suppliers, research institutions, and high-skill labor that reinforce the competitiveness of newly established factories. These trends support the argument that coordinated public investment can stimulate large-scale private commitment, reversing decades of industrial decline.

Risks, Limitations, and Historical Warnings

However, economists warn that industrial policy is not without significant risks. One recurring historical problem is misallocated subsidies, sometimes referred to as “corporate capture.” Poorly structured incentives can allow firms to absorb public funding without delivering promised jobs or production capacity. The failed Foxconn project in Wisconsin is a widely cited example, where billions in subsidies resulted in minimal long-term economic activity. Without strict benchmarks and transparent enforcement mechanisms, industrial policy risks becoming a transfer of wealth from taxpayers to corporations rather than a catalyst for national growth (Atkinson 19). Another challenge involves budgetary uncertainty, for example the fact that clean-energy tax credit usage under the IRA may cost nearly twice initial projections, potentially reaching $660 billion due to unexpectedly strong corporate uptake (CBO Estimates). While this reflects high demand, it raises concerns about long-term fiscal sustainability. International tensions represent an additional risk as The European Union, South Korea, Japan, and Canada have complained that U.S. subsidies violate trade rules by encouraging companies to relocate manufacturing to American soil. More than twenty countries have launched or expanded subsidy programs in response to U.S. actions, raising fears of a global subsidy race that could undermine productive efficiency (Global Subsidy Race). Furthermore, workforce shortages may impede the effectiveness of these programs. The United States faces a shortage of more than 90,000 engineers in fields essential to semiconductor and clean-energy production (BLS). Even with new factories under construction, companies report difficulty hiring skilled technicians, construction workers, and researchers, demonstrating that capital investment alone cannot rebuild industrial capacity without a deeper talent pipeline.

Objectivity and Limitations of Available Evidence

A balanced academic analysis must acknowledge potential biases and limitations in the available sources. Government agencies have a natural incentive to emphasize the successes of federal programs, which may produce overly optimistic projections. Think tanks often reflect ideological leanings: groups like the Economic Policy Institute tend to support government intervention, while organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute may emphasize concerns about market distortion and fiscal risk. Industry publications from semiconductor or clean-energy associations often portray domestic demand as stronger than it is in order to justify continued subsidies.

My own position assumes that targeted industrial policy can succeed under the right conditions, a view shaped by empirical economic research but still influenced by the contemporary environment of global technological competition. Critics argue that government intervention distorts markets, fosters inefficiency, and risks political favoritism. Their concerns are valid, especially given historical failures, but they often overlook the reality that global competitors already rely heavily on state support. A purely market-driven approach may leave U.S. firms structurally disadvantaged in sectors where other nations deploy aggressive industrial strategies.

Conditions for a Successful Manufacturing Revival

The future of American industrial policy will depend on whether policymakers can maintain transparency, accountability, and strategic discipline. If the United States avoids the mistakes of past subsidy programs and continues investing in workforce training, research and development, and infrastructure, industrial policy has the potential to reshape the country’s economic foundation. For business leaders, understanding the direction of industrial policy is essential for long-term planning. For students and future economists, this moment provides an opportunity to analyze how public and private sectors can cooperate in shaping national competitiveness. Ultimately, industrial policy is neither a cure-all nor an inevitable failure. It is a tool that, when used thoughtfully, can help rebuild critical industries and position the United States for long-term economic strength in a rapidly evolving global economy.

---

References:

Atkinson, Robert. The Case for a National Industrial Strategy. Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, 2025.

Bonvillian, William. “America’s New Industrial Policy.” Issues in Science and Technology, vol. 38, no. 4, 2022, pp. 33–41.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Occupational Outlook for Engineering Fields.” U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2024.

Congressional Budget Office (CBO). “Updated Budgetary Effects of IRA Credits.” Congressional Budget Office, 2024.

Duesterberg, Thomas. “The New Era of American Industrial Policy.” American Enterprise Institute, 2023.

Garin, Andrew, and Jonathan Rothbaum. The Long-Term Impact of Public Investment. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2024.

Goldman Sachs Research. IRA Investment Forecast 2023–2032. Goldman Sachs, 2024.

“Global Subsidy Race.” The Economist, 2024.

OECD. Government Support for Industrial Sectors. OECD Publishing, 2023.

Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA). State of the U.S. Semiconductor Industry. Semiconductor Industry Association, 2023.

U.S. Department of Commerce. CHIPS Act Implementation Report. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 2024.

U.S. Department of Transportation. IIJA Projects Update. U.S. Dept. of Transportation, 2024.

World Resources Institute (WRI). U.S. Clean Manufacturing Boom After the IRA. World Resources Institute, 2024.

Yuskavage, Robert E., and Mahnaz Fahim-Nader. “Gross Domestic Product by Industry for 1947–86: New Estimates Based on the North American Industry Classification System.” Survey of Current Business, vol. 85, no. 12, 2005, pp. 70–84.