Trade is a big deal for Washington, where 40 percent of jobs are trade-related. Often people think of tariffs when they think of trade barriers, but regulations can also be protectionist.

A new paper from the Cato Institute looks at this issue. As its authors (K. William Watson and Sallie James) write,

The practice of using domestic environmental or consumer safety regulation as a way to disguise protectionist policy has become a serious and growing problem in the United States. . . .

The historical success of trade liberalization has made traditional forms of protection less available while enabling consumers to develop product preferences and expectations that are simultaneously stricter and more global. The consequence has been a confluence of interests between progressives concerned about consumer welfare and domestic industries seeking protection from foreign competition.

The authors recommend that

Prior to implementing a new regulation, federal agencies should be required to evaluate the possibility that less trade-restrictive alternatives could meet regulatory goals as effectively as their preferred proposal.

Indeed,

Overregulation is costly, and ensuring that regulations are based on scientific evidence and are not needlessly restrictive is a side-effect of good governance.

The paper uses the Mexican truck ban as an example of regulatory protectionism. In that case, retaliatory tariffs imposed by Mexico had a significant impact on Washington products.