Quotas are a bad idea. Period. They increase the price of imports, hurt exports and, ultimately, hurt economic growth. 

The common arguments in favour of quotas, and protectionism in general, are fundamentally flawed. In some cases they are just plain wrong! For instance, the argument that quotas helps protect jobs simply doesn’t hold water. By introducing a programme of quotas you limit the amount of imports into the country, which in turn limits the amount of exports out of the country, and ultimately the country is the worse for it. Jobs might be saved in an inefficient industry but it comes a significant cost. If free trade was allowed to flourish those jobs would be replaced — and then some — with new jobs in other, more efficient, sectors. By exploiting comparative advantages, free trade actually creates jobs!

Quotas are hard to justify on any level and politicians are finally starting to listen to what economists have been saying for decades: quotas do more harm than good. One area, however, where quotas may still be worth their salt is in instances where overproduction is threatening to exhaust a natural resource. For example, quotas that limit the amount of fish that can be harvested in a certain fishery are in use in countries such as Iceland and the USA. In this case, quotas may actually be serving a common good and not just lining the pockets of money-grubbing importers at the expense of everyone else.

Truth be told, I was struggling to think of anything anything beginning with ‘Q’ that sucked. So thank god for quotas!