Defining Economic Policy and Protectionism: A 21st Century Examination of the Jones Act

Economic policy is fundamentally based on the system of trade-offs. Considering any legislation and aiming to determine whether it is objectively helpful or harmful is dependent on values in a particular society in a particular time period and governed and populated by particular individuals (Goodman). Considering the immense spectrum of ideology that is predominant today, no policy can be singularly positive or negative. This notion especially holds with the Jones Act. The key provisions in it are that all domestic port transport is mandated to be manufactured, owned, and crewed by Americans and be registered under the US flag as an aim for a more effective merchant marine fleet as a naval auxiliary; and gave sailors the right to take legal action against their employers (“Jones Act | Wex”). This essay purports that identifying the Jones Act as helpful or harmful disregards its nuances and complexities; rather, it would be more effective to discuss the policy’s trade-offs and the importance of perspective, in which the Act has achieved its goals from a human standpoint, as initially outlined, but has consequentially failed the American economy and military.

Firstly, the Jones Act proved to fulfill its objective in extending the legal capacity of sailors to sue their respective employers for negligence, resulting in full compensation (“Jones Act | Wex”). This capability is particularly distinct from mainstream labor rights, as seafaring work was identified as inherently hazardous by Congress due to isolation, extensive hours, volatile cargoes, and other shipboard risks, culminating in a period of naval calamity in the early 20th century (Beer). Regardless, legal protections for these individuals were exiguous, making the Jones Act a cornerstone in maritime law. Psychosociologically speaking, the provision prevents future violations due to the theory of regulatory compliance, in which greater penalization prompts fewer violations of a given policy (Feine). This, therefore, promulgates maritime labor rights and equitable compensation, demonstrating how the Jones Act achieved its aim in this manner.

Conversely, the fiscal trade-offs of the Jones Act have substantially affected the American economy. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) identified that an Act-compliant ship is 2.7x more expensive for routine operation than an international vessel (Gordon and Guilhoto 17). This escalation in shipping expenditures has translated over to massive consumer losses (Grennes 2). In 1996, for example, “a study commissioned by the Government of Guam found that families on the island were paying at least $1,139 about $2,300 in 2024 dollars (Grabow).” Furthermore, individuals in New England lacked liquefied natural gas (LNG) due to the shortage of Act-compliant tankers to transport it during the wintertime for sufficient power for their homes, illustrating the far-reaching costs of the Jones Act in its inability to facilitate the market in a manner that protects the interests of Americans (Grabow). These exorbitant costs have eroded the economy on an individual and national level, enforcing the conception of the Jones Act’s correlation with trade-offs and fiscal consequence.

Moreover, the military aspect (arguably the Jones Act’s primary initial aim), is perhaps the lowest in regard to the efficacy of the Act. Due to the strict nature of the Act, shipbuilding in the United States has dramatically slowed because of the expenditures required to legally manufacture, resulting in a deficit of 1,839 wartime-ready ships, according to a 2017 study (Maritime Workforce Working Group 38). To contextualize, it is crucial to note that there are only 178 US-flagged ships, in which merely 93 are Act-compliant (US Department of Transportation). Additionally, these ships, already few in number, are aging. Economically and militarily sustainable ships are typically 20 years old or less, but Jones Act vessels are, on average, 30 years old, undermining key capacities in technology, efficiency, and safety (Butt et al. 41). While they were capable and concurrent with maritime standards during their primary usage during WWII, the Korean War, and the war in Iraq, they are simply not competitive with foreign navies today because the maritime strategic landscape has shifted from the 1920s, questioning if the Act still remains relevant today. Competition with authoritarian nations (primarily China and Russia) has substantially increased, specifically in naval capacities. However, the US has fallen short due to Jones Act constraints (Greenwood and Miletello). This is especially critical because of the amplified tension between democracy and authoritarianism, which has resulted in intense contest (“Global Report”). Evidently, while the principal effort behind the Act was to achieve a more robust naval auxiliary, “it has…impeded the goal of creating a ready reserve of merchant mariners (Grabow et al.).”

When considering the benefits and harms of the Jones Act, reaching an objective conclusion is impossible. The economic policy debate surrounding labor versus consumer rights exemplifies this, as they are commonplace issues today (Masterman 1390). The Act promotes labor rights, but has simultaneously harmed consumers, reflecting a quid pro quo. Ultimately, it must be considered what is particularly valued in society (Goodman). This can be generalized to fiscal policy, as the Act reflects a reality: there are consistently trade-offs involved. As economist Allison Schrager writes in the City Journal, “A central lesson of economics is that there’s rarely such a thing as a free lunch. Most policy choices involve trade-offs or benefit some people while incurring costs on others (Schrager).” It is evident that the Act, alongside similar laws in fiscal policy, simultaneously both face support and criticism.

The entirety of economic legislation being inherently helpful or harmful is fundamentally contingent on perspective. In the case of the Jones Act, a maritime worker would view it positively, as it is the very source of their labor rights, enshrining professional dignity and quality working conditions into the industry. Contrastingly, a consumer would face the distributional impact of the Act due to higher prices, and they would see it as an unnecessary economic burden. Both would be valid in their judgments, enforcing the notion that nuance, individual circumstance and experience, and socioeconomic role all lead to a wide spectrum of perspectives on what is a singular policy.

It is paramount that the Jones Act’s strategic value today is critically examined. Do we, as a society, actually have the impartiality to objectively pass judgment on the Act? This essay argued that a singular conclusion is impossible, through identifying the Act’s primary benefits and harms, and contextualizing its relevance and consequences in the 21st century. As our nation and government continue to grapple and debate with and about the Act in the modern day, it can be gleaned that economic policy is complex, nuanced, and singularly imperfect.

Works Cited

Beer, Peter. “Keeping Up with the Jones Act.” Tulane Law Review, vol. 61, no. 2, 1986. Tulane Law Review, https://www.tulanelawreview.org/pub/volume61/issue2/keeping-up-with-the-jones-act. Accessed 6 September 2025.

“BTI 2024.” BTI Transformation Index, https://bti-project.org/en/reports/global-report#Little%20willingness%20to%20defuse%20conflicts%20within%20society. Accessed 7 September 2025.

Butt, Nickie, et al. 15 Years of Shipping Accidents: A review for WWF. https://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/15_years_of_shipping_accidents_a_review_for_wwf_.pdf. Accessed 6 September 2025.

Feine, Richard. “Importance of the Theory of Regulatory Compliance.” Journal of Management Policy and Practice, vol. 25, no. 1, 2024, https://rikinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/trc-importance-jmpp2.pdf. Accessed 6 September 2025.

Goodman, Matthew P. “Policymaking Is All About Trade-Offs.” Council on Foreign Relations, 1 April 2024, https://www.cfr.org/article/policymaking-all-about-trade-offs. Accessed 6 September 2025.

Gourdon, Karin, and Joaquim J. M. Guilhoto. “Local content requirements and their economic effect on shipbuilding: A quantitative assessment.” OECD Publishing, vol. 69, 2019. OECD Publishing, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/local-content-requirements-and-their-economic-effect-on-shipbuilding_90316781-en.html. Accessed 6 September 2025.

Grabow, Colin. “Jones Act Is Costly, Ineffective, Unfair.” Cato Institute, 31 July 2024, https://www.cato.org/commentary/jones-act-costly-ineffective-unfair. Accessed 6 September 2025.

Grabow, Colin. “Jones Act Leaves New England Vulnerable to Wintertime Calamity.” Cato Institute, 13 December 2022, https://www.cato.org/blog/jones-act-leaves-new-england-vulnerable-wintertime-calamity. Accessed 6 September 2025.

Grabow, Colin, et al. “The Jones Act: A Burden America Can No Longer Bear.” Cato Institute, 28 June 2018, https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/jones-act-burden-america-can-no-longer-bear. Accessed 6 September 2025.

Greenwood, Jeremy, and Emily Miletello. “To expand the Navy isn’t enough. We need a bigger commercial fleet. | Brookings.” Brookings Institution, 4 November 2021, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/to-expand-the-navy-isnt-enough-we-need-a-bigger-commercial-fleet/. Accessed 7 September 2025.

Grennes, Thomas. “An Economic Analysis of the Jones Act.” Mercatus Center, 2 May 2017, https://www.mercatus.org/research/research-papers/economic-analysis-jones-act. Accessed 6 September 2025.

“The Jones Act.” Customs and Border Protection, 4 December 2024, https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/Jones%20Act%20ICP_Complete_04DEC24.pdf. Accessed 6 September 2025.

“Jones Act | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute.” Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jones_act. Accessed 6 September 2025.

Maritime Workforce Working Group. Maritime Workforce Working Group Report. 29 September 2017, https://www.maritime.dot.gov/sites/marad.dot.gov/files/docs/mariners/1026/mwwg-report-congress-finalr3.pdf. Accessed 6 September 2025.

Masterman, Clayton J. “The Customer Is Not Always Right: Balancing Worker and Customer Welfare in Antitrust Law.” Vanderbilt Law Review, vol. 69, no. 5, 2016, pp. 1387-1422. Vanderbilt Law Review, https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol69/iss5/6/. Accessed 6 September 2025.

Schrager, Allison. “Free Lunch Economics.” City Journal, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, 7 February 2022, https://www.city-journal.org/article/free-lunch-economics. Accessed 6 September 2025.

US Department of Transportation. United States-Flag Privately-Owned Merchant Fleet Report. 16 January 2022, https://www.maritime.dot.gov/sites/marad.dot.gov/files/2022-05/DS_USFlag-Fleet_2022_1_16Bundle.pdf. Accessed 6 September 2025.

AYAN SHUKLA

Senior Editor — Managing Editor at The City Voice

Ayan is the managing editor of the City Voice, and a current freshman at City High Middle. He primarily writes articles about the economy, politics, and global current events and won first place in his category in the 2025 MIPA awards. He is part of Speech and Debate, the NHS Executive Board, President of the Class of 2029, MYIG, MUN, Student Ambassadors, and started the Michigan branch of a nonprofit organization.

In his free time, Ayan enjoys playing the piano and the violin, reading, and excessively drinking coffee. You can contact him atshukla-a@students.grps.orgfor any questions about his articles.