Which aspect is a major critique of strategic trade theory?

Strategic trade theory is often critiqued for its underlying implications on international trade policy, and resistance from free trade proponents is a significant aspect of this critique. The theory suggests that government intervention can be beneficial in certain industries, especially in fostering competitive advantage in strategic sectors. This challenges the traditional free trade perspective, which advocates minimal government involvement and emphasizes the benefits of unrestricted trade based on comparative advantage.

Free trade proponents argue that markets should determine outcomes without government interference, as they believe it leads to a more efficient allocation of resources and promotes overall economic welfare. Consequently, strategic trade theory's advocacy for state involvement in trade raises concerns about potential trade distortions, protectionism, and retaliatory measures among nations. This resistance highlights the tension between different economic philosophies regarding the role of government in trade, making it a central critique of strategic trade theory.

The other aspects mentioned, such as being too focused on global cooperation or promoting unrestricted free trade, do not accurately capture the essence of the criticism made against strategic trade theory. Similarly, the idea that the theory provides exhaustive trade analysis is less relevant to the critiques stemming from its implications for government involvement and free trade advocacy.