That makes five! Though I'm not particularly advanced in years, the fifth recession in my lifetime recently came to an end. Old hand that I am, I can take a step back and observe this marvellous spectacle from a broad angle. Recessions do not all originate in the same fashion but they leave behind the same debris: weakened financial systems, post-crisis bull markets, jobless economic recoveries and, naturally, a resurgence in protectionism. Protectionism? Really?

First of all, this latest crisis had a financial slant. Back in 1980, the financial industry accounted for 16% of US corporate profits; by 2008, this had risen to a staggering 41%. It doesn't take a Nobel-prize economist to realize that an adjustment was due. In contrast, manufacturing concerns have emerged relatively strongly from the crisis thanks to a helping hand from emerging economies. Mindful of this, I entitled one of my lectures "It's not as bad as it sounds", taken from a remark made by Mark Twain after seeing an opera by Richard Wagner. Thus, since manufacturers have been relatively resilient, trade protectionism has not been a particular issue this time round.

Naturally, various countries are "pushing their luck" in different ways. In the US, "Buy American" clauses dictate the origin of the steel used to make cars, while Chinese-made tires are subject to import duties. The Chinese block imports of Irish pork, India refuses to accept Chinese toys, Russia is raising tariffs on car imports while Europe has banned imports of some types of American poultry. But in general, politicians have learned the lessons of 1929, namely that protectionism is the stuff that turns a recession into a full-blown depression. Notwithstanding that, protectionism is rearing its head in various new guises.

For example, "fiscal" protectionism is all the rage. To cover the cost of the financial crisis – the US national debt exceeds 12 trillion dollars – governments are looking to boost tax receipts and, in pursuit of this goal, are looking to extend control over financial institutions. Under the smokescreen of openness and preventing systemic risks, meddling is becoming more prevalent. Europe suggests that foreign fund managers should first establish a physical presence in Europe to be able to operate there. The British and the French want to force bailed-out banks to lend "locally". As summed up by Thomas Jefferson: "A government big enough to give you everything you want is also a government big enough to take everything you have...."

"Environmental" protectionism is another winner, especially after the botched Copenhagen summit. For example, the US levies punitive tariffs on 32 of the 43 environmental technologies identified by the World Bank as worthy. China has done likewise with 41 of them, with some levies reaching 35%. Nineteenth-century British Prime Minister William Gladstone once visited the laboratory of Michael Faraday and enquired into the use of his inventions: "I am not quite sure, but I know that one day you will tax them!" was the scientist's reply. Who would dare take a stand against taxes or national anti-pollution standards when nature is at stake?

One stand-out innovation in the art of protectionism is use of the trade surplus to destabilise other countries by under-developing domestic demand — a view taken by French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde on Germany's trade surplus, which she considers unsustainable for Europe. Admittedly, exports of goods and services do account for 41% of German GDP (compared with 11% in the US). But is it right to bear a grudge against the star pupil on the grounds that they, the others, are not following suit?

The same voices can be heard in the US, where the offensive against Chinese imports is accompanied by heated discussion over the Chinese currency. Many claim that the yuan is being manipulated by Chinese authorities and should theoretically rise by 12% based on purchasing power parity, or 40% on the basis of the current-account surplus under a system of freely floating exchange rates. Call this "monetary" protectionism.

The recession may not have led to resurgent protectionism but has possibly given rise to a form of economic "nationalism". Renault boss Carlos Ghosn readily acknowledges that while his company is run as a global business, the French connection is still anchored in people's minds. Rather than going against the grain, why not take advantage of this? For example, the same is true in my country Switzerland, with the renaissance of "Swissness" and the roaring success of products bearing the Swiss flag. What would become of Nestlé or Novartis without their ties to Switzerland? On the flip side, the issues faced by UBS are tarnishing Switzerland’s image.

In this respect, there may be something to be said for stricter supervision of national champions. I must confess to a soft spot for protectionism inside boards of directors. In companies that could incur a systemic risk for the economy having a majority of national citizens on the board (or at the very least a reliable blocking minority) is worthy of consideration. That way global players would retain an acute awareness of their local connections. In bygone days, this was the norm. Does that make me nostalgic? Maybe, but let's not be naïve. US and Chinese corporations remain firmly attached to their countries of origin. Our approach to protectionism should be like the way we live our lives: Play fair but do not be stupid!

IMD Professor Stéphane Garelli is the Director of IMD’s World Competitiveness Center. The IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook annual ranking results and the “Debt Stress Test” will be released on May 19th.