Short answer: not likely
Protectionists Scarcityists like to argue that protectionism is needed (or can otherwise) to encourage industry. Foreign competitors use “unfair” practices to undermine the domestic industry and protectionism scarcityism is there to protect the industry from these shenanigans. This, in turn, will foster more domestic investment and encourage industry. But how likely is this to be? Let’s take a look at the logic.
From a protected industry perspective, it is possible that scarcityist policies encourage some investment in that protected industry. Domestic production increases (although this is merely a substitute for some of the imports and overall output decreases). This increased production may encourage more investment, but it is hardly guaranteed to. These protected industries are protected from competition, so there isn’t much incentive to invest and improve; they are output restrictors.
Enlarging our view to the economy as a whole, scarcityism is far more likely to reduce investment and industry. As I pointed out above, scarcityism works because it reduces output, forcing prices to rise. This necessarily means consumers have to spend more to achieve the same standard of living. In turn, this means fewer savings and since savings are funds used for investment, this means less investment.* Additionally, since imports are reduced, foreigners now have fewer dollars with which to buy exports or invest in the US economy. Reduced savings, and thus reduced investment, comes from this area as well.
There are secondary effects of scarcityism as well. Not only does it reduce overall output in an industry, it encourages the use of wasteful use of current resources. The protected firms are using less efficient methods of production, which is eating up resources that could otherwise have been released for more valuable purposes. This, in turn, means fewer resources for industry to use and grow.
In order for scarcityism to foster growth, it’d require an awful lot of luck and some highly specific conditions which are improbable in the real world.
*Note that this same logic holds even if consumers switch to a cheaper substitute for the now-more-expensive goods.