Within a week, Kamala Harris has presented a series of economic policy proposals designed to secure her victory in the US election – but now she risks a backlash from economists and business associations.

The plans reflect the Democratic presidential candidate’s attempt to develop her own brand of economic populism in time for the November election, adopting much of President Joe Biden’s agenda but with unique features that she can use against Donald Trump.

Harris’ economic policy ideas include raising the corporate tax rate from 21 to 28 percent, a nationwide ban on price gouging in the food sector, massive efforts to increase the housing supply and more tax breaks for families with children and first-time home buyers.

What all of the proposals have in common is that they address the concerns of the average American voter, from high inflation to housing costs and the cost of raising children.

The measures place the blame for inflation on a familiar culprit: the American economy. And they require that same culprit to foot the bill – through higher taxes – which would provide relief to middle-class households.

Some economists are concerned and criticise the measures because they could potentially lead to excessive government regulation of the economy and harmful market distortions in the form of price controls.

“This plan was obviously not designed to appeal to economists,” said David Wessel, a senior fellow for economic studies at the Brookings Institution, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington. “To me, this plan sounded like a response to focus groups. You can see what voters are worried about, and ultimately Kamala Harris’s most important job is to win the election.”

Harris is not offering to reshape the U.S. economy with the same ambition as her Democratic predecessors. Barack Obama began his presidency in 2009 at the height of the global financial crisis and sought to transform the U.S. health care and banking sectors with sweeping legislation. Biden took office in the midst of the pandemic and then enacted sweeping legislation to revive American industry.

Rather, Harris is highlighting elements of the Biden administration’s economic agenda that were popular with voters, even when their approval of his handling of the economy was poor – and making them the focus of her campaign.

“Much of what the Biden administration is doing is evolution rather than revolution,” says Ernie Tedeschi, a former White House economist under Biden.

In the housing sector, Harris is calling for first-time home buyers to receive $25,000 in down payment grants, expanding eligibility for the program, while calling for the construction of three million new housing units and vowing to crack down on financial investors who buy homes in bulk.

She also proposes a $6,000 tax credit for children in their first year of life and the reinstatement of the $3,600 child tax credit introduced during the pandemic. To reduce food costs, she has proposed a federal ban on price gouging in the grocery sector, going a step further than the pressure the Biden administration is putting on U.S. companies to limit price increases.

“While some food companies have passed on these savings, others have not yet done so,” Harris’ campaign said. “Price fluctuations are normal in free markets, but Vice President Harris recognizes that there is a big difference between fair and excessive prices.”

Trump’s plans to cut taxes across the board, raise tariffs on imported goods and restrict immigration have raised concerns among many economists, who fear that these plans could trigger a new, damaging wave of inflation throughout the U.S. economy.

But the Republican candidate’s campaign team and economists close to the former president have pounced on Harris’ economic agenda, saying measures like the federal ban on price gouging in grocery stores represented a dangerous throwback to the failed policies of the 1970s.

“All economists know that letting the government set prices is a very, very big mistake,” says Kevin Hassett, a fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and chairman of Donald Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers. “When the government starts setting prices, … what inevitably happens is that the price … falls below marginal cost and then supply dries up.”

Michael Strain, director of economic policy studies at the center-right American Enterprise Institute, who is critical of Trump and his economic policies, said much would depend on the “details” of Harris’ price-gouging proposal. But he was not impressed.

“I understand that it is tempting to create policies that respond to voters’ attitudes on this issue. But I think they are doing themselves harm by putting forward something so half-baked and, at least in the view of most economists, so dubious,” Strain said.

But Harris seems less worried about the assessment of political analysts than about voters in the swing states.

During a campaign appearance in Nevada this month, the vice president endorsed a proposal to eliminate the tip tax – a huge boon for restaurant and hotel workers. It was a measure lifted directly from Trump’s plans.

It has also been criticized as an unfair scheme, and Wessel said there was “no good reason” for it. “Why should a bus driver who earns $20 an hour pay more taxes than a waiter who gets $10 in wages and $10 in tips? That is not justifiable,” he said.

Some elements of Harris’ plan have been praised, including her call for more housing – a strategy that Trump also supports. “The supply-side approach is really the right way to go,” Tedeschi said. “It’s a good time to announce it because everyone is expecting interest rates to start falling,” he added. “So it will be a good time to start building more housing right now.”

Harris’ plans would put a strain on the budget. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a bipartisan fiscal watchdog, estimates that the measures she unveiled last week would increase budget deficits by $1.7 trillion over the next decade, largely to finance the increased child tax credits.

Harris wants to offset those costs by raising the corporate tax and other taxes on businesses and wealthy Americans. CRFB said raising the corporate tax rate to 28 percent would raise about $1 trillion over a decade.

For Strain, the problem with Harris’ economic plans is that they are politically misguided.

“I think she should reach out to (Nikki) Haley’s voters. I think she should reach out to the business community,” he said, referring to moderate Republicans unhappy with Trump. “And I think it would really benefit her to not make policy proposals that make those groups roll their eyes.”