It's probably somewhat rare in industrialised democracies these days. Many trade deals limit subsidies (hence this WTO ruling). It is also difficult to give one

It's probably somewhat rare in industrialised democracies these days. Many trade deals limit subsidies (hence this WTO ruling). It is also difficult to give one-off subsidies in diversified markets, because (domestic) competitors would complain/sue. The EU has especially stringent rules against this, making (for example) shenanigans such as Amazon's HQ2 race-to-the-bottom impossible. That's also what got Apple and Ireland into trouble. It's effectively a cartel of countries pooling power to counter multinationals' ability to offshore profits to the cheapest jurisdiction. The are exemptions: The EU and US massively support agriculture with direct payments. Canada does the same with milk quotas. (These two systems are somewhat incompatible: allowing subsidised US milk to be sold for Canada's protected high prices would amount to double dipping. Hence some disagreements across that particular border). Aircrafts are a rather special beast: there's a national security angle, they are objects of national pride, and both the EU and US have one large manufacturer. Airbus is also diversified across many EU countries, assuring them wide political support.