Yes it does. And not just in theory, but also in practice.
The evidence comes from the 1930s, and from the work of Ben Bernanke himself (along with other scholars like Barry Eichengreen). The important finding is that countries that devalued their currencies by getting off the gold standard were able to recover more quickly, thanks in part to an increase in their net exports relative to countries that stayed on gold. Note that a currency depreciation amounts to a policy of combining import tariffs with export subsidies--hence the mercantilist intent and effect.
Interestingly, Bernanke finds that the increase in net exports came from the increase in exports, while imports did not decline more than it did in countries remaining on the gold standard. He speculates that the reason has to do with the increase in income (thanks to the depreciation) which pushed demand for imports higher and offset the substitution effects.
I am writing all this partly in response to Tyler Cowen's comment that any theory that suggests import protection can be a good thing must be a deeply flawed theory. The experience with currency devaluations during the 1930s shows that the theory is in fact quite OK.
What the theory does not consider fully, which was rather my point, is that mercantilist policies--Keynesianism in one country--has adverse effects on others. My net exports can increase only at the expense of yours. Similarly, the worse thing about Smoot-Hawley was that it led to a vicious cycle of protectionism everywhere.
So the implication is not that we throw the theory overboard, but that we foresee its global implications and apply the requisite remedy: a globally coordinated fiscal stimulus, which requires in turn that we provide the developing countries with the liquidity and fiscal resources needed to get on board.