Created From Nafta

The North American Free Trade Agreement involved much more than simple trade barrier reduction. This volume provides an in-depth examination and analysis of the structure, functions, and performance of the NAFTA institutions from their inception.

In the wake of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, renowned public intellectual and scholar Stephen Clarkson asks whether North America "exists" in the sense that the European Union has made Europe exist. Clarkson's rigorous study of the many political and economic relationships that link Canada, the United States, and Mexico answers this unusual question by looking at the institutions created by NAFTA, a broad selection of economic sectors, and the security policies put in place by the three neighbouring countries following 9/11. This detailed, meticulously researched, and up-to-date treatment of North America's transborder governance allows the reader to see to what extent the United States' dominance in the continent has been enhanced or mitigated by trilateral connections with its two continental partners. An illuminating product of seven years' political-economy, international-relations, and policy research, Does North America Exist? is an ambitious and path-breaking study that will be essential reading for those wanting to understand whether the continent containing the world's most powerful nation is holding its own as a global region.

Seminar paper from the year 2003 in the subject Economics - Foreign Trade Theory, Trade Policy, grade: 1.0 (A), Hawai'i Pacific University (-), course: MBA-Program (Vorlesung), 7 entries in the bibliography, language: English, abstract: To comprehend what is driving U.S. trade and investment policy requires an understanding of simultaneous developments occurring in investment, production, and trade. World exports grew more during the past decade than world production, indicating increased international interdependence. The growth in trade was made possible by improvements in transportation and communication networks, but also by the steady reduction of trade barriers. On January 1, 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) came into effect among Canada, Mexico, and the United States. The agreement provides a detailed framework for the conduct of trade among the three countries. But its objectives are much more expansive than trade alone: The agreement is designed to remove barriers to investment among the three countries, permit the free flow of services, and enable expeditious settlement of trade disputes. NAFTA is an economic agreement that should influence where and how goods are produced and how services are provided in North America. NAFTA should have a positive effect on income and employment in each of the three member countries. These effects should be greatest in Mexico, the least developed of the three.

NAFTA entered into force in 1994 after a bitter Congressional debate. But NAFTA in operation has proved no less controversial than NAFTA before ratification, for both supporters and opponents of trade liberalization have cited experience with the agreement to justify their positions. To provide a factual basis for this ongoing debate, the authors evaluate NAFTA's performance over the first seven years, comparing actual experience with both the objectives of the agreement's supporters and the charges of its critics. They then examine future challenges and opportunities in the trade and investment relationships among the three partner countries and the broader implications for new trade initiatives throughout the hemisphere.

The United States – Mexico – Canada Agreement (USMCA) was signed on November 30, 2018 and aims to replace and modernize the North-American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). This paper uses a global, multisector, computable-general-equilibrium model to provide an analytical assessment of five key provisions in the new agreement, including tighter rules of origin in the automotive, textiles and apparel sectors, more liberalized agricultural trade, and other trade facilitation measures. The results show that together these provisions would adversely affect trade in the automotive, textiles and apparel sectors, while generating modest aggregate gains in terms of welfare, mostly driven by improved goods market access, with a negligible effect on real GDP. The welfare benefits from USMCA would be greatly enhanced with the elimination of U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from Canada and Mexico and the elimination of the Canadian and Mexican import surtaxes imposed after the U.S. tariffs were put in place.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) entered into force on January 1, 1994. The agreement was signed by President George H. W. Bush on December 17, 1992, and approved by Congress on November 20, 1993. The NAFTA Implementation Act was signed into law by President William J. Clinton on December 8, 1993 (P.L. 103-182). The overall economic impact of NAFTA is difficult to measure since trade and investment trends are influenced by numerous other economic variables, such as economic growth, inflation, and currency fluctuations. The agreement likely accelerated and also locked in trade liberalization that was already taking place in Mexico, but many of these changes may have taken place without an agreement. Nevertheless, NAFTA is significant, because it was the most comprehensive free trade agreement (FTA) negotiated at the time and contained several groundbreaking provisions. A legacy of the agreement is that it has served as a template or model for the new generation of FTAs that the United States later negotiated, and it also served as a template for certain provisions in multilateral trade negotiations as part of the Uruguay Round. The 115th Congress faces numerous issues related to NAFTA and international trade. President Donald J. Trump has proposed renegotiating NAFTA, or possibly withdrawing from it. Congress may wish to consider the ramifications of renegotiating or withdrawing from NAFTA and how it may affect the U.S. economy and foreign relations with Mexico and Canada. It may also wish to examine the congressional role in a possible renegotiation, as well as the negotiating positions of Canada and Mexico. Mexico has stated that, if NAFTA is reopened, it may seek to broaden negotiations to include security, counter-narcotics, and transmigration issues. Mexico has also indicated that it may choose to withdraw from the agreement if the negotiations are not favorable to the country. Congress may also wish to address issues related to the U.S. withdrawal from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade agreement among the United States, Canada, Mexico, and 9 other countries. Some observers contend that the withdrawal from TPP could damage U.S. competitiveness and economic leadership in the region, while others see the withdrawal as a way to prevent lower cost imports and potential job losses. Key provisions in TPP may also be addressed in 'modernizing' or renegotiating NAFTA, a more than two decade-old FTA. NAFTA was controversial when first proposed, mostly because it was the first FTA involving two wealthy, developed countries and a developing country. The political debate surrounding the agreement was divisive with proponents arguing that the agreement would help generate thousands of jobs and reduce income disparity in the region, while opponents warned that the agreement would cause huge job losses in the United States as companies moved production to Mexico to lower costs. In reality, NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses feared by the critics or the large economic gains predicted by supporters. The net overall effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy appears to have been relatively modest, primarily because trade with Canada and Mexico accounts for a small percentage of U.S. GDP. However, there were worker and firm adjustment costs as the three countries adjusted to more open trade and investment. The rising number of bilateral and regional trade agreements throughout the world and the rising presence of China in Latin America could have implications for U.S. trade policy with its NAFTA partners. Some proponents of open and rules-based trade contend that maintaining NAFTA or deepening economic relations with Canada and Mexico will help promote a common trade agenda with shared values and generate economic growth. Some opponents argue that the agreement has caused worker displacement.

The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), a modified and modernized version of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), will continue to govern most economic relationships in North America, including the more than $1.3 trillion in annual regional trade in goods and services, for the foreseeable future. USMCA preserves the bulk of the NAFTA structures that permit North American manufacturers to compete effectively with their European and Asian counterparts in North American and foreign markets. Once in effect, USMCA should largely resolve the chilling effect on investment and new hiring generated by three years of uncertainty over NAFTA's future. This book provides a detailed analysis and critique of the provisions of the USMCA and the USMCA's relation to NAFTA. It is designed to assist lawyers and non-lawyers alike, including law, economics and public policy scholars, business professionals and governmental officials who require an understanding of one of the worlds' most economically and politically significant regional trade agreements.