How Did The North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) Benefit The Us Economy Brainly

On January 29, 2020, President Donald Trump signed the agreement between the United States, Mexico-Canada. Canada has not yet adopted it in its parliamentary body until January 2020. Mexico was the first country to ratify the agreement in 2019. But from an economic point of view, NAFTA is a success and, without it, the impact of competition from the expanding economies of the European Union or China would be worse. This is crucial now that both trade zones are above the United States as the world`s largest economies. NAFTA was supplemented by two other regulations: the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) and the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC). These tangential agreements should prevent companies from moving to other countries in order to use lower wages, more moderate health and safety rules and more flexible environmental rules. NAFTA has boosted Mexican agricultural exports to the United States, which have tripled since the pact was implemented. Hundreds of thousands of jobs in the automotive industry have also been created in the country and most studies [PDF] have found that the agreement has increased productivity and reduced consumer prices in Mexico.

Economists David Autor, David Dorn and Gordon Hanson weigh the impact of trade with China and Mexico on the U.S. labour market in this 2016 paper [PDF] for the National Bureau of Economic Research. Overall, Canada has become more dependent on trade with the United States and has based its southern neighbour on 75 per cent of its exports. Other high-income countries tend to be much more diverse and rarely rely more than 20% on a single partner. U.S. presidents have long,s warm relationships with Canadian prime ministers, but Mr. Trump has not hesitated to use that dependency as leverage. As part of the USMCA talks, he threatened to impose new tariffs on Canadian auto parts if Ottawa did not accept trade concessions. The United States had already concluded a free trade agreement with Canada in 1988, but the addition of a less developed country such as Mexico was unprecedented. Opponents of NAFTA have taken up wage differences with Mexico, which had only 30 percent of U.S. per capita income.

U.S. presidential candidate Ross Perot said in 1992 that trade liberalization would cause a “huge noise” of American jobs fleeing the border. Supporters such as Presidents Bush and Clinton responded that the agreement would create hundreds of thousands of new jobs a year, while Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari saw it as a chance to modernize Mexico`s economy so that it “exports goods, not people.” Much of the debate among political experts has focused on how to mitigate the negative effects of agreements such as NAFTA, including whether workers who lose their jobs are compensated or whether they are offering retraining programs to help them move into new sectors. Experts say programs such as U.S. Trade Adjustment Assistance (AAT), which helps workers pay for education or training to find new jobs, could help rebuke anger over trade liberalization. Assessing the value of NAFTA is not a simple or simple question. However, many experts believe that free trade agreements are a necessity for the United States when competing in an increasingly globalized world.

Comments are closed.