Mexico is the third largest trading partner of the United States and the second largest export market for U.S. products. Mexico was our third largest trading partner (after Canada and China) and the second largest export market in 2018. Reciprocal trade in goods and services totalled $678 billion, and that trade directly and indirectly supports millions of jobs in the United States. The U.S. sold $265 billion worth of U.S. products to Mexico and $34 billion worth of services in 2018, representing total sales of $299 billion in U.S. sales in Mexico. Mexico is the first or second largest export destination for 27 U.S. states. Before sending it to the U.S. Senate, Clinton added two side treaties, the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) and the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), to protect workers and the environment, as well as to allay the concerns of many members of the House of Representatives.

The United States has required its partners to adhere to environmental practices and regulations similar to their own. [Citation needed] After lengthy deliberations and lively discussions, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act on November 17, 1993, with measures 234-200. Among the supporters of the deal were 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. The bill was passed by the Senate on 20 November 1993 by a vote of 61 to 38. [21] The Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Republican Rep. David Dreier of California, a staunch supporter of NAFTA since the Reagan administration, has played a leading role in mobilizing support for the deal among Republicans in Congress and across the country.

[22] [23] Given that low-income people spend more of their income on clothing and other goods that are cheaper to import than to produce domestically, they would likely suffer the most from a shift to protectionism – as would many from trade liberalization. According to a 2015 study by Pablo Fajgelbaum and Amit K. Khandelwal, the average real loss of income due to the complete shutdown of the business would be 4% for the top 10% of the US population, but 69% for the poorest 10%. On the other hand, Canada has long sold 99% or more of its total oil exports to the United States: it did so even before the two countries concluded a free trade agreement in 1988. In other words, NAFTA doesn`t seem to have done much to open up the United States. Canadian crude oil market. It was already wide open – Canadians were just producing more. “It`s ironic that they want to fix a `terrible` deal by including provisions of the TPP, a deal that the government says is even worse,” Bill Reinsch, a member of the Stimson Center, told Politico last year. According to a 2017 report by the New York Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) think tank, bilateral trade in agricultural products tripled from 1994 to 2017 and is considered one of nafta`s biggest economic impacts on U.S.-Canada trade, with Canada becoming the largest importer of the U.S.

agricultural sector. [64] Canadian fears of losing manufacturing jobs to the U.S. did not materialize as manufacturing employment remained “stable.” However, since labor productivity in Canada is at 72% of labor productivity in the United States. Hopes of closing the “productivity gap” between the two countries have also not been realized. [64] In a 60-minute interview in September 2015, 2016 presidential candidate Donald Trump called NAFTA “the worst trade deal ever approved in the United States”[121] and said that if elected, he would “renegotiate it, or we break it.” [122] [123] Juan Pablo Castañón [es], president of the consejo Coordinador Empresarial trade group, expressed concern about renegotiations and the desire to focus on the automotive industry. [124] A number of trade experts have stated that withdrawal from NAFTA would have a number of unintended consequences for the United States, including limited access to its largest export markets, reduced economic growth, and higher prices for gasoline, cars, fruits and vegetables. [125] Members of private initiative in Mexico have noted that many laws need to be amended by the U.S. Congress to eliminate NAFTA.

This decision would ultimately lead to legal complaints from the World Trade Organization. [124] The Washington Post noted that a review of the scientific literature by the Congressional Research Service concluded that “the overall net effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy appears to have been relatively modest, largely because trade with Canada and Mexico accounts for a small percentage of U.S. GDP.” [63] A 2014 study on the impact of NAFTA on U.S. trade employment and investment found that the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and Canada increased from $17.0 billion to $177.2 billion between 1993 and 2013, displacing 851,700 jobs in the United States. [84] President Trump was one of the main proponents of renegotiating or abolishing the treaty, saying the deal was unfair to the United States. U.S. Department of Commerce. Census Bureau, foreign trade statistics.

“New updates to 2005 data.” Available from www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/. Retrieved 17 April 2006. After all, the 2008 financial crisis had a profound impact on the global economy, making it difficult to determine the impact of a trade deal. Outside of some industries whose effect is not yet entirely clear, NAFTA has had an unequivocal impact on North American economies. The fact that it is now in danger of being scrapped probably has little to do with its own merits or flaws, and much more to do with automation, the rise of China, and the political consequences of September 11 and the 2008 financial crisis. After the election of President Trump in 2016, support for NAFTA became highly polarized between Republicans and Democrats. Donald Trump has made negative comments about NAFTA, calling it “the worst trade deal ever approved in this country.” [159] Republican support for NAFTA increased from 43% in 2008 to 34% in 2017. Meanwhile, democratic support for NAFTA increased from 41% in 2008 to 71% in 2017.

[160] To Mexico`s optimists, NAFTA looked promising in 1994. The agreement was actually an extension of the Canada-United States of 1988. Free trade agreement, and it was the first to combine an emerging market economy with a developed market economy. The country has undergone difficult reforms and has begun a transition from the kind of economic policies pursued by one-party states to the orthodoxy of the free market. Proponents of NAFTA have argued that tying the economy to those of its wealthier northern neighbors would consolidate these reforms and spur economic growth, eventually leading to a convergence of living standards between the three economies. As early as 1984, President Ronald Reagan passed the Trade and Tariffs Act, which allowed the president to negotiate free trade agreements more quickly. At Reagan`s initiative, Canadian Prime Minister Mulroney supported the President and Canada-U.S. relations. The free trade agreement was finally signed in 1988; It entered into force a year later. Two fundamental additions to NAFTA – the North American Agreement on Labour Market Cooperation and the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation – have had a significant impact on the effectiveness of the agreement.

A 2001 review of the existing literature by the Journal of Economic Perspectives found that NAFTA was a net benefit to Mexico. [6] Until 2003, 80% of trade in Mexico was with the United States alone. The surplus in trade revenues, combined with the deficit with the rest of the world, has created a dependency on Mexico`s exports. These effects were evident during the 2001 recession, which resulted in a low or negative rate of Mexican exports. [74] In 2008, Canadian exports to the United States and Mexico totalled $381.3 billion and imports amounted to $245.1 billion. [59] According to a 2004 article by University of Toronto economist Daniel Trefler, NAFTA brought significant net benefits to Canada in 2003, with long-term productivity increasing by up to 15% in industries that experienced the largest tariff reductions. [60] Although the decline in the number of low-productivity firms reduced employment (up to 12% of existing jobs), these job losses lasted less than a decade; Overall, unemployment in Canada has declined since the legislation was passed. . .

.