NAFTA, The Good, The Best, and The Ugly For the Americas

NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement,incentives-for Mexicans to stay at home. In some
has been getting a lot of not so favorable, andways, NAFTA has been a boon for activists. Just
sometimes, controversial headlines in recent years.think how much higher the northward flow of
Some critics blame it for the current labor shortageswork-seeking immigrants from Mexico would have
in the United States, due to the fact that most U.S.been in the absence of NAFTA" (Newsweek).
companies have been and continue to outsource andMexico seems to be the one that has most
ship jobs overseas. While its proponents have beenbenefited than the other two partners. A lot has
hailing it as a great success in helping lowering nationalchanged in Mexico since NAFTA was implemented to
prices on certain manufactured goods and servicesinclude it as part of the free trade partners.
and that it has caused to increase wages for certainAccording to the report by Carlos Salas in the
jobs within the U.S.Economic Policy Institute: Although Mexico now has a
In this document, we are going to explore the conslarge trade surplus with the U.S., Mexico has also
and pros of NAFTA. The author of the documentdeveloped a large and growing overall trade deficit
has specifically selected this topic because of awith the rest of the world. In fact, Mexico's net
familiar ground. Most of his families and friends haveimports from the rest of the world now substantially
lost their jobs in recent years, and whenever theexceed its net exports to the United States. Official
word 'NAFTA' is mentioned, the blame seems to beunemployment levels in Mexico are lower now than
more placed on NAFTA and Bill Clinton, for causing itbefore NAFTA, but this decline in the official rate
to happen, than on the current economic downturnsimply reflects the absence of unemployment
cycle. Before we look deeper on the aforementionedinsurance in Mexico. In fact, underemployment and
issues, we must first look at what is NAFTA, itswork in low-pay, low-productivity jobs (e.g., unpaid
causes, advantages and disadvantages.work in family enterprises) actually has grown rapidly
In 1989, Canada and the United States implementedsince the early 1990s. Furthermore, the normal
a bilateral free trade agreement, and in 1993, theyprocess of rural-to-urban migration that is typical of
included Mexico. On December 8, 1993, the leaders ofdeveloping economies has reversed since the
the governments of Canada, United States, andadoption of NAFTA. The rural share of the population
Mexico signed, then the most anticipated trilateralincreased slightly between 1991 and 1997, as living
free trade agreement, known as, the North Americanand working conditions in the cities deteriorated.
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and wasAs Mexico flourish, the opposite is happening in the
implemented on January 1, 1994, for the sole purposeUS. Forbes magazine recently reported a list of the
of helping to remove most of the trade andfastest dying cities in America, and in Ohio, Dayton,
investment barriers, while boosting high economicCleveland, and Youngstown are some of many in the
growth between the tri-bloc neighboring countries.US that have been affected, not only by the current
The Agreement was signed by Bill Clinton, presidenteconomic crisis, but by many of the manufacturing
of the United States, Brian Mulroney of Canada, andjobs being shipped overseas, while leaving most
Carlos Salinas de Gortari of Mexico. It was hailed asAmerican jobless. The report indicates that
the highest achievement and largest trilateralYoungstown is on the blink of completely becoming a
agreement between the tri-bloc countries in decades.ghost town. Most retail stores have moved out, and
"Under the NAFTA, all non-tariff barriers to agriculturalthe City of Youngstown has been on the buying
trade between the United States and Mexico werespree, buying up abandoned properties, and
eliminated. In addition, many tariffs were eliminateddismantles them to clean them up and turn them in
immediately, with others being phased out overto parks instead. Whereas in Mexico, "total
periods of 5 to 15 years. This allowed for an orderlyemployment grew from 33.9 to 39.1 million jobs over
adjustment to free trade with Mexico, with fullthe 1995-99 period (3.7% annually), according to
implementation beginning January 1, 2008" (Unitedofficially reported data (INEGI 1995 and 1999). But
States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agriculturalthese data must be used with some caution, because
Service).the sample used for the National Employment Survey
Over the years, the partner countries have continuedchanged in 1998. Comparing the 1998 and 1999 data
to make certain provisions, adding or removing some,provides a more realistic rate of employment growth.
according to economic conditions in order to improveTotal employment reported for 1998 was 38.6 million
the agreement. Certain provisions were not initiallyjobs, resulting in an actual rate of growth in 1999 of
included such as the agricultural provision was notonly 1.2%" (Economic Policy Institute).
amended until in 1998. Such provisions are necessaryAs for Canada, all else equal, the tri-bloc member
as each country tries to improve its internationalcountry has one specific pressing issue, losing its
trade relationship with other trade partners. "Thewater to the U.S. as a result of NAFTA. According to
agricultural provisions of the U.S.-Canada Free TradeInter Press Service; under the North American Free
Agreement, in effect since 1989, were incorporatedTrade Agreement, Canada lost control over its
into the NAFTA. Under these provisions, all tariffsenergy resources. Now, with "NAFTA-plus", it could
affecting agricultural trade between the United Statesalso lose control over its freshwater resources, say
and Canada, with a few exceptions for itemsexperts. Canada's water is on the trade negotiating
covered by tariff-rate quotas, were removed bytable despite widespread public opposition and
January 1, 1998. Mexico and Canada reached aassurances by Canadian political leaders, said
separate bilateral NAFTA agreement on marketAdèle Hurley, director of the University of
access for agricultural products. TheToronto's Programme on Water Issues at the Munk
Mexican-Canadian agreement eliminated most tariffsCentre for International Studies. "A new report
either immediately or over 5, 10, or 15 years. Tariffsreleased Sep. 11 by the programme reveals that
between the two countries affecting trade in dairy,water transfers from Canada to the United States
poultry, eggs, and sugar are maintained" (Unitedare emerging as an issue under the auspices of the
States Department of Agriculture, Foreign AgriculturalSecurity and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). The SPP --
Service).sometimes called "NAFTA-plus" -- is a forum set up in
Since its implementation, some of the tri-bloc2005 in Cancún, by the three partners,
partners seem to have greatly benefited from theCanada, United States and Mexico"( Inter Press
trade agreement, with the exception of the UnitedService).
States. According to NAFTAnow.org, its official webIn addition to Canada being a large supplier of fresh
site, as of 2007's NAFTA's fiscal report indicate thatwater to the United States, this may be a surprise to
NAFTA members have a combined population ofsome that, Canada is also the largest supplier of
over 439 million, with a combined Gross Domesticcrude oil to the United States. "Canada exports more
Product (GDP) of $16.2 trillion, and the number ofcrude oil to the United States than any other nation,
jobs created since 1993 are more than 39 million, withincluding Saudi Arabia. All of that oil, along with a
a national employment level of 205.8. "In terms ofgusher of natural gas, comes free of any kind of
combined purchasing power parity GDP of itsexport controls or tariffs, courtesy of NAFTA. In
members, as of 2007 the trade block is the largest infact, the United States consumes almost 100 percent
the world and second largest by nominal GDPof Canada's energy exports" (Salon.com).
comparison. It also is one of the most powerful,So, who actually benefits the most from the North
wide-reaching treaties in the world" (NaftaNow.org).American Free Trade Agreement? According to the
On an individual member basis, Canada has aOffice of United State Office of Trade
population of 33 million as of July 2007, and achievedRepresentative, when NAFTA was implemented 10
a record GDP of $1,425 billion, while its trading withyears ago, it created the world's largest free trade
NAFTA partners reached $542.9 billion. Its inwardarea, which now links 426 million people in an area
Foreign Direct Investment among NAFTA countrieswhich produces more than $12 trillion worth of goods
for 2006 was $235.1 million, while the number of jobsand services. During the past decade, NAFTA
created in the U.S. between 1993 and 2007 was 4.1.partners have been conducting business within a
Its national employment level is 16.9 million. For theframework that is extremely open, governed by
United States, its population, as of July 2007, is 301.6clear rules and accessible enforcement mechanisms,
million, with a GDP of $13,844 billion, and $870.2 billionwith the goal of greater economic integration and
in trade with NAFTA Partners. As of 2006, the Unitedcooperation.
States achieved over $165.1 billion in inward Foreign"In the first decade of NAFTA, U.S. manufacturing
Direct Investment among NAFTA countries, while theoutput soared, U.S. employment grew, and U.S.
number of jobs created between 1993 and 2007manufacturing wages increased dramatically. Income
reached 25.8 millions, and its national levelgains and tax cuts from NAFTA were worth up to
employment was 140.0 millions. For the third member$930 each year for the average US household of
country, Mexico, its population in July 2007, was 105.2four. While, for Mexico, wages in export-related
million, and it reached a record GDP of $886 billion,industries are 37% higher than the rest of its
while its trade with NAFTA partner reached $375.4economy. Mexican wages and employment tend to
billion. In 2006, Mexico reached an inward Foreignbe higher in states with higher foreign investment and
Direct Investment of $129.1 billion among NAFTAtrade, and migration from those states is lower.
countries, and the numbers of jobs created in MexicoWages are also higher in sectors with more exposure
between 1993 and 2007 were 10.1 million, while itsto imports or exports. Two-way agricultural trade
national employment level rose to a record 42.9 millionbetween the United States and Mexico increased
(NAFTANow.org).more than 125% since NAFTA went into effect,
Each of the NAFTA's three-member countries seemsreaching $14.2 billion in 2003 compared to $6.2 billion in
to have amassed a great success as a result of1993. As for Canada, merchandise exports to the
international trade, with Mexico and Canada being theUnited States expanded by 250% since 1989 and
most beneficial nations. "Trade liberalization hasaccount for 87.2% of Canada's total merchandise
transformed and modernized Mexico's vibrantexports. Foreign Direct Investment in the finance and
economy by successfully boosting trade andinsurance industry accounted for 36% of Canadian
investment flows. Within just a few years, Mexico'sFDI in Mexico in 2001, while not even registering in
exports have diversified from primarily oil to include1989" (Office of the U.S. Trade Representative).
an array of manufactured products, making MexicoAll these numbers and reports are good and highly
one of the largest exporters in the world. While, oneenticing, however, more and more people in the U.S.
in five jobs in Canada is linked to international trade,have lost their jobs. According to the United States
and Canada's prosperity is built on its openness toDepartment of Labor, about 600,000 jobs were lost
international trade and investment. As such, the Northtowards the end of January 2009 alone. One can
American continental partnership is without a doubteasily blame NAFTA, India, China or other countries
an important competitive advantage for Canada.offering lower wages that in turn cause to attract
Canada is using this continental platform as a way tomany US companies to ship jobs to these countries. I
help Canadian business embrace commercialam of the opinion that from a macro-employment
opportunities around the world. As for the Unitedperspective, on a long-term basis, NAFTA is not
States, the largest and most diversified economy inentirely the only cause of the current high rise of
the world, its market economy whose businesses areunemployment in the United States. It's actually true
world leaders in the manufacturing and high-techas reported that most U.S. companies have shipped
sectors, especially computers, medical equipment, andand outsourced jobs overseas, as a result of NAFTA.
aerospace, and in services, including financial servicesHowever, most of these jobs are low paying jobs
and telecommunications, and in agriculture, may havethat most Americans wouldn't have wanted in the
benefited equally" (NAFTANow.org).first place. In a short run, it may be true that NAFTA
The data and summation herein provided seem tohas caused the high rise of unemployment in the U.S.,
indicate a huge success in partner trade between thebut looking at the long term, as most companies
NAFTA country-members, however, many critics arechoose to have their goods and services
not so merry-and-jolly about the free trademanufactured in countries with low paying wages,
agreement. Most blames the huge loss of jobs, asthese companies then transfer the goods, as
U.S. companies outsource and ship jobs to Mexico,manufactured in foreign countries, and sell them in
Latin America and South East Asia as a result of thisthe United States, at a far cheaper price than if they
liberalized trade agreement. "Debate a decade agowere manufactured locally. Also, as these companies
over the North American Free Trade Agreement, ortransfer these goods from their overseas plants to
NAFTA, drew loud warnings that liberalized trade withthe United States, they are causing to the price labor
Mexico would lead to huge job losses in the U.S.to increase, meaning that people with more
Trade with Mexico has soared since NAFTA's debutexperience and or better education and training are
in 1994, but recent studies have concluded that thenow, in a long run, able to find better and high paying
U.S. did lose more jobs in various industries than itemployment. In addition, overseas customers, even
gained because of the pact" (Wall Street Journal,for the same low paid labors, are now able to afford
December 8, 2008).to buy American goods and services, even prior to
In fact, the issue with NAFTA has been some of thebeing shipped back to the U.S., and in return, the U.S.
main focus by both candidates during the 2008 U.S.companies can then repatriate profits from their
presidential and primaries campaign. The presidentialforeign operations and reinvest it back within the U.S.
candidates, Obama, McCain, and Clinton, both agreedOverall, in doing so, better paying jobs in the U.S.
that NAFTA was a mistake. The main blame wascontinue to rise, the U.S. GDP continues to grow, and
that NAFTA has caused a huge loss of employmentthe overall economy may be better off, in the long
to many Americans, as most jobs were shippedrun. However, there seem to have an empty vacuum
overseas to countries who are offering cheap labor,between classes of American people; the low income
while those who still hold on to their jobs in the U.S.,families versus middle income families. As a result of
have seen their wages shrinking to the lowest,U.S. companies shipping low paying jobs overseas,
coupled with huge pay cut, reduced benefits andthose with less or no education and in this case, less
most times, no medical insurance benefits, all as aproductive, may end up not having jobs, and those
result of an increase labor demand versus shortage inwith a college education, special training, expertise or
labor supply. "Campaigning in Ohio, a formerly industrialspecialization may continue to find better paying
state that is rapidly becoming a postindustrial state,employment.
both Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama expressedIn the process, those who continue to find no better
reservations about the trade deal and suggested itpaying employment because of lack of education,
might need to be revisited. Clinton tried to make aspecial training or specialization, they may end up
meal over a report that Obama economic adviserliving on social welfare and in poverty. Whereas, who
Austan Goolsbee, a University of Chicago professorchoose to upgrade themselves with current
and an occasional Slate contributor, told Canadianseconomic condition may continue to live a better and
that Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric was just for showmostly fulfilled life, as a result of gaining better and
and that they should trust in Obama's free-tradehigh paying employment. "Contrary to what some
credentials" (Newsweek).say, Ohio is benefiting from trade and from NAFTA
Like the then presidential candidates, most people inin extraordinary ways, and no one more than the
the U.S., especially in certain states that have loststate's manufacturers. According to the Bureau of
most jobs such Ohio, Michigan, and others, NAFTA isLabor Statistics, a total of 777,000 Ohioans are
not that popular. It's seen as the devil that snappedemployed in manufacturing. These workers produced
away people's meals and well-being. "Mexico and$36.5 billion worth of exports in 2006. Exports to
Canada aren't really Ohio's main problems. The lastCanada and Mexico account for about $20 billion in
time I visited the state, I went to a steel plantOhio's manufacturing output. Do the math. Ohio
outside Cleveland where one of the furnaces wasmanufacturers are bringing in export revenue of
being dismantled and sent to ... China. The state,$25,000 for every factory worker they employ. The
which has lost large numbers of manufacturing jobs,average manufacturing worker brings home a salary
is currently experiencing the negative aftereffects ofof about $42,000. How could Ohio manufacturers
an economic boom (high unemployment andmake their payroll without their huge and growing
foreclosure rates), even though it never felt many ofsales to Canada and Mexico? The short answer is,
the boom's benefits. So what accounts for thethey couldn't. Too often, arguments over trade miss
state's visceral hostility to NAFTA? The Wall Streetthe simple fact that "free trade" agreements like
Journal yesterday published a poll showing thatNAFTA are all about fair trade. The U.S. average duty
Democrats in Ohio disapprove of NAFTA by a 59-13on imports is about 2 percent. But countries such as
margin. (In Texas, only 40 percent of DemocratsColombia and South Korea impose an average tariff
disapprove, while 33 percent approve.) As myon U.S. manufactured goods of 11 percent - just as
NEWSWEEK colleague Keith Naughton notes, MexicoMexico did before NAFTA. For the nation as a whole,
holds a special symbolic status for employees ofjust 35 percent of exports go to our NAFTA
automakers and similar smokestack industries, whichpartners. What this means is that Ohio depends more
used to be large presences in Ohio and which movedon exports to our NAFTA trading partners than other
big chunks of their production south of the border instates. Ohio's exports to Canada and Mexico have
the 1980s and '90s" (Newsweek).more than doubled since 1994, when NAFTA came
However, in Mexico and Canada, the resentment oninto force. Imagine how much more of the
NAFTA is not as the same in the U.S. Most people ininternational market would have been open to Ohio
Mexico deem NAFTA as the blessing in the sky,manufacturers had our national leaders not
because it has caused to create more and betterdemagogued free trade agreements with these
paying jobs in most part of the country, in which forcountries as bad for America" (The Hillsboro
years most residents lived on scrapping farm produceTimes-Gazette).
for their daily consumption. And, as more and moreNAFTA is a subject with many supporters and
U.S. companies open up large manufacturing plants inopponents, each group with its own views. Until the
most areas in Mexico, more and more Mexicanseconomy starts to rebound from its current
found themselves plagued by a huge selection of,condition, this is a subject that may not be easily
better paying employment , which even though mostresolved. We will continue to debate and write about
account for less than $2 an hour, still makes a bigit, and neither one of us may ever come to an
difference to them. "The fact that Mexican firmsagreement on what is good or bad as a result of
now export large quantities of goods to Canada andNAFTA.
the United States means they are creating jobs-and