Benefits and Costs of NAFTA
Works Cited Not Included
As long as NAFTA has been in existence, there has been controversy over its benefits and costs. Since NAFTA is viewed as a neoliberal trade and investment agreement, supporters and critics alike are able to expand its validity to a grander scale when dealing with the question of whether free trade itself is beneficial or harmful. During the life of NAFTA, many valid arguments for and against free trade have been brought to the forefront.
Many economists argue neoliberal trade is superior due to allocational efficiency benefits.
?By lowering trade barriers, the agreement has expanded trade in all three countries. This has led to increased employment, more choices for consumers at competitive prices, and rising prosperity? (NAFTA at Eight 2).
This rising prosperity mentioned is a result of rising efficiency that pro-neoliberal economists believe develops through specialization. If a country is better than another at producing a certain good, then that country is said to have an absolute advantage over the other in that particular industry. When both countries have higher productivity rates in different industries and they concentrate their efforts in those respective industries, then both countries benefit through neoliberal trade as they are not wasting their time and efforts producing goods that the other country can produce faster. As a result of trade through countries with different absolute advantages, total world production and therefore productive efficiency will increase.
Even when a country is more efficient in all industries, both countries can still benefit from trade by comparative advantages. ?Some lawyers are better typists than their secretari...
... middle of paper ...
...stitutions are more responsive to the poor, to the environment, to the broader political and social concerns that I have emphasized is to increase openness and transparency? (Stiglitz 227).
These international economic institutions should possess substantial transparency considering their policies directly affect the public. Instead, the IMF and similar institutions have no accountability to the public of which it is supposed to serve. Through lack of transparency, countries with major influence in the IMF such as the U.S. can indirectly impose its own investment agenda upon the country in crisis. If actions of the IMF were directed through a democratic process, more logical and productive policies would develop. If the IMF promotes transparency through the policies it imposes on developing countries, it should set an example through its own governance.
The goal of North American Free Trade agreement was to eliminate barriers of trade and investment between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The implementation of the agreement brought the immediate removal of tariffs on more than one-half of U.S. imports from Mexico and more than one-third of U.S. exports to Mexico. Within ten years of the implementation of the NAFTA agreement, all United States and Mexico tariffs would be gone. The only tariffs that would remain would be those that deal with U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico. However, these were to be slowly phased out within fifteen years of the initial implementation of the program. NAFTA also seeks to eliminate all non-tariff trade barriers.
After three years of debate NAFTA was established in 1994. Fears concerning NAFTA included job creation, loss and transfer, wages and infrastructure. (Ganster/Lorey 188-189) However, with the implementation of NAFTA the economy grew. Ganster and Lorey reveal that bilateral trade increased by $211.4 per year from 1989 to 2004. Commerce grew by 20 percent in the first six months of 1994. There were advantages and disadvantages of NAFTA, nevertheless, NAFTA “intensified the integration of the two economies rather than distancing them.” (Ganster/Lorey 190)
The main goal of NAFTA agreement was to eliminate trade barriers and open the door for investment among the member countries - the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. The differences between the economies of three countries presented the big space for benefiting from the agreement. Thus, Mexico took advantage of improving economic situation in the country and reducing the poverty rate by creating more workplaces. The U.S. and Canada got an access to enter Mexican market and hence the opportunity to align export and import procedures with the country. North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) allowed Mexico to speed up the economy development process in the country. Due to the increase of the investment into industrial and services sectors of the country, the unemployment rate was reduced, and the overall level of GDP increased. NAFTA allowed exporting the goods from America and Canada to Mexico with the tariffs and trade barriers eliminated. The Mexico got an access to enter the U.S. market, which represents 80% of Mexican export. However, NAFTA has both advantages and disadvantages. Still, there are some disagreements between the countries regarding the free
In this paper I will summarize the arguments for and against trade protection for United States industries. Among the measures that can be used to restrict foreign trade are tariffs and trade quotas. Industries can also get nontariff barriers, miscellaneous legislation which give domestic products an advantage. In general, experts agree that restricted foreign trade benefits workers and domestic businesses, while under free trade consumers have a greater quantity and quality of choices available to them. [1] I will also look at arguments for and against NAFTA, an important trade agreement between the countries of North America.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), is an agreement signed by Canada, Mexico, and United States which advocates free trade. If successful, the agreement promised to make the whole North American continent an economic zone. This was the agreement if the world’s largest free trade relationship. It was then passed in 1944 and brought many benefits to three countries, epically Canada. When NAFTA initiated it set out for free trade to North America but Canada Benefitted greatly. Frist being NAFTA made cheaper prices and variety of products for products for consumers. NAFTA also has had an effect on employment and wages. Finally, NAFTA has helped to benefit in Canadas economy. Canada has benefitted greatly with the initiation of NAFTA.
Prior to NAFTA (Inc. April 2006), “… tariffs of thirty percent or higher on export goods to Mexico were common, as were long delays caused by paperwork…. NAFTA addressed this imbalance by phasing out tariffs over 15 years. Approximately 50 percent of the tariffs were abolished immediately when the agreement took effect, and the remaining tariffs were targeted for gradual elimination.” According to Kimberly Amadeo (2015), article 102 of the NAFTA agreement outlines its purposes which is to “Grant the signatories Most Favored Nation status, eliminate barriers to trade and facilitate the cross-border movement of goods and services, promote conditions of fair competition, increase investment opportunities, provide protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, create procedures for the resolution of trade disputes, and establish a framework for further, trilateral, regional, and multilateral cooperation to expand the trade agreement’s benefits.”. This quotation, condenses the agreement by stating that the intentions of NAFTA which was an agreement created to ease trade on imports and exports, by eliminating tariff barriers, in order to encourage competition and venture opportunities. Although, free trade is supposed to bring wealth, strength, and prosperity it should also
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is an agreement between America, Canada And Mexico that coincides a triune free trade economic bloc between the three countries. NAFTA was a necessary deal to be made between the North American Nations to compete in the “Economic World Order”. NAFTA was first designed and drafted by American president George Bush senior, Canadian Prime minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican president Carlos Salinas on December the 12th 1992 in San Antonio Texas. NAFTA’S original creators where not the men that finalized the triune trade bloc but instead NAFTA was redrafted to appease all recipients of the deal and its respectful citizens. NAFTA was finalized and singed on December the 8th 1993 by American president Bill Clinton, Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien and Mexican President Carlos Salinas. NAFTA came in to full effect on January the 1st 1994. The history of NAFTA and its negative and Positive effect and the necessity of NAFTA will all be explained in this paper.
With The North American Free Trade Agreement as a main example, the opposing view for the agreement include groups of citizens involved in manual labor and various spiritual groups. These citizens argued that free trade would eventually take away hundreds of American jobs. They believed the trade agreement would take away all democratic power of domestic procedure. On the other hand, there are positives for having the NAFTA set into place. Some of the world 's largest corporations promised it would create hundreds of thousands of new high-wage American jobs, raise living standards in all nations involved and above all else the agreement would improve environmental conditions. The North American Free Trade Agreement was promised to transform Mexico from a deprived developing nation into a thriving new market for American exports to be
Since the implication of free trade between the three countries of North America back in 1994 the effects of that agreement are just now becoming apparent, both short term and long term. There was little doubt as to how both Canada and most definitely Mexico would benefit from Nafta. What was yet to be seen was the impact it had on previous concerns of the United States.(Contesting Globalization) Most economists and even ordinary citizens could understand Canada and Mexico’s enthusiasm when free trade, destroying tariffs, was proposed. After all, the United States has long been the major consumer of exported goods in both countries. No longer having to pay taxes on goods imported into the United States meant larger sales and more profits for all Canadian and Mexican businesses. These profits were foreseen as perpetual economic boosts in their respective country. These boosts created opportunities for more workers to be hired, lowering unemployment and helping to improve the quality of life of citizens in both countries.
The goal of NAFTA was to systematically eliminate most tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade and investment between the countries. NAFTA has allowed U.S., Mexico, and Canada to import and export to other at a lower cost, which has increased the profit of goods and services annually. Because the increase in the trade marketplace, NAFTA reduces inflation, creates agreements on intern...
(q) Contribute to hemispheric integration and the fulfillment of the objectives of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (http://www.
After a lengthy negotiation of over 3 years, Canada, the United States, and Mexico reached an agreement on trilateral trade ― the North American Free Trade Agreement (Scaliger). Commonly referred to as NAFTA, it came into effect on the first day of 1994. Covering 450 million people and reaching $17 trillion in combined GDP, NAFTA proudly ranks the first among the world’s free trade agreements (USTR). It is usually seen as a remarkable success for the countless benefits it brings to the member countries. The goal of NAFTA was to promote closer trade relationships, eliminate trade barriers, and increase market opportunities among all three countries in the agreement. However, the United States has indeed benefited the most from NAFTA economically through expansion of American culture and access to natural and human resources.
The IMF was created at the end of WWII in order to create a framework for global economic cooperation without creating a second Great Depression. Since its creation it has evolved to tackle a variety of economic issues. The goal of the IMF is to help the governments of member countries “take advantage of the opportunities- and manage the challenges- posed by globalization and economic development more generally.” It tracks global economic trends and performance, alerts member countries of potential problems, provides of forum to discuss policy, and helps governments in times of economic hardship. It provides policy advice and financing to member countries suffering from economic adversity. Additionally, it aims to create...
The international monetary fund (IMF) was created in 1944 to promote cooperation between countries, and to solve issues of those countries that were facing monetary and economic problems. But since the 1980’s, the IMF’s role has changed. But the IMF’s role has become more of that of an institution that provides assistance to those countries that are facing financial and economic issues. Some people argue that the IMF provides loans to developing nations so that they can develop so it is actually helping out these developing nations. But in reality it is actually the case that the IMF causes several problems in the countries to which it is giving loans, so that at the end of the day any advantages of the IMF are cancelled out by the disadvantages that they cause. Thus the IMF has a negative impact on the developing nations, and I shall prove this statement by pointing out several of problems that the IMF creates, giving a few examples of the countless developing countries that the IMF has destroyed economically or financially or socially instead of helping them when it gave them loans, and lastly by countering those claims of people who say the IMF is advantageous to the developing countries.
Free trade in today’s economy allows so much more than just jobs and goods at lower prices for Americans. Compared to the foreign competition, the free trade benefits outweigh any risks the foreign competition might impose on the US. As said by Denise Froning in her article, free trade benefits in four ways. “Free trade promotes innovation and competition, Free trade generates economic growth, Free trade disseminates democratic values, and Free trade fosters economic freedom.” Societies that enact free trade policies create their own economic enthusiasm, nurturing freedom, job opportunities, and success that benefit every citizen. Free trade is the only type of fair trade because it offers consumers the most choices and best standards to improving their type of living. Also by fostering opportunitie...