north american free trade agreement joined mexico and the united states to form nafta.
joined mexico and the united states to form nafta?
north american free trade agreement
more recently, working-class individuals in mexico share the view that nafta has failed on its promises. wages for manufacturing workers have remained stagnant, and instead of opportunity, many workers see nafta as holding back expansion. a worker interviewed for the new york times indicated that "i thought it [nafta] would make my life better, that this agreement would create opportunities for everyone". public polling in mexico showed that two out of three people generally view nafta as being bad for mexico. luis rubio, a pro-free trade researcher indicated that nafta "created the perception that things would get better, but the truth is we have two economies, one of exporting and the other one left behind," indicating that process that was made under nafta was not shared by all. owners of large companies that operate in mexico have even shown more critique towards nafta, though they place blame on the mexican government for failing to "establish policies to protect mexican businesses". however, in contrast to some of the rhetoric in the united states, mexicans see nafta as being beneficial despite the difficulties due to the linking of the mexican economy to the united states and the sustained foreign investment. by-and-large, the sentiments amongst the business class is that nafta needs to be revisited, not removed. elites and free-trade proponents in mexico have heralded nafta as a success on the basis of new foreign investments and the increased stability of the business environment within mexico. they also push the idea that failures are due to an unwillingness to move on from the past by those affected by nafta. overall, the working class shares a largely negative outlook towards nafta, where the elites and free-trade advocates look at nafta’s benefits outweighing the detriments. however, the overall belief is that nafta needs to be fixed and not removed. on september 30, 2018, trump alongside the two other leaders from the other countries (canada/mexico) signed uscma.
effects of nafta on mexico
while the primary function of nafta did not center on immigration, part of the act did liberalize temporary immigration to the united states. initial discussions of nafta did not plan for migration, as migration was not seen as related to the overall economic goals of nafta, and it was only until later in negotiations that migration was addressed. however, part of the overall goal for both the united states and mexico in the passing of the act was reducing migration by stimulating the mexican economy through the creation of more middle-class jobs. when nafta was initially passed, mexican emigration to the united states surged, though it is unclear whether the act itself was the direct causal factor in this surge. however, part of this surge can be attributed to the continued economic stagnation in mexico and the reliance of united states agriculture on low-wage migrant workers. the heavily subsidized agricultural industry was able to compete with mexican agriculture following the passage of nafta, which affected the ability of mexican rural farmers to support themselves on farming. according to the council on foreign relations, surging emigration to the united states following the passage of nafta could be tied to the loss of mexican agricultural jobs due to subsidized agriculture in the united states. while it appears that emigration to the united states increased in the short run following the passage of nafta, some scholars have argued that the long-term effects of nafta will actually be a reduction in the number of people emigrating as a result of long-term economic gains.
effects of nafta on mexico