The North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) Is An Example Of

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was implemented to promote trade between the United States, Canada and Mexico. The agreement, which removed most tariffs on trade between the three countries, came into force on 1 January 1994. Between 1 January 1994 and 1 January 2008, many tariffs – notably for agriculture, textiles and automobiles – were phased out. The second parallel agreement is the North American Environmental Cooperation Agreement (NAAEC), which established the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) in 1994. The CEC is responsible for strengthening regional cooperation in the environmental field, reducing potential trade and environmental conflicts and promoting effective enforcement of environmental legislation. It also facilitates public cooperation and participation in efforts to promote conservation, protection and improvement of the North American environment. It consists of three main components: the Council (Minister of the Environment), the Joint Advisory Committee of Governments (JPAC) and the Secretariat, which is headquartered in Montreal. It has an annual budget of $9 million, with Canada, Mexico and the United States contributing $3 million per year and settled by consensus (non-majority). In 2015, the Congressional Research Service concluded that “NAFTA`s overall net impact on the U.S.

economy appears to be relatively small, not least because trade with Canada and Mexico accounts for a small percentage of U.S. GDP. However, there have been adjustment costs for workers and businesses as the three countries have prepared for more open trade and investment between their economies. The report also estimated that nafta has added $80 billion to the U.S. economy since its inception, a 0.5% increase in U.S. GDP. [85] Many critics of NAFTA saw the agreement as a radical experiment developed by influential multinationals who wanted to increase their profits at the expense of ordinary citizens of the countries concerned. Opposition groups argued that the horizontal rules imposed by nafta could undermine local governments by preventing them from enacting laws or regulations to protect the public interest. Critics also argued that the treaty would lead to a significant deterioration in environmental and health standards, promote privatization and deregulation of essential public services, and supplant family farmers in the signatory countries. The U.S.

Chamber of Commerce attributed to nafta that U.S. trade in goods and services with Canada and Mexico increased from $337 billion in 1993 to $1.2 trillion in 2011, while the AFL-CIO held the agreement responsible for sending 700,000 U.S. manufacturing jobs to Mexico at that time. [86] But NAFTA is also very controversial. Some economists and political analysts argue that tariffs encroach on the ideals of the free market by diverting resources to sectors where the United States.