An assessment of the impact of NAFTA on Mexico and its implications for the broadening of hemispheric economic cooperation.

The author argues that in the post-9/11 era, North America is evolving from a primarily economic space to a strategic 'securitized' one and that NAFTA has been used by the US as a regulatory framework for dealing with the pressures of globalization that have emerged in the post-Cold War era.

Diploma Thesis from the year 2004 in the subject Economics - Foreign Trade Theory, Trade Policy, grade: 1,3 (A), European Business School - International University Schloß Reichartshausen Oestrich-Winkel (Economic Policy and Political Economy), language: English, abstract: In January 1994, after two and a half years of negotiation, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) came into force. The treaty between Canada, Mexico and the United States has created the largest economic area in the world, slightly surpassing the European Union in market size. But NAFTA is also outstanding in a second aspect: it has constituted the first major regional integration arrangement between two highly developed countries, the United States and Canada, and a developing country, Mexico. The North-South nature of North American integration has polarized the debate about NAFTA from the earliest stage on. On the one hand it was unclear how much the U.S. would gain from the agreement. Would it stabilize its southern neighbor and thus benefit the U.S. economically and politically? Or would it cause the “giant sucking sound” Ross Perot feared, drawing thousands of jobs from the U.S. over the border (Thorbecke/Eigen-Zucchi 2002, p. 648)? Regarding these concerns, Canada was at most a side-player, possessing neither intense trade relations nor geographical proximity to Mexico. Mexico’s gains from NAFTA, on the other hand, seemed even more unsure. The agreement’s effects on the southern member state, whether positive or negative, were expected to be unequally greater than on the U.S. On the one hand, it seemed, Mexico could gain immensely through improved access to the North American market, increasing trade, attracting foreign investment, and importing growth and stability. On the other hand, some trade economists, such as Arvind Panagaria (1996, pp. 512-513) warned that Mexico could only lose when opening its market to its powerful northern neighbors, while receiving little in return that it would not have obtained anyway. Furthermore, would Mexico’s move towards regional integration hamper any further step into the direction of multilateral opening, after promising reforms had been started in the mid-1980s? Concerns also regarded the adverse effects of NAFTA within Mexico. These centered around large adjustment costs from sectoral restructuring and resource reallocation. This would occur if inefficient, partly subsidized Mexican industries declined after removing tariffs and non-tariff barriers, allowing the North American competition to enter the national market. In addition, would this hit mostly those Mexican regions that were poor anyway?

This collection of nine essays includes works by noted authorities in the fields of academia, business, and government. They analyze the agreement and its political, economic and socio-cultural effects. Each author draws on a unique background, with authors coming from the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The collection includes views from both supporters and critics of the agreement. The NAFTA has provoked much debate and raised many difficult questions. While there are no easy answers to these questions, these engaging essays provide us with a coherent and comprehensive perspective to help the reader become better informed. Co-published with the Harvard Center for International Studies. Contributors: Brenda McPhail, Sidney Weintraub, Virginia Druhe, Remi L. Wrona, Neil Nevitte, Miguel Basanez, Elaine Bernard, Mildred A. Schwartz, Christopher Gutierrez, Daniel 'Duke' McVey.

Preferential trading arrangements (PTAs) play an increasingly prominent role in the global political economy, two notable examples being the European Union and the North American Free Trade Agreement. These agreements foster economic integration among member states by enhancing their access to one another's markets. Yet despite the importance of PTAs to international trade and world politics, until now little attention has been focused on why governments choose to join them and how governments design them. This book offers valuable new insights into the political economy of PTA formation. Many economists have argued that the roots of these agreements lie in the promise they hold for improving the welfare of member states. Others have posited that trade agreements are a response to global political conditions. Edward Mansfield and Helen Milner argue that domestic politics provide a crucial impetus to the decision by governments to enter trade pacts. Drawing on this argument, they explain why democracies are more likely to enter PTAs than nondemocratic regimes, and why as the number of veto players--interest groups with the power to block policy change--increases in a prospective member state, the likelihood of the state entering a trade agreement is reduced. The book provides a novel view of the political foundations of trade agreements.