DSST Business Ethics Study Guide sm 2

The north american free trade agreement nafta has two

Info iconThis preview shows pages 8–10. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has two supplements, the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) and the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC). The goal of NAFTA was to eliminate barriers of trade and investment between the USA, Canada and Mexico. The implementation of NAFTA on January 1, 1994, brought the immediate elimination of tariffs on more than one half of US imports from Mexico and more than one third of US exports to Mexico. Within 10 years of the implementation of the agreement all US-Mexico tariffs would be eliminated except for some US agricultural exports to Mexico that were to be phased out in 15 years. Most US-Canada trade was already duty free. NAFTA also seeks to eliminate non-tariff trade barriers and publisher.
Background image of page 8

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
[ edit ] Mechanisms Chapter 20 provides a procedure for the interstate resolution of disputes over the application and interpretation of the NAFTA. It was modeled after Chapter 18 of the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement. [4] NAFTA's effects, both positive and negative, have been quantified by several economists, whose findings have been reported in publications such as the World Bank's Lessons from NAFTA for Latin America and the Caribbean , [5] NAFTA's Impact on North America , [6] and NAFTA Revisited by the Institute for International Economics. [7] Some argue that NAFTA has been positive for Mexico, which has seen itspoverty rates fall and real income rise (in the form of lower prices, especially food), even after accounting for the 1994–1995 economic crisis. [8] Others argue that NAFTA has been beneficial to business owners and elites in all three countries, but has had negative impacts on farmers in Mexico who saw food prices fall based on cheap imports from U.S. agribusiness, and negative impacts on U.S. workers in manufacturing and assembly industries who lost jobs. Critics also argue that NAFTA has contributed to the rising levels of inequality in both the U.S. and Mexico. Some economists believe that NAFTA has not been enough (or worked fast enough) to produce an economic convergence, [9] nor to substantially reduce poverty rates. Some have suggested that in order to fully benefit from the agreement, Mexico must invest more in education and promote innovation in infrastructure and agriculture. [ edit ] Trade According to Issac (2005), overall, NAFTA has not caused trade diversion, aside from a few industries such as textiles and apparel, in which rules of origin negotiated in the agreement were specifically designed to make U.S. firms prefer Mexican manufacturers. The World Bank also showed that the combined percentage growth of NAFTA imports was accompanied by an almost similar increase of non-NAFTA exports. [ edit
Background image of page 9
Image of page 10
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page8 / 35

The North American Free Trade Agreement NAFTA has two...

This preview shows document pages 8 - 10. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online