Controversies in the NAFTA

Mexico was the obvious starting point" (Goulet, 6). Additionally, the U.S. perceived that a free trade agreement would be a valuable opportunity to help economic reformers, such as Salinas, in Mexico. Thus, NAFTA was initially conceived of as a bilateral agreement between the U.S. and Mexico. Canada was brought on board subsequently (Goulet, 7).
Additionally, on the domestic front the studies reviewed by CRS concluded: NAFTA created a slight growth in the Gross Domestic Products of the U.S. and Mexico, that there had been little or no impact on aggregate employment; that only 10% to 20% of the rising wage and income gap between more skilled and less skilled workers in the U.S. has been due to NAFT; and that while the long-term trend in legal and unauthorized worker migration from Mexico to the United States accelerated after NAFTA was implemented, this acceleration was found to be unrelated to the trade agreement.
nce that trade has shifted or diverted from nonmember countries to members of a trade agreement because the tariff preferences allowed them to become the lower-cost producers; Macroeconomic trends, and not NAFTA, have been responsible for widening the U.S.-Mexico trade deficit from $1.4 billion in 1994 to $37.1 billion in 2002; U.S. investment in Mexico rose from $16.1 billion to $58.1 billion, or 259%, while Mexican investment in the U.S. increased 244% to $7.9 billion.

Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.