After Donald Trump`s presidential election, a number of trade experts said that exiting NAFTA, as Proposed by Trump, would have a number of unintended consequences for the United States, including limited access to the largest U.S. export markets, reduced economic growth and higher prices for gasoline, cars, fruits and vegetables. [10] The textile, agriculture and automotive sectors would be most affected. [11] [153] Economists largely agree that nafta has benefited North American economies. Regional trade increased sharply in the first two decades of the treaty, from some $290 billion in 1993 to more than $1.1 trillion in 2016. Cross-border investment has also increased and U.S. direct investment (FDI) in Mexico has increased from $15 billion to more than $100 billion during this period. But experts also say it has proved difficult to highlight the direct impact of the agreement from other factors, including rapid technological change and expanded trade with countries such as China. In the meantime, discussions continue on the impact of NAFTA on employment and wages.

Some workers and industries have faced painful disruptions due to the loss of market share due to increased competition, while others have benefited from the new market opportunities that have been created. Methanex Corporation, a Canadian group, has filed a $970 million complaint against the United States. Methanex said a California ban on methyltert-butyl ether (MTBE), a substance that had found its way into many wells in the state, was hurting the company`s sale of methanol. The complaint was dismissed, and the company was ordered to pay $3 million in fees to the U.S. government, based on the following argument: ”But as a matter of general international law, a non-discriminatory regulation for a public purpose that is adopted in accordance with due process and, with respect to inter alios, a foreign investor or investments are not considered dispossessed and compensable unless specific commitments have been made taken by the foreign government of the day to consider investments that the government would refrain from regulating. [51] The adoption of NAFTA has resulted in the removal or removal of barriers to trade and investment between the United States, Canada and Mexico. The impact of the agreement on issues such as employment, the environment and economic growth has been the subject of political controversy. Most economic analyses have shown that NAFTA has been beneficial to North American economies and the average citizen,[5][6] but has been detrimental to a small minority of workers in sectors subject to trade competition. [7] [8] Economists have estimated that the withdrawal from NAFTA or the renegotiation of NAFTA, in a way that would have created restored trade barriers, would have affected the U.S. economy and cost jobs. [9] [10] [11] However, Mexico would have been much more affected, both in the short term and in the long term, by the loss of jobs and the reduction of economic growth.

[12] Edward Alden of CFR says the fear of trade deals has increased because wages have not kept pace with labour productivity, while income inequality has increased. To some extent, he says, trade agreements have accelerated the pace of these changes because they have ”strengthened the globalization of the U.S. economy.” Many analysts explain these differences in results by the fact that the Mexican economy is ”two-speed”, where NAFTA has led the growth of foreign investment, high-tech production and wage growth in the industrial north, while the south, largely agricultural, has remained disconnected from this new economy.

Meny