Blog Discussion Group Seven
Blog post due at 11:55pm on November 7 and comment due at 11:55pm on November 10.
Mexico
- To what extent are the elitist and hierarchical tendencies of Mexican politics found in liberal democracies?
- What bringing
- Mexican corporatism brings various social actors (e.g., labor, business professionals) into an officially sanctioned ruling coalition. While guaranteeing certain privileges for these groups (e.g., job security for unionized labor and subsides for businesses), it also limits such freedoms as choosing when to strike or how to allocate capital. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of such arrangements.
Mexican corporatism, since the Mexican revolution of 1910, meant that the state could steer and stabilize the economy as it "took the lead in defining goals for the country's development and, through the school system, the party, and the media, inculcated in the population a broad sense of its legitimate right to set such goals." (Kesselman, 444) Because of an agenda of corporatism over democracy, labor and the economy was preferred over representation.This resulted in astronomical economic growth for Mexico between 1940 and 1980, the perks of which would benefit primarily, if not only, government sanctioned trade associations. Since growth was the imperative, the government preferred large entities and organizations over smaller ones which further widened the gap between rich and poor, for example, large industrial farms would get preference over small family farms. Labor bosses in charge of government clientele relationships enjoyed the prestige of position during times of growth, but during times of economic downturn, were resistant to adapt and lessen their lifestyle which led to rampant corruption that continues today.
ReplyDeleteThis is very interesting, and I would like to hear more about it. What is your opinion on the decisions Mexico made? Do you still think that there is a wide gab between the rich and poor? Personally I think that there is. I do not know if you have ever been to Mexico, but when your there you can definitely see the gap. Looking around you can see poor, for as far as the eye can see. I do not even know where the rich is located. I feel as though they are far and few in-between. I can imagine that tourism is a huge profit for the country, but even in tourist areas, surrounded by resorts, you still have what looks to be poverty. With that being said, do you feel as though the decisions you listed above, are what is contributing to the rich/poor gap, and what is keeping the lower class individuals from being successful?
DeleteKesselman’s comment on page 484 that “Mexico’s strong state did not become openly repressive except when directly challenged” causes authoritarianism to come the mine; in particular, traditional authoritarian regimes. Indeed, Hague defines Mexico’s PRI as a “single ruling party other than those that are communists [who] provide the basis for authoritarian rule ” (pg. 67). He says this is accomplished by permitting a small “measure of electoral competition,” using the party as the vehicle of power, and a “dominant presidency” as the driver of the vehicle or the source of real authority (pg. 67).
DeleteSince traditional authoritarian regimes typically have an ideology that they want to inculcate throughout the entire society, a corporatist state would almost seem to operate as a modern authoritarian state, in that it gives you a great deal of leeway in how you live and operate, so long as you don’t threaten its power. Except that, as Kesselman points out, “the state . . . through the school system, the party, and the media, inculcated in the population a broad sense of its (the State’s) legitimate right to define goals for the country’s development ” (pg. 484). That is the political ideology that they wanted to inculcate into all of society.
So, I would classify Mexico’s corporatist state, prior to the 2000 reforms, as traditional authoritarianism that provides a suppressed form of democratic representation through government mediated organizations. The advantages and disadvantages to this would be, well . . . , quite similar to those experienced in any other authoritarian regime but without explicit and direct repression.
DISCLAIMER: This is an intellectual exercise, a college assignment. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the political views of the author.
What bringing Mexico into a free-trade agreement with the United States and Canada a good idea or a bad idea for the three countries? Why?
ReplyDeleteI think that bringing Mexico into a free-trade agreement with the United States and Canada is a good idea. In 2016 the United States good and trade deficit, with Mexico, was 55.6 billion. At this time Mexico is our third partner is trading goods. Also in 2016, exports totaled 231 billion and imports totaled 63.2 billion. Just by those number we can see our exports outweigh our imports, thus making Mexico a vital part of our trading.
In 2016 Mexico was the United States number two trader in exports. Our top exports with the country include: machinery, electrical machinery, vehicles, mineral fuels, and plastics. They are also our third largest agricultural export market. In 2016 these totaled to 18 billion. Agricultural exports include: corn, soybeans, pork and pork products, dairy, and beef and beef products. I think tourism plays a huge role in the different variety of American foods being exported to Mexico. They have a few different popular places that many Americans go to for vacations. For example, my family and I went to Cozumel Mexico, for spring break one year, and the resort we stayed at served every type of American food you could possibly think of. Of course with that being said, Mexicans do incorporate certain American foods into their authentic cuisines.
In 2016, Mexico was also the United States number two trader in imports. Top imports traded include: vehicles, electrical machinery, machinery, optical and medical instruments, and furniture and bedding. We also receive agricultural products from Mexico. These include: fresh vegetables, fresh fruit, wine and beer, snack foods, and processed fruits and vegetables.
So as you can see our country and Mexico trade vital goods with one another. I did not even touch on what Mexico and Canada trade back and forth with one another. Just scratching the surface we see it is a good idea for a free-trade agreement between the three countries.
This is interesting to hear the numbers about the trade and what exactly is being traded. I think I do not normally think about this because I am not a numbers person, I usually think about how things affected people. I am curious to know how you think these numbers having to do with trade affected the people on the ground? Peoples jobs and peoples livelihoods? Were they improved in Mexico or improved in America. When you say, "Agricultural exports include: corn, soybeans, pork and pork products, dairy, and beef and beef products," how did this affect the farmers already farming those things in Mexico? and vise versa for the imports that we receive from them? Just food for thought.
DeleteI think it is a good post. But there are some data cited in the post, if you have the resource of the data pointed out will be better, in my opinion. Moreover, it is better to discuss about it benefits or not for these three countries. In your conclusion paragraph, it mentioned that you just touched the only one aspect. So if you make it much more completely, it will be better. Well done, still.
DeleteWhat bringing Mexico into a free-trade agreement with the United States and Canada a good idea or a bad idea for the three countries? Why?
ReplyDeleteNAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) is a hot topic in the news today in terms of whether or not the man in charge is going to keep it or remove it from policy. NAFTA was created in 1996 and "committed Mexico, the US, and Canada to the elimination of trade barriers between them. The economic reforms of the 1980's and 1990's were a turning point for Mexico and meant that the country's future development would be closely tied to international economic conditions" (Kesselman, 442). On the surface it seems that NAFTA allowed for everyone to benefit in terms of economic growth and jobs being created. I think that although there are many peculiarities of the agreement, meaning it is not clear whether something occurred because of NAFTA or because of other factors, this agreement benefited the more developed nations (US and Canada) while leaving Mexico to suffer and work in jobs that are poor conditions. I think that I am biased in my knowledge because the only connotation I have with NAFTA is learning about it through a food system perspective. In the past I have learned that NAFTA really messed up Mexican corn farmers because it opened up the market with American farmers where corn is subsidized. It seems like NAFTA did similar things to other sectors of the economy although I think that there could have been positives somehow in Mexico. In the US it opened up jobs in more niche manufacturing operations and boosted the economy. Similarly in Canada it boosted the economy in the agricultural sector. I think that it is complicated because some people may be focusing on one sector (for instance me with agriculture) and see that NAFTA negatively effected it and therefore make the claim that NAFTA was bad for Mexico, but in other fields it may of opened up jobs. In conclusion, I think that it is hard to make any sweeping statements of whether or not NAFTA was good or bad for each country, but instead we need to look at different fields and different areas that it was affected positively or negatively.
I agree with you when you say it is hard to say that NAFTA was good or bad. I think it affected the U.S. more than Canada or Mexico because of the amount of jobs lost by Americans. I have not read a whole lot on how NAFTA has affected Canada, but I would like to learn more on how it has affected Canada.
DeleteI'm going to third the agreement here- it's difficult to decide whether NAFTA has been a blessing or a curse. When you look at all of the previous situations, it's hard to say whether NAFTA caused certain issues, catalyzed them, or had nothing at all to do with them. We tend to hear a lot about the negative things associated with the agreement for Mexico and the US, but there were a lot of positive things gained as well. The US is much less reliant on middle eastern oil, but a lot of our jobs went to Mexico as well. Canada saw a lot of economic growth, including the creation of new jobs. It almost feels like Mexico drew the short stick in the agreement, as far as the positive outcomes we've seen.
DeleteJessie,
DeleteYou make points that I have not thought about. I did some research and I thought this was great all across the boards but what you and Andrea were speaking of makes me question what I have written initially. I thought this was all a great thing. I thought Mexico got the better end of the deal and after reading these blogs and reviewing more Google documents i see that I may not have posted the correct answer. I am now equally on the fence good verses evil.
What you say makes sense. I believe the most rational argument for each country would be to calculate each of the positives and negatives that NAFTA creates in their economy. If it causes more harm than good overall, than the most rational decision would be to leave the agreement. It sounds like calculating that would be almost impossible however. Variables change over time, meaning NAFTA could be overall harmful for your economy one year, but beneficial the next.
DeleteWas bringing Mexico into a free-trade agreement with the United States and Canada a good idea or a bad idea for the three countries? Why?
ReplyDeleteThe North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) as an idea initially sought to integrate Mexico’s developing economy with the more advanced economies of the United States and Canada. However, in practice, there have been greater consequences than were probably intended. Emigration from Mexico has increased with people seeking higher wages. Corporations are leaving the U.S. in search of cheap labor and lower tax rates. Some people point to this as a source for job-loss and wage stagnation in the U.S. Hopes of economic revival in Mexico were also short-lived. Poverty and unemployment rates have not improved since the inception of NAFTA. In fact, the Council on Foreign Relations claims that the poverty rate in Mexico has remained the same since 1994 (McBride & Sergie, 2017). Prior to NAFTA, Mexico’s economy relied heavily on agriculture. Subsidies for U.S. mega-farms have left small-scale and subsistence farmers to wage an unbalanced competition. Out of work, many of these farmers have crossed the border with no other means of employment. NAFTA brought manufacturing jobs to Mexico, especially along the region bordering the U.S., but the country hasn’t experienced the economic upswing that the trade agreement once promised. In comparison, Canada and the U.S. have seen some economic benefits within the export market and greater competition for companies based there (McBride & Sergie, 2017). But, those advantages are also modest when juxtaposed with the unemployment and wage stagnation that has resulted from NAFTA. Overall, it was a bad idea.
McBride, J. & Sergie, M.A. (2017). NAFTA’s economic impact. Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved from: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/naftas-economic-impact
The increase in economic results for all three main countries has certainly been expounded upon but Mexico's NAFTA results are mixed, especially in agriculture. Even though Mexico's economy grew about 1% every year from 1993 to 2013, poverty levels have not changed since 1994. Unemployment also rose as "peasant farmers worry about competition from U.S. farms" (Kesselman, 453) which has indeed come to pass. According to economist Mark Weisbrot at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, NAFTA put about 2 million small-scale farmers out of work because they cannot compete with massively subsidized U.S. agriculture.
DeleteWhat bringing Mexico into a free-trade agreement with the United States and Canada a good idea or a bad idea for the three countries? Why?
ReplyDelete"In 1993, President Salinas signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which committed Mexico, The United States, and Canada to the elimination of trade barriers between them." (Kesselman, 443) In 1994, the Mexican economy shrank by 6.2 percent, inflation soared, taxes rose while wages were held the same, and the banking system collapsed. In the global economic crisis of 2008, Mexico was greatly affected because of the strong connection with the United States and the U.S. was largely impacted by the crisis. Prior to NAFTA, the Mexican economy relied a lot on agriculture. NAFTA brought a lot of jobs to Mexico, which for the U.S. made a huge impact on the U.S. job market because the U.S. lost between 500,000 and 750,000 jobs. When Mexicans lost their farms, many workers went to sub-standard maquiladora programs. These are all reasons why NAFTA was not a good idea for Mexico, but the U.S. benefited from it.
https://www.thebalance.com/nafta-pros-and-cons-3970481
DeleteThe NAFTA agreement is a good idea for the US, Canada, and Mexico for more reasons than just the economy. Economies are going to fluctuate. It's just their nature, but relationships between neighboring countries are built on diplomacy. The US and Mexico have a rocky relationship, but it is much better than the tumultuous relationship they had after the Mexican-American war in 1846, where the US acquired Texas, Arizona, California, parts of Colorado, in New Mexico after the Treaty of 1848. NAFTA didn't necessarily fix this relationship but it definitely has helped the relationship and eased some of the resentment Mexico had towards the US. And yes the Mexican economy has suffered after signing the agreement, but so has the US. The suffrage of the economies was a direct relationship to the world economy and not the agreement itself. But if you take away the agreement then there is a greater potential for the Mexican economy to suffer more than it has with the agreement. So good ideas aren't just based on economy's but based on positive relationships as well. NAFTA is good for Canada, the US, and Mexico because of the relationship it builds between them similar to how the European Union it's beneficial for all those countries who participate. That is why it is such a shock that Great Britain is leaving the European Union because it's more than likely not going to be beneficial for them. Not just for their economy but for their relationship with the other European countries. The same applies to the US, Canada and Mexico and the NAFTA agreement.
DeleteThe NAFTA agreement is a good idea for the US, Canada, and Mexico for more reasons than just the economy. Economies are going to fluctuate. It's just their nature, but relationships between neighboring countries are built on diplomacy. The US and Mexico have a rocky relationship, but it is much better than the tumultuous relationship they had after the Mexican-American war in 1846, where the US acquired Texas, Arizona, California, parts of Colorado, in New Mexico after the Treaty of 1848 Kesselman, p 407). NAFTA didn't necessarily fix this relationship but it definitely has helped the relationship and ease some of the resentment Mexico had towards the US. And yes the Mexican economy has suffered after signing the agreement, but so has the US. The suffrage of the economies was a direct relationship to the world economy and not the agreement itself. But if you take away the agreement then there is a greater potential for the Mexican economy to suffer more than it has with the agreement. So good ideas aren't just based on economy's but based on positive relationships as well. Laughter is good for Canada, the US, and Mexico because of the relationship builds between them similar to how the European Union it's beneficial for all those countries who participate. That is why it is such a shock that Great Britain is leaving the European Union because it's more than likely not going to be beneficial for them. Not just for their economy but for their relationship with the other European countries. The same applies to the US, Canada and Mexico and the NAFTA agreement.
• What bringing Mexico into a free-trade agreement with the United States and Canada a good idea or a bad idea for the three countries? Why?
ReplyDeleteI think bringing Mexico into a free- trade agreement with the United States and Canada was a good idea for the three countries. According to M. Angeles Villarreal, the 47% of the U.S imports is received from Mexico and 80% of Mexico’s exports are shipped to the U.S. (p.4) Both the U.S and Canada benefits economically from the FTA with Mexico. Although the FTA helps with economic growth. Jobs in the U.S, Canada, and Mexico can be impacted negatively from the FTA. Also, there will be an increase in competition if goods can be found in cheaper in Mexico. The downside is, there will be less jobs in U.S or Canada.
Villarreal, Angeles. (2017). Mexico’s Free Trade Agreements. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40784.pdf
To what extent are the elitist and hierarchical tendencies of Mexican politics found in liberal democracies?
ReplyDeleteThe chief tendency that the Mexican government shares with other liberal democracies is the tendency for a party to try to maintain power for as long as possible. Elitists who find power are reluctant to give up that power they strived so hard to attain. They make use of political corruption to hold onto the power. Political corruption exists in all political regimes, and Mexico is no different. Deals with other political actors, drug cartels, and other influential parties are examples of the corruption.
The PRI party was the dominate political party for many years. They used anything from media control to outright assassinations in order to maintain domination. Although American politics does not make use of assassinations, politicians do use their power in order to control the media.
To what extent are the elitist and hierarchical tendencies of Mexican politics found in liberal democracies?
ReplyDelete"Where people have little, they have little to fight for," (O'Neil 133) is a statement that rings true in many democratic societies where poverty is an ongoing issue, such as Mexico. It's an important statement to recognize, in that it contributes to a small number of elite and wealthy maintaining positions of power as opposed to a more even distribution of wealth. In my opinion, wealth is the largest reason that elite groups strive to stay in power. After all, who would want to give away their position in the hierarchy if it meant they would lose their comfortable cash flow?
This is fairly common in all democracies, just in different ways. In the US, we have two major parties that are funded by interest groups who will support legislation that favors them. It's an age old practice.
While some democratic governments are more obviously elitist than others, I believe it is a part of them all, to some degree or another. Corruption in government is one of the more obvious reaches of the issue, but it isn't always so cut and dry. While the PRI party has been in control of Mexico for a very long time due to hierarchical corruption, the US is satiated by a back-and-forth between only two major parties, which isn't much of an improvement. The methods used to control or fool the populations into complacency vary greatly, but the end result is the same; the wealthy and powerful remain as such.
What bringing Mexico into a free-trade agreement with the United States and Canada a good idea or a bad idea for the three countries? Why?
ReplyDeleteYes, I think bringing Mexico into a free-trade agreement with the United States and Canada is a good idea for the three countries. The law essentially allows all three countries to sell goods to each other with no tariffs. An American car, for example, is now built with parts made in all three countries. While the deal allowed US manufacturers to lower costs and compete with Asian factories, it also led companies to move thousands of factory jobs to Mexico, where labor is cheaper. Canada and Mexico are more dependent on the US than the US is on them, so that’s the biggest thing the US has going right now in the plans to revamp the agreement with our current administration in office. Mexico has more than a dozen bilateral free-trade deals, which would make it easier for the country to shift trade to Europe and Latin America. Canada is the largest export market for American-made goods, so the United States doesn’t want to make its northern neighbor too mad. Trump has threatened to leave NAFTA altogether, and that possibility could make Mexico and Canada more willing to make concessions. "Currently, however, straightforward free trade areas (FTAs) between neighboring countries are a more convenient device for securing gains from trade. Unlike federations, FTAs - such as the NAFTA - entail no loss of sovereignty." (Hague and Harrop A comparative Introduction, page 258)
What bringing Mexico into a free-trade agreement with the United States and Canada a good idea or a bad idea for the three countries? Why?
ReplyDeleteI personally have always been a big fan of trade agreements between countries. I think the EU, despite all of its problems gives European countries and excellent advantage when it comes to trade among other EU members. NAFTA is comparable to the EU in a sense when it comes to the benefits that are gained in regard to trade. Canadian products can flow south to Mexico and Mexican products can flow north to Canada. It reinforces business partnerships between companies of the corresponding countries along with cheaper transportation costs. The potential issues for Mexico are the competitors that come with the American and Canadian markets. However, it also does open the Mexican market for Foreign direct investment from the States or Canada. https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/did-nafta-actually-help-mexico/
ReplyDeleteTo what extent are the elitist and hierarchical tendencies of Mexican politics found in liberal democracies?
The liberal democracy represents some key characteristics to include universal suffrage, inclusion of all adult citizens, a constitution that limits the government's authority, and separation of power. On paper Mexico embodies these basic principles of a liberal democracy. Mexico has elections, allows all adults to vote, has a constitution, and has executive legislative and judiciary branches of government. But in practice the hierarchical tendencies of the elite are the true rule of law. The patronage of the country has led to an authoritarian atmosphere and regime. Money and power are used to control and by votes, or rig elections. The executive branch has the ultimate Authority and the parties in the legislative branch are usually the same party as the executive branch. Therefore, the laws and policies offered by the executive branch are going to pass in the legislative branch. As a result the elite control the wealth and there is no opportunity to build a middle-class. With no or at least a very limited middle class, there is no true elements of a liberal democracy in Mexico.
Was bringing Mexico into a free-trade agreement with the United States and Canada a good idea or a bad idea for the three countries? Why?
ReplyDeleteI think that bringing Mexico in CUFTA and making it NAFTA was a good idea. Utilizing other countries resources without extra expense is beneficial for everyone. Some would disagree with this statement suggesting that the U.S. lost so many manufacturing jobs from NAFTA. NAFTA eliminated most taxes on imports exports and traded goods among the three nations. It put in place processes to get rid of other trade barriers too. This was a huge argument during the last Presidential election, with Donald Trump calling NAFTA “the worst deal of all time”. But overall it has created many more jobs than it has taken away. NAFTA is a trade deal between the US, Mexico, and Canada. It was negotiated under President George H. W. Bush and implemented under President Bill Clinton in 1994 after a long a strenuous debate in Congress. It was intended to strengthen the economy for all 3 countries. Mexican farmers have lost their farms and their Jobs. NAFTA allowed government-subsidized U.S. farm products into Mexico. Local farmers could not compete with the artificially low prices. Although this has not been beneficial to everyone, oil prices are lower, and food cost for the United States is lower, and has reduced government spending. U.S. businesses invested $452 billion in Mexico and Canada, and 240 billion has been invested in the United States.
What bringing Mexico into a free-trade agreement with the United States and Canada a good idea or a bad idea for the three countries? Why?
ReplyDeleteMexico, Canada and the United States entered into the North American Free Trade Agreement or known as NAFTA. The terms were put in place to eliminate the tariffs on products that are traded. This includes trade on agriculture, textiles, and automobile manufacturing. I think that this is a great idea as it helps boost all three economic properties across all three countries. It helps keeping everything distributed with fair trade. If we did not have this then i think that this would hurt all three countries for there import or export. It encourages trade between the countries and helps all of them flourish. I do not know that there is anything that is bad about the NAFTA. I feel like this could bring new jobs for imports and exports for all three countries as well. I see all three nations flourishing.
What bringing Mexico into a free-trade agreement with the United States and Canada a good idea or a bad idea for the three countries? Why?
ReplyDeleteMexico desperately needed help. United States, Canada and Mexico entered into an agreement allowing the three countries to trade. I feel the free-trade act was a bad idea. Mexico was vulnerable and needed help. The United States knew this and took advantaged. They moved factories in the states to Mexico. Mostly for cheaper wages. Since the agreement the economy has improved. However, none of which I feel was in part by this agreement.
I totally agree with what you are saying. I didn’t agree at first. After reaseaching more I feel like they need to join. It would help everything both the U.S, Canada and Mexico. This is a great post and it is a really informative post.
DeleteI agree, the U.S makes up a big part of the Mexico imports, but I don't believe it was a bad idea. The U.S receives a great amount of imports from Mexico and Mexico sends out a lot to the U.S. they both benefit from it. It creates more jobs in Mexico and also competition. the fact that it help improve the economy for the three countries is very important.
DeleteWhat bringing Mexico into a free-trade agreement with the United States and Canada a good idea or a bad idea for the three countries? Why?
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the Mexico chapter I found out and realized that here are a bunch of reasons why it isn't good for Mexico to join the U.S. and Canada. It would help the United States and Canada more then it will help Mexico. Pg 433 chapter 10 making of the modern Mexican state. "In 1993, President Salinas signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which committed Mexico, The United States, and Canada to the elimination of trade barriers between them." In 1994, the Mexican banking system collapsed. Some of the reason was NAFTA. It wouldn't be smart for Mexico to join it would be better for them to be by there self.
I don't think it would be the best of decisions but however Mexico and the U.S. trade a lot already so if they joined forces there might be a possibility it could work out.
Mexican corporatism brings various social actors (e.g., labor, business professionals) into an officially sanctioned ruling coalition. While guaranteeing certain privileges for these groups (e.g., job security for unionized labor and subsides for businesses), it also limits such freedoms as choosing when to strike or how to allocate capital. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of such arrangements.
ReplyDeleteMexican corporatism ensures that there will be group with access to certain resources and a group without these resources. There can be general benefits with the amount of control that the ruling coalition has such as possible increased economic growth. A disadvantage for citizens outside the coalition is that most of the other advantages can only be felt if you are apart of the coalition. The amount of control in the hands of coalition can lead to an increase of corruption as well. Making chances of corruption even higher is the fact that there are so many other actors a part of the coalition. The corruption can "enable private agents to pursue economic activity they could
not pursue otherwise". (SHLEIFER 1)
What bringing Mexico into a free-trade agreement with the United States and Canada a good idea or a bad idea for the three countries? Why?
ReplyDeleteNAFTA was a good idea for these countries due to the elimination of the tax or tariff imposed on moving the product across borders. By not having this tax it will keep cost down and help encourage the movement of more product, improved economic growth, profits, and jobs for all three countries.
Mexico is a large food exporter but oil is a number one export. The more affordable access to the oil has helped alleviate some of the reliance on middle eastern oil. NAFTA improved the U.S. auto industry by consolidating manufacturing and driving down costs. Most cars made in North America now have parts sourced from all three countries.
Overall we still face the difficulties of jobs that vacated the US to go to Mexico for the lessened work restrictions and wage suppression, incomplete implementation of the program, and decrease in Mexican farmers due to competition, the agreement was still a good thing and helped with competing with the European Union.
Yes, I think bringing Mexico into a free-trade agreement with the United States and Canada is a good idea for the three countries. The law essentially allows all three countries to sell goods to each other with no tariffs. An American car, for example, is now built with parts made in all three countries. While the deal allowed US manufacturers to lower costs and compete with Asian factories, it also led companies to move thousands of factory jobs to Mexico, where labor is cheaper. Canada and Mexico are more dependent on the US than the US is on them, so that’s the biggest thing the US has going right now in the plans to revamp the agreement with our current administration in office. Mexico has more than a dozen bilateral free-trade deals, which would make it easier for the country to shift trade to Europe and Latin America. Canada is the largest export market for American-made goods, so the United States doesn’t want to make its northern neighbor too mad. Trump has threatened to leave NAFTA altogether, and that possibility could make Mexico and Canada more willing to make concessions. "Currently, however, straightforward free trade areas (FTAs) between neighboring countries are a more convenient device for securing gains from trade. Unlike federations, FTAs - such as the NAFTA - entail no loss of sovereignty." (Hague and Harrop A comparative Introduction, page 258)
DeleteWhat bringing Mexico into a free-trade agreement with the United States and Canada a good idea or a bad idea for the three countries? Why?
ReplyDeleteTo determine whether or not NAFTA was good for Mexico, we have to look at its GDP per capita and income disparity, and its quality of life both before and after NAFTA, but even so we can only make and associative link between NAFTA and these changes, because they are affected by numerous variables, other than just trade.
Prior to the recessions and the earthquakes in the eighties, ‘the standard of living had been rising markedly since the 1940s,’ and infant mortality was down, and literacy and life expectancy were up (Kessleman, pg 491). After these crises, ‘wages lost half their value, and massive unemployment and high inflation cut into middle-class incomes’ (pg 490). This resulted in political upheavals that led to economic reforms such as the end of many government subsidies and social services, privatization, and free markets. Did NAFTA, combined with these reforms, improve the standard of living and the country’s GDP? According to Kesselman “despite considerable recovery in the late 1990s wages remain low for the majority and taxes, the cost of living has increased,” and the austerity measures became permanent (pg 492).
Kesselman also reports that “in 2000, 89% of the country’s exports are sent to the US and 74% of its imports came from the US” (pg. 492). This increased Mexico’s reliance on the US by creating a “closer integration of the two economies” (pg. 492). Sometimes this is good for Mexico. Sometimes it’s not. NAFTA opened a formerly subsidized import economy to foreign competition, and made it susceptible to global economic conditions. While its relationship with the US sheltered it from the Asian financial crisis in the late 1990’s, Mexico experienced an economic cool down when the American economy slowed in the early 2000’s (pg. 491).
As of 2017, the US imports $135 billion more per year from Mexico than it exports, and imports $12.5 billion more per year from Canada than it exports [1,2]. As of 2015 data, the three countries’ GDP growth rates closely follow each other, but favors Mexico the most [3]. The US and Mexico tied at 2.6% for 2015, and Canada lagged at .94%. But in 2010 Mexico had an annual growth rate of 5.11%, while the US grew by only 2.53%, and Canada came in between the two at 3.08%. However, Mexico’s GDP per household lagged in comparison to the US and Canada by 1.8% and 1.56%, respectively [4].
It appears that US imports and trade imbalances prop up both the Canadian and Mexican economies, creating stability in North America at the expense the United States. Comprehensively answering your question, would require the consideration of a lot of other economic factors and social conditions, and would depend upon how you define “good” and “bad”.
[1] US-Mexican Trade Balance, https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c0005.html
[2] US-Canadian Trade Balance, https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c0006.html
[3] US, Canadian, and Mexican GDP growth rates, https://goo.gl/7wTZVb
[4] US, Canadian, and Mexican GDP per capita growth rates, https://goo.gl/3ffLKz
DISCLAIMER: This is an intellectual exercise, a college assignment. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the political views of the author.
I enjoyed all the research and statistics provided in your response. Although you didn't clearly answer the question in favor or against. You provided a lot of interesting points. I feel NAFTA provided jobs and resources for all parties involved. However as you states many factors should be taken into consideration. With the statistics you provided your response it helps paint a clear picture.
DeleteThe North American Free Trade Agreement is a comprehensive trade agreement signed between the United States, Canada and Mexico in 1992 and came into effect in January 1994 to eliminate trade barriers, create conditions for fair competition, enhance investment opportunities and provide appropriate protection for intellectual property , Establish effective procedures for the implementation of the agreement and dispute settlement, and promote trilateral, regional and multilateral cooperation. To this end, the three countries share national treatment and most-favored nation treatment. The goods of the three countries can be circulated and the tariffs reduced and exempted. However, the tariffs and barriers still remain to the countries outside the trade zone. Some Americans feel that free trade harms their interests and that U.S. companies have moved to lower-cost areas. Trump spearheaded North American Free Trade Agreement, along with another Democratic candidate, Bernie Sanders.
ReplyDeleteThe North American Free Trade Agreement has moved many U.S. manufacturing industries to Mexico in order to better compete with Asian rivals. A new report shows the largest and most harmful North American free trade agreement and labor and the region to help.
Other studies have found that the agreement has greatly increased trade flows between the United States, Canada and Mexico, and Mexico has benefited most. Although there is no reason why the salary growth in the region is above or below the average, some generalizations can be made. The reason for the reduction in employment in the south-east is that textile protective tariffs have been lifted, so that workers choose to go to work in lower-paid places. As their incomes fall, their spending decreases, damaging other industries. For example, restaurant waiters in textile towns may receive fewer tips and may even work less hours. Of course, analysis does not mean that we want to cancel the free trade agreement. This can provide policymakers with a rationale for making decisions to help those who suffer from the agreement.