Bill Clinton signing the NAFTA Agreement on 1. November 1993. Image: Public Domain
What has brought NAFTA in the first 23 years, the ratings go apart
In the election campaign, Donald Trump had scolded NAFTA against the North American free trade agreement: he will negotiate the Agreement or end, if it is not a big deal, he had tweeted.
Now it’s time: 23 years after its entry into force on 1. January 1994 the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is renegotiated. For five days, government officials of the USA, Canada and Mexico have met for first talks in Washington.
First negotiations at free trade
On a common qualification, the three pages – Robert Lighthizer for the USA, the Canadian Aufem Minister Chrystia Freeland and for Mexico Ildefonso Guajardo – were at least. But in the matter, the three are still quite apart. In the language of the diplomats:
Reach and scope of proposals in the first round of negotiations show that all three pages want an ambitious result. And it shows how important it is to update the rules that apply in the largest free trade zone in the world.
From 1. to 5. September should take place the second round. Until then, negotiating teams are working on text proposals. In doing so, non-governmental representatives are to be included as companies, trade unions, civil society or local representatives, it is called for the first talking.
With the negotiations, the NAFTA members enter new territors, as US negotiating drivers Robert Lighthizer made clearly clear: "This is a historic day for the United States. Today we begin to negotiate for the first time to review a coarse free trade agreement."
Agreement with unclear impact
What NAFTA has brought exactly in the first 23 years, the reviews are quite apart. How the Mexico’s economy, the US and Canada had developed without NAFTA, is impossible to reconstruct. The commutations assert that NAFTA rose from the trade that prices dropped and 5 million new workplaces were created in the US as well as the economy has grown. By contrast, up to 750 are available in the US.000 lost workplaces in the industry. In addition, the threat to relocate companies to be printed.
In Mexico, up to one million farmers were unemployed, which could not underbid the cheap US prices for wheat or corn. These then had to hire as workers in export production zones, the so-called Maquiladoras or sweatshops, to make a livelihood. As far as the labor market is concerned, Mexico is considered a clear loser of NAFTA. In this respect, Trump is right that NAFTA is surployment quality, but not that the US is the rough losers everywhere.
The scientific service of the German Bundestag summarized the consequences of NAFTA for the labor market 2016 so:
Only during the 2000s, wage level and employment of the North American states in the US and Canada reached their level again and began to benefit from economic growth. To what extent NAFTA has actually contributed to this development or if it even prevented economically gorgeous development, the subject of controversial discussion is still subject to today.