North American Free Trade: Assessing the Impact
A conference concentrating on the comparison of quantitative studies produced "a consensus that the direct economic effects of NAFTA will be small for both Mexico and the United States." But, say the editors, this kind of "static analysis" misses many of the more important dynamic elements of NAFTA, such as the effects of a large inflow of new capital and the return of capital that fled Mexico in the early 1980s.
Related
Latin American countries have taken giant strides toward institutionalizing democracy, market economics and hemispheric community. However, widespread dissatisfaction with the unequal benefits of economic reform and disillusionment with democratic institutions persist. Political support for reform remains tentative and is undermined in some countries by growing poverty, corruption, drug trafficking and powerful militaries. Starting with the North American Free Trade Agreement, Clinton should move forward on a selective basis. Much is at stake for the United States major markets for exports, relief from excess immigration, and better control of drug shipments and environmental devastation.
The Salinas regime has ardently pursued the North American Free Trade Agreement as a silver bullet to kill myriad political and economic problems. But NAFTA as it stands would exacerbate many of Mexico's enduring disparities and injustices. Short term adjustment costs and the possibility of backsliding on political reform have largely been overlooked. NAFTA must be designed to contribute to political reform. Otherwise, postponing the accord would not weaken Mexico-only Salinas.
With so many players involved, the eagerly anticipated Free Trade Area of the Americas is likely to wind up a shallow project. A better way to jump-start hemispheric integration would be to expand NAFTA to the Southern Cone -- enhancing prosperity, security, and democracy throughout South America.
