It is impossible to isolate the effects of NAFTA in the larger economy. For example, it is difficult to say with certainty what percentage of the current U.S. trade deficit, which reached a record $65,677 million at the end of 2005, is directly attributable to NAFTA. It is also difficult to say what percentage of the 3.3 million manufacturing jobs that were lost in the United States between 1998 and 2004 is the result of NAFTA and what percentage would have been created without this trade agreement. It cannot even be said with certainty that the intensification of trade between NAFTA countries is exclusively the result of the trade agreement. Those who support the agreement generally claim NAFTA loans for enhanced trade activity and reject the idea that the agreement has resulted in job losses or a growing trade deficit with Canada and Mexico ($8,039 million and $4,263 million respectively in December 2005). Critics of the agreement generally associate it with these deficits and job losses. If the Trans-Pacific Partnership of Origin (TPP) were to enter into force, existing agreements, such as NAFTA, would be reduced to provisions that do not conflict with the TPP or require greater trade liberalization than the TPP. [155] However, only Canada and Mexico would have the prospect of becoming members of the TPP after U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the agreement in January 2017. In May 2017, the remaining 11 members of the TPP, including Canada and Mexico, agreed to pursue a revised version of the trade agreement without U.S. participation.
[156] According to Chad P. Bown (Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics), a renegotiated NAFTA, which would restore barriers to trade, is unlikely to help workers who have lost their jobs, regardless of their cause, to use new employment opportunities.“ [154] The Department of Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is extending protection and assistance to U.S. workers affected by foreign trade by revising their rules for the Trade Adjustment Program (AAT) for workers. This final rule will be, among other things, for… A 2014 study on the impact of NAFTA on U.S. trade employment and investment showed that the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and Canada increased from $17.0 billion to $177.2 billion between 1993 and 2013 and supplanted 851,700 U.S. jobs. [84] Although NAFTA has not kept all its promises, it has remained in force. Indeed, in 2004, the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) extended NAFTA to five Central American countries (El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica and Nicaragua). In the same year, the Dominican Republic joined the group in signing a free trade agreement with the United States, followed by Colombia in 2006, Peru in 2007 and Panama in 2011. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), signed on October 5, 2015, represented an extension of NAFTA to a much larger extent.
One of the most important provisions of NAFTA provided for the status of „domestic products“ for products imported from other NAFTA countries. No state, province or local government could impose taxes or tariffs on these goods.
Neueste Kommentare