|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
Jobs, Trade, and NAFTA
| Article
# : |
10510 |
|
|
Section : |
CURRENT ISSUES
|
| Issue
Date : |
1 / 1993 |
3,615 Words |
| Author
: |
Cliff Kincaid is a media analyst based in the Washington,
D.C., area. |
As Bill Clinton assumes the presidency and a new Congress begins to meet, one of the major issues facing the new administration is the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Perhaps no other legislation this year will have such a far-reaching potential impact. Proponents and adversaries have argued the issue of NAFTA's effect on the economies of United States, Canada, and Mexico.
To address the implications of NAFTA and the likelihood of its approval by the United State and its neighbors, THE WORLD & I invited the following experts to participate in a forum: Claude Barfield, director of science and technology policies at the American Enterprise Institute; William Gill, president of the American Coalition for Competitive Trade; Daniel James, author and specialist on Latin American affairs with the Mexico-U.S. Institute; and Charles Pearson, professor and director of international economics at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. Current Issues Senior Editor Lee Edwards served as moderator.
--The Editor
THE WORLD & I: Is NAFTA a good thing for the countries involved?
Claude Barfield: I think it's a good deal for all three countries. Let me start south and come north. It's a good deal for Mexico because it gives them the insurance that they need to keep the U.S. Markets open. It also gives an imprimatur to the reforms that they have taken internally. The Mexican economy has taken off because of internal reform, more than because of the free trade agreement.
For the United States, it's a good deal because it removes impediments from the tariffs, quotas, and closed markets in particular sectors of our trade with Mexico. I should caution that for the $5 trillion U.S. economy, linking up with a nation with an economy about a third its size the impact will be marginal, so that all this discussion about the jobs or growth in the United States is probably overblown.
For the Canadians, I would admit that probably the benefits economically are more marginal. Their major benefit came from the U.S.-Canadian treaty. It would be a mistake for Canada to let the United States and Mexico have a free trade agreement in which it were not a part because that means that the United States has an opening to another economy that [the Canadians] are not part of. So for them I think it is defensive as much
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
