IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/b/iie/piiebs/piieb14-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this book

NAFTA 20 Years Later

Author

Listed:
  • Adam S. Posen

    (Peterson Institute for International Economics)

  • Gary Clyde Hufbauer

    (Peterson Institute for International Economics)

  • Cathleen Cimino

    (Peterson Institute for International Economics)

  • Tyler Moran

    (Peterson Institute for International Economics)

  • Jaana Remes

    (McKinsey Global Institute)

  • Theodore H. Moran

    (Peterson Institute for International Economics)

  • Lindsay Oldenski

    (Peterson Institute for International Economics)

  • Barbara Kotschwar

    (Peterson Institute for International Economics)

  • Jeffrey J. Schott

    (Peterson Institute for International Economics)

  • Thomas F. McLarty

    (McLarty Associates)

  • Eduardo M. Mora

    (Ambassador of Mexico to the United States)

Abstract

Enactment of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) among the United States, Mexico, and Canada 20 years ago advanced economic integration and started a public debate running to today about the merits of trade agreements in the era of globalization. As the first major trade accord between two wealthy countries and a relatively poor country, NAFTA created enormous opportunities in all three economies while generating anxieties about job losses and other kinds of displacement. Mexico and the United States have clearly reaped great gains at the aggregate level from their more open trading and investment relationship, but NAFTA is frequently invoked as a job-killing precedent by opponents of further US trade agreements with poorer countries. On July 15, 2014, the Peterson Institute for International Economics convened a conference, "Mexico and the United States: Building on the Benefits of NAFTA," to assess both benefits and costs derived from this important trade accord. In addition, the Institute's president, Adam S. Posen, has summarized his view of the impact in an op-ed essay. This report, part of a new series of publications called PIIE Briefings, collects recent writings by PIIE scholars on NAFTA, including some previously published papers and the transcript of the NAFTA conference. The Institute is proud that these papers and presentations are in keeping with our customary intellectual rigor, objectivity, and research-based conclusions.

Suggested Citation

  • Adam S. Posen & Gary Clyde Hufbauer & Cathleen Cimino & Tyler Moran & Jaana Remes & Theodore H. Moran & Lindsay Oldenski & Barbara Kotschwar & Jeffrey J. Schott & Thomas F. McLarty & Eduardo M. Mora, . "NAFTA 20 Years Later," PIIE Briefings, Peterson Institute for International Economics, number PIIEB14-3, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:iie:piiebs:piieb14-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.piie.com/publications/piie-briefings/nafta-20-years-later
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mihir A. Desai & C. Fritz Foley & James R. Hines, 2009. "Domestic Effects of the Foreign Activities of US Multinationals," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 181-203, February.
    2. Lee Branstetter & C. Fritz Foley, 2010. "Facts and Fallacies about US FDI in China," NBER Chapters, in: China's Growing Role in World Trade, pages 513-539, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Theodore H. Moran & Lindsay Oldenski, 2014. "The US Manufacturing Base: Four Signs of Strength," Policy Briefs PB14-18, Peterson Institute for International Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. T. Gries & R. Grundmann & I. Palnau & M. Redlin, 2017. "Innovations, growth and participation in advanced economies - a review of major concepts and findings," International Economics and Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 293-351, April.
    2. Ignat Stepanok, 2023. "FDI and unemployment, a growth perspective," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(2), pages 761-783, May.
    3. Sandro Montresor & Antonio Vezzani, 2015. "On the R&D giants’ shoulders: do FDI help to stand on them?," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 42(1), pages 33-60, March.
    4. Nobuaki Yamashita, 2011. "Can India become an export platform for global operations of MNCs? Perspectives from Japanese and United States MNC affiliates," STUDIES IN TRADE AND INVESTMENT, in: Witada Anukoonwattaka & Mia Mikic (ed.), India: A New Player in Asian Production Networks?, Studies in Trade and Investment 75, chapter 3, pages 54-77, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP).
    5. Kose,Ayhan & Ohnsorge,Franziska Lieselotte & Ye,Lei Sandy & Islamaj,Ergys, 2017. "Weakness in investment growth : causes, implications and policy responses," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7990, The World Bank.
    6. Lee, In Hyeock (Ian) & Hong, Eunsuk & Makino, Shige, 2020. "The effect of non-conventional outbound foreign direct investment (FDI) on the domestic employment of multinational enterprises (MNEs)," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 29(3).
    7. Eliasson, Kent & Hansson, Pär & Lindvert, Markus, 2018. "Decomposing value chains within Swedish multinationals," Working Papers 2018:9, Örebro University, School of Business.
    8. Koethenbuerger, Marko & Stimmelmayr, Michael, 2016. "Taxing multinationals in the presence of internal capital markets," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 58-71.
    9. Wang, Xun, 2022. "Capital account liberalization, financial dependence and technological innovation: Cross-country evidence," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    10. Boehm, Christoph E. & Flaaen, Aaron & Pandalai-Nayar, Nitya, 2020. "Multinationals, Offshoring, and the Decline of U.S. Manufacturing," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    11. Joseph A Clougherty & Klaus Gugler & Lars Sørgard & Florian W Szücs, 2014. "Cross-border mergers and domestic-firm wages: Integrating “spillover effects” and “bargaining effects”," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 45(4), pages 450-470, May.
    12. Hongfeng Peng & Jingwen Yu, 2021. "Absorptive capacity and quality upgrading effect of OFDI: Evidence from China," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(5), pages 651-671, December.
    13. Cozza, Claudio & Rabellotti, Roberta & Sanfilippo, Marco, 2014. "The impact of outward FDI on the performance of Chinese multinationals," BOFIT Discussion Papers 24/2014, Bank of Finland Institute for Emerging Economies (BOFIT).
    14. Sari Pekkala Kerr & William R. Kerr & William F. Lincoln, 2015. "Skilled Immigration and the Employment Structures of US Firms," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(S1), pages 147-186.
    15. Becker, Johannes & Riedel, Nadine, 2013. "Multinational firms mitigate tax competition," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 404-406.
    16. ADACHI Daisuke & SAITO Yukiko, 2020. "Multinational Production and Labor Share," Discussion papers 20012, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    17. Schwab, Thomas & Todtenhaupt, Maximilian, 2021. "Thinking outside the box: The cross-border effect of tax cuts on R&D," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    18. Sophia Chen & Estelle Dauchy, 2018. "International Technology Sourcing and Knowledge Spillovers: Evidence from OECD Countries," IMF Working Papers 2018/051, International Monetary Fund.
    19. NI Bin & KATO Hayato & LIU Yang, 2020. "Does It Matter Where You Invest? The Impact of FDI on Domestic Job Creation and Destruction," Discussion papers 20008, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    20. Helen Simpson, 2012. "How do Firms’ Outward FDI Strategies Relate to their Activity at Home? Empirical Evidence for the UK," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(3), pages 243-272, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:iie:piiebs:piieb14-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peterson Institute webmaster (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iieeeus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.