This report from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace examines the impact of NAFTA after ten years.
Source: Carnegie
This report from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace examines the impact of NAFTA after ten years. The report asks:
To answer these questions, the authors looked beyond the two headline figures that have typically been used to measure the impact of NAFTA: the increase in the volume of trade between the countries and the increase in the flow of foreign investment.
Click on the link above to read the full text.
Read the Spanish translation.
New York Times 11/19/03 article (may require free registration)
About the Authors
Sandra Polaski is director of Carnegie’s Trade, Equity, and Development Project. Demetrios G. Papademetriou is co-director and co-founder of the Migration Policy Institute. Scott Vaughan, formerly a visiting scholar with Carnegie's Trade, Equity, and Development Project, is director of the Unit for Sustainable Development and Environment at the Organization of American States. John Audley, formerly director of Carnegie's Trade, Equity, and Development Project, is senior transatlantic advisor at the German Marshall Fund.
*Errata:
In Figure 10 (page 25) the trend line labeled "wages" inadvertantly showed unit labor costs. The new figure correctly presents the data on wages.
On page 27, the study cited in footnote 37 claims that NAFTA eliminated 766,000 net jobs during its first seven years. The text has been changed to reflect this.
Former Senior Associate
Former Senior Associate
Former Senior Associate, Director, Trade, Equity and Development Program
Until April 2002, Polaski served as the U.S. Secretary of State’s Special Representative for International Labor Affairs, the senior State Department official dealing with such matters.
Former Visiting Scholar
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
The war in Iran proves the United States is now a destabilizing actor for Europe and the Arab Gulf. From protect their economies and energy supplies to safeguarding their territorial integrity, both regions have much to gain from forming a new kind of partnership together.
Rym Momtaz
Even if the Iran war stops, restarting production and transport for fertilizers and their components could take weeks—at a crucial moment for planting.
Noah Gordon, Lucy Corthell
With the White House only interested in economic dealmaking, Georgia finds itself eclipsed by what Armenia and Azerbaijan can offer.
Bashir Kitachaev
Europe isn’t as weak in the new geopolitics of power as many would believe. But to leverage its assets and claim a sphere of influence, Brussels must stop undercutting itself.
Dimitar Bechev
Tehran’s attacks are reshaping the security situation in the Middle East—and forcing the region’s clock to tick backward once again.
Amr Hamzawy
