| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "EFFECT NAFTA": |
|
|
The Effect of NAFTA on the US, 2001.
This paper studies the effect that NAFTA has on the United States and how this in turn affects international relations.
1,500 words (approx. 6.0 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 49.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at the effect of NAFTA on the United States in the decade since NAFTA became law and the eight years since it actually went into effect, an effect that cannot be understood in isolation but that must be understood within the context of globalization and transnationalism, looking at some of the most serious consequences of a world with borders made so permeable by alliances and corporations especially in terms of human rights and the environment.
From the Paper
"Transnationalism has changed the shape of our world. This is true even though most of us have only a vague idea about what transnationalism is, and even those who believe that they know what the word means in fact disagree over the definition of the term that is more or less a synonym for ?globalization?. Globalization, or transnationalism, in general refers to the current flows of capital, people, information and images and culture across national borders. Such flows of money, products and ideas across the previously far more impermeable national borders of the world has been brought about in large measure through two important and related processes: The first of these is the establishment of such international trading agreements as NAFTA, or the North American Free Trade Agreement (a pact that was in many political and economic ways prompted by the founding of the larger and more economically powerful European Union). The second major reason for the increase of economic globalization has been the substantial increase in companies that do business on a global scale. These companies have been substantially helped by such agreements as NAFTA, which is hardly surprising since large corporations provided significant pressure to have such alliances brought about (www.latimes.com)"
| |
|
Canada's Trade Expansion Under NAFTA, 2002.
Investigates the effects of NAFTA on Canada's trade, focusing on the agricultural, energy and automobile industries.
4,900 words (approx. 19.6 pages), 30 sources, $ 178.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper compares the change in Canadian trade with the United States and Mexico with Canada's trade with the rest of the world. It will also focus on three sectors, namely the agricultural, energy and automotive industries. This will include an outline of the specific NAFTA provisions for these particular industries, an assessment of the changes implied for the industries as a result of the existence of NAFTA and, perhaps most importantly, an analysis of the actual effects of NAFTA on the industries.
| |
|
NAFTA and The American Auto Industry, 2007.
A discussion on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the effects on the American auto industry.
3,920 words (approx. 15.7 pages), 7 sources, MLA, $ 106.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper reviews NAFTA and its effect on the American auto industry. Specifically the researcher examines various theoretical propositions providing analysis of the effects of NAFTA since implementation. The author's aims and objectives include identifying the costs and benefits associated with NAFTA's implementation, as well as identifying future trends and areas for research growth with respect to NAFTA and the automobile industry. The primary research examined includes how NAFTA impacted the U.S. automobile industry as a whole; whether the overall effects of NAFTA on the U.S. automobile industry have been positive or negative; and what the future of the U.S. automobile industry is, based on research gathered regarding NAFTA since its inception.
Outline:
Introduction
Journal Review
Theoretical Discussion of Topic
NAFTA Integration Strategies
Data Analysis
Conclusions
From the Paper
"Koechlin & Larudee (1992) take an interesting approach reviewing the potential effectives of NAFTA prior to its full inception claiming that the overall costs of NAFTA would likely be too high or negative in nature, postulating that employment would be affected most severely particularly within the U.S. Lastly Globerman & Storer (2005) provide the most recent analysis of free trade and price convergence resulting from NAFTA. The authors adopt economic theory suggesting that liberalization of trade will ultimately result in price convergence. The authors also examine the impacts of convergence on returns to capital and wages, suggesting that multiple explanations exist for the seeming divergence that followed the Canada-U.S. Auto Pact in the early 1960s."
| |
|
NAFTA: Two Sides of the Peso, 2001.
This paper studies The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and its effects on the countries in the region.
1,940 words (approx. 7.8 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 61.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the NAFTA trade agreement which removed most barriers to investment in between Canada, the United States and Mexico. It studies the positive and negative effects of this agreement from the point of view of each of the three countries involved. It analyzes several sources on this issue including excerpts of speeches by world leaders. The author concludes that the verdict on this agreement, if it is good or bad for the region, has yet to be seen.
From the Paper
"The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect January 1, 1994. The North American Free Trade Agreement allows US companies to sell their goods in Mexico tariff-free. It also allows Mexicans to set up low-wage factories to produce their goods to sell in the United States duty free. [Dowling, 1996]. This agreement removed most barriers to investment in between Canada, the United States and Mexico. Its intention was to boost the economies of all three countries by expanding their potential markets and allowing them to take advantage of what each of the other two countries had to offer. Since its adoption, its effects have been debatable, especially concerning safety and environmental issues in the United States and the effect on the Mexican Peso."
| |
|
NAFTA, 2005.
This paper discusses the effect of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) on Mexico's economy.
1,370 words (approx. 5.5 pages), 5 sources, APA, $ 45.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that, a decade after the enactment of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) creating a borderless economy, Mexico has benefited from free trade but problems remain if it is to compete effectively with the rest of the world. The author points out that, the unemployment rate is close to zero in northern Mexico where manufacturing still is concentrated; however, manufacturing facilities are spreading out to other parts of the country. The paper stresses that, in spite of the vast improvements in the last ten years, Mexico still has some serious challenges ahead such as (1) the need to create one million new jobs each year in order to absorb the young workers entering the market and (2) smaller companies have trouble upgrading technology because of higher borrowing costs.
From the Paper
"Mexico has come a long way from the catastrophic financial crisis of 1994-1995, when millions of Mexicans were thrust into poverty and life savings were wiped out. Two million jobs were eliminated. The early days of NAFTA had failed to benefit Mexico as expected, and most of the manufacturing exports still came from the maquiladora sector along the northern border with the U.S. A corrupt and unstable political environment limited foreign investment. In January 1995, President Clinton was motivated to provide a $47 billion bailout of the Mexican economy."
| |
|
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), 2004.
This paper discusses NAFTA, which established a free-trade zone in North America and was signed in 1992 by Canada, Mexico, and the United States. It took effect on Jan. 1, 1994.
985 words (approx. 3.9 pages), 5 sources, APA, $ 34.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that NAFTA immediately removed tariffs on the majority of goods produced by the participating nations and set forth a plan for the gradual elimination, over a period of 15 years, of most remaining barriers to cross-border investment and to the movement of goods and services among the three countries. The author points out that, unlike the United States, Mexico's border communities have benefited from NAFTA, growing almost 10 times as fast as states in Mexico's south, while absorbing the lion's share of foreign investments. The paper concludes that calling NAFTA a ?trade? agreement is misleading; NAFTA is actually an investment agreement because its core provisions grant foreign investors a solid set of new rights and privileges that promote relocation abroad of factories and jobs and the privatization and deregulation of essential services, including water, energy, and health care.
From the Paper
"In 2000, California?s exports to Mexico totaled $14.4 billion, an increase of nearly 18 percent over the previous year, and Texas' shipments grew 5.5 percent to a total of $24.6 billion, according to Commerce Department figures (Lewis, 2004). Meanwhile, the United States continues to lure Mexican workers, many of whom came from rural communities when Mexico opened its markets to subsidized U.S. agricultural goods."
| |
|
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), 2007.
This paper discusses the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the U.S., Mexico and Canada and its impact on the U.S. job market.
2,075 words (approx. 8.3 pages), 17 sources, APA, $ 65.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was designed to open up the Canadian, U.S. and Mexican borders to free trade; however, NAFTA's ratification and implementation over the last decade has not had uniform success. The author points out that, while many detractors of NAFTA had predicted that the U.S. economy would run at an overall trade deficit with both Canada and Mexico, they failed to observe that overall exports to these two markets would increase greatly as well. The paper also examines the impact of NAFTA on the U.S. job market and concludes that some of the apparatus within NAFTA's regulatory structure, which allows for negotiation and renegotiation, should be utilized to make adjustments for the economic impact NAFTA has had on the U.S. economy especially on job loss. The paper includes tables on job creation and loss and wage changes.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Positive Economic Impact of NAFTA
Negative Economic Impact of NAFTA
Future Trends
Conclusion
From the Paper
"One industry that has been in decline in the U.S. for many years has been the textile industry. NAFTA's detractors often, supported by the U.S. textile industry itself, belabored this point in arguments against ratification of NAFTA. Cook points out that although NAFTA led to expanded markets for the U.S. textile industry by: 1) the elimination of import duties into Mexico on U.S. produced yarns and cotton, and 2) by mandating that Mexican textile manufacturers actually utilize U.S. yarn and cotton in textiles that are exported to the U.S. and Canadian markets."
| |
|
NAFTA and Its Weaknesses, 2008.
A discussion of the weaknesses of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
1,685 words (approx. 6.7 pages), 8 sources, MLA, $ 54.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper takes a look at the positive and negative effects the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has had in Canada, the United States and Mexico. The paper asserts that NAFTA has taken on somewhat mythical proportions in the minds of its proponents and detractors alike. It holds that NAFTA has primarily struck a dissonant tone with the U.S. and Mexico, while Canada largely accepted its utility. To its detractors NAFTA offered a convenient scapegoat for all of the economic woes since its inception in January 1994, and to its proponents it has been responsible for most of the economic growth periods of the last 10 years. Yet, beyond all the hype, rhetoric, and ideology superficially imposed on it, NAFTA was a dynamic process that required monumental negotiation commitment on the part of the signatories and certainly on the part of Canada as the smallest market.
The paper concludes that, although NAFTA comes with its negative attributes, it has largely proven a boon to the Canadian economy and the country would be ill-advised to withdraw from the treaty.
Outline:
History & Description
NAFTA Weaknesses & Failure
Benefits & Cost Outcomes
Conclusion
From the Paper
"While NAFTA has been somewhat contentious since before its inception, the economic results of the agreement have proven largely inline with the positive projections associated with NAFTA by its designers and supporters. In fact, the increasing reliance on free-trade agreements which essentially become a 5th column in a country's foreign policy mechanism, NAFTA has become not just an economic success but a political template for further free-trade agreements across the globe. Some researchers have pointed out that NAFTA was ground-breaking both for its visionary approach to expanded trade relationships and for its unique integration into the signatory countries' sovereignty."
| |
|
Living and Working with NAFTA in the United States, 2004.
An analysis of the effects of NAFTA on the workers and consumers in the U.S.
6,243 words (approx. 25.0 pages), 29 sources, APA, $ 146.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the data and economic trends of the past twenty years in an effort to determine whether NAFTA has been a great boon to the U.S. economy or whether it has, in fact, destroyed jobs and spun trade deficits out of control.
The Case for NAFTA
The Case Against NAFTA
Analysis
Conclusions for NAFTA's Future
From the Paper
"Three pens were taken up on December 17, 1992, and three men signed their names marking a historic day in international trade relations. It was that day that President Bush of the United States of America, President Salinas of the United Mexican States, and Prime Minister Mulroney of Canada, each in their respective capitals, signed the North American Free Trade Agreement. Exactly eleven months later, with a vote of 234 to 200 the U.S. House of Representative passed the agreement. The U.S. Senate followed suit with a vote of 60 to 38, just three days later, on November 20, 1993. With President Clinton's signature on December 20, 1993, and effective January 1, 1994, the nearly 400 million people of North America became unified in one integrated marketplace under NAFTA."
| |
|
The Impact of NAFTA, 2001.
This paper examines the impact that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has on the continent.
1,750 words (approx. 7.0 pages), 10 sources, $ 56.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper provides a thorough definition of NAFTA and proceeds to examine the impact that this agreement has had on the United States. It deals with personal issues such as claims of heightened unemployment as well as national issues such as tax benefits and improved trade.
From the paper:
"On January 1, 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was implement between Canada, Mexico, and the United States. This treaty drops most tariffs by 50% immediately, and dropped to zero by 2009. It is a unique trading agreement between two developed countries and a developing nation on a single continent. After eight years since NAFTA commenced, there are mixed analysis and opinions on whether this treaty is a success. It was designed to provide a free-flow of goods between countries without imputative measures and tariffs being enforced; it was promoted as a means to improve productivity and create jobs in the three countries; and, it was touted as model for further free-trade blocs to be created in the Americas and in other regional markets. After eights, no other free-trade blocs exists, nor has any other free-trade treaties been pursued and/or implemented by the NAFTA partners; and, with a world in a recession, there are two points of views on whether NAFTA has been more damaging than good during at this time, or if NAFTA has prevented further harm through its free-flow of goods."
| |
|
NAFTA, 2007.
This paper discusses the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
1,015 words (approx. 4.1 pages), 10 sources, MLA, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this paper, the writer looks at the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that took effect on January 1, 1994. The writer points out that the result of NAFTA is increased trade, but with a growing U.S. trade deficit and job dislocation, particularly in manufacturing. Yet, economic growth has fueled job and wage growth in the U.S., increasing gross domestic product and foreign investment. The writer maintains that overall, the U.S. is better off under NAFTA with increased economic growth and dramatically more foreign investment. The writer concludes that even if NAFTA had never been signed, global economic forces would have forced specialization, as is already occurring with other trading partners. NAFTA simply accelerated the inevitable.
From the Paper
"The dismantling of trade barriers and opening of markets have led to economic growth and rising prosperity in the U.S., Mexico and Canada. The real GDP growth for all NAFA partners from 1993 to 2005 has been impressive. U.S. GDP during this time period grew 48%t while Mexico's increased by 40% and Canada's grew by 49%. However, because the Canadian and Mexican economies are much smaller than the economy of the U.S., their increases actually represent much larger growth rates."
"There is great debate about the job and wage impact of NAFTA. U.S. unemployment has fallen from 7.5% just before the signing of NAFTA, while trade deficits over the last decade grew by nearly 300%. Further, total U.S. employment grew by twenty-two million jobs between 1990 and 2000, and U.S. average per capita real income rose by 26% over the same period."
| |
|
NAFTA, 2006.
This paper analyzes the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) more than a decade after its inception.
1,155 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that controversy surrounding NAFTA has been relatively continuous since its inception. The author points out that the five most hotly debated questions surrounding NAFTA are (1) has NAFTA been a success? (2) has the U.S. lost more jobs than it has gained?, (3) has immigration from Mexico slowed?, (4) what are the known benefits and costs? (5) has the state of Texas benefited? The paper states that, despite significant failures and flaws, the North American Free Trade Agreement has been very successful in its twelve-year history. The paper includes a statistical table.
From the Paper
"No trade agreement will be beneficial to everyone all the time. And while there certainly have been some losers in the wake of NAFTA, overall the effects have been positive. U.S. exports, for example, have risen significantly. This is a statistical benefit of the trade agreement. U.S. exports within NAFTA nations grew 103% between 1993 and 1998, while exports to all other nations increased at only half that rate. This is indicative of increased trade and, presumably, increased prosperity. However, studies written around the tenth anniversary of the trade agreement's inception reported different findings."
| |
|
NAFTA: Its Intentions and Outcomes, 2002.
Distinguishes between the intentions of NAFTA and the outcomes of their actions.
2,400 words (approx. 9.6 pages), 7 sources, $ 89.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper will analyze this clear distinction between NAFTA's intentions and outcomes. By looking at the arguments for and against NAFTA, it will be possible to evaluate whether or not its lofty ambitions are on their way to being fulfilled, or whether the outcomes are as cloaked, complicated and jagged as the NAFTA text itself. It must be noted at the outset that, as the impact of NAFTA is different for each of its participants, it is impossible to engage in a precise analysis of its specific effects in each country. To circumvent this problem, general themes will be brought to light where appropriate and more specific examples will be developed when necessary.
| |
|
NAFTA, 2007.
This paper discusses NAFTA and protectionism.
1,420 words (approx. 5.7 pages), 15 sources, MLA, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer notes that as U.S. deficits accelerate, advocates of protectionism use the data to fuel emotional support for their fight against free trade agreements such as NAFTA. But, the writer points out that to determine whether or not a trade policy is good or bad involves more than just exploring trade balances. The writer maintains that a more complex analysis that considers factors such as economic growth, foreign investment and the benefits of market specialization reveal that free trade has a net positive impact. NAFTA is no exception. With regards to the growing trade deficit, the writer notes that NAFTA simply accelerated the inevitable as the U.S. is forced to compete in an increasingly global marketplace. The writer concludes that therefore, the U.S. should continue to promote free trading by seeking out the signing of agreements such as NAFTA.
Outline:
Abstract
Introduction
Discussion
Summary and Conclusion
From the Paper
"Increasing trade has been a success, but it is true that beneficiaries have been Mexico and Canada, not the U.S. In the first ten years of NAFTA, trade among the three countries more than doubled, from $306 billion to $621 billion in 2003 (USTR on NAFTA's tenth anniversary). During the same time, U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico grew from $142 billion to $263 billion. However, Mexican and Canadian exports to the U.S. have grown even faster, leaving a huge U.S. trade deficit with these countries. Before NAFTA, the U.S. maintained a modest trade surplus with Mexico. Now, the U.S. has a huge trade deficit with Mexico as Mexican exports to the U.S. grew 242% during the decade of NAFTA execution (USTR on NAFTA's tenth anniversary). And, the U.S. trade deficit with Canada has increased fivefold."
| |
|
NAFTA and the Canadian Economy, 2002.
A detailed examination of the impact of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) on the economy of Canada.
2,010 words (approx. 8.0 pages), 8 sources, APA, $ 63.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the impact that NAFTA has had on the Canadian economy. Through examples of the role that NAFTA has played it is seen that this impact has been largely positive. Areas examined include NAFTA's role in mediating between the U.S. and Canada and increased employment through an increase in trade opportunity, among others. Arguments defending the role of NAFTA against criticism it has faced are also presented.
From the Paper
"Canada and the United States have had a long-standing friendship in which the two nations live peacefully side-by-side. The borders are not armed, the residents of each nation have respect for the other and there are many advantages enjoyed by remaining friendly. Just as any two friends will have disagreements from time to time, Canada and the US have also had their share of problems. One of the problems that has occurred from time to time between the two nations deals with the economics of each nation. NAFTA, which is a membership group designed to promote and improve trade relations within the member nations is sometimes called in to mediate between Canada and the US. NAFTA has had a positive impact on the Canadian economy overall, but it has not been without its problems for the northernmost country of the North American continent."
|
|
|
