In the rhetoric heavy topic of trade negotiations there is always talk of how expanding trade deals between countries will do both of them a great amount of good. Deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (or NAFTA) tout their ability to expand the economies of all countries involved, somehow giving them an upper hand over nations that aren't able to participate in the deal. But does this rhetoric live up to the reality of the situation? In many cases the answer is "no." Countries that willingly enter into agreements such as NAFTA with the best of intentions are often short changed on the results of the trade deal. The difference between the intended and actual effects of NAFTA in Mexico is a great example of this unfortunate but measurable reality.
Arguably the most legitimate evidence why NAFTA was not a success in Mexico is the rate at which countries that were not involved in NAFTA grew in comparison to Mexico. As Jorge Castañeda so astutely notes in his article, NAFTA's Mixed Record: The View From Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Peru, and Uruguay all grew at higher rates than Mexico during a comparable time period (Castañeda). While Mexico's rate of progression after NAFTA was enacted might appear acceptable (or even good) in isolation, when compared to other countries with arguably similar economies it was measurably worse.
While it is true that Mexico didn't benefit greatly from NAFTA, it is also true that their economy was not in any way crippled by the trade deal. NAFTA's effect in Mexico is less of an issue of manipulation and more an example of a trade deal that over promised and under delivered. While Mexico was promised (or at least hoped to receive) an economy that was stimulated greatly by the NAFTA deal, they instead received an economy that moved forward at a decidedly slow rate of 2.6% on average (Castañeda).
The only real benefit that Mexico tangibly received from NAFTA was the base of a forming and ever strengthening export oriented economy. From the time that NAFTA started to present day, Mexico has become much more export oriented, and the rise of these exports has paid the Mexican economy substantial dividends. Dividends that fall short of what was promised by NAFTA, but some would argue that it gives them a much needed foothold in the world economy.
Despite the progress in the Mexican economy as a whole, some industries became essentially crippled by NAFTA. Subsistence farmers, for example were one group of people whose livelihood was essentially destroyed by the trade deal. While it is true that there will always be winners and losers in trade deals, and that is to be expected for some areas of the economy to be let down by the deal, the extent of the damage done to farmers was most likely greater than what the Mexican government (or anyone involved with the deal) anticipated. Small failures like this do not invalidate the progress that NAFTA created in Mexico, but they are perhaps just another "con" pulling NAFTA's progress further toward mediocrity and even objective failure, especially in the minds of farmers.
So what was it about NAFTA that caused such an underwhelming outcome in Mexico's economy? Some would argue that (as empirical evidence shows) countries without NAFTA did much better, so the trade deal must have been a bad thing. Others, however would argue that the reason NAFTA failed was because of its "low dosage" nature. In other words the solution to NAFTA's shortcomings is, in fact, more NAFTA (Castañeda).
Whatever the solution may be, it is clear that often the rhetoric of trade deals, complete with lofty hopes and promises of extreme economic stimulus from both sides, often does not match up to the reality of the outcomes. In the case of NAFTA, we need not look further than Mexico to see that the rhetorical promises of a trade deal don't always translate as well as some might have hoped in the very complex reality of the global economic climate. Much of NAFTA's success or failure lies in how the involved nations deal with its shortcomings in the future years. If nations such as Mexico make efforts to aid those who were shorted by the trade deal, NAFTA may yet look more successful in the public eye. In the coming years, it will be important for the citizens and legislators of all countries involved to look back and assess what went well and what went poorly. In this regard, NAFTA still has the potential to be fruitful. As of now, however, NAFTA appears to be broken at worst and underwhelming at best.
Works Cited
Castañeda, Jorge G. "NAFTA's Mixed Record: The View from Mexico." Foreign Affairs. Foreign Affairs Magazine, n.d. Web. 9 Apr. 2016. <https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/canada/2013-12-06/naftas-mixed-record>.
