The Economic Benefits of NAFTA to the United States and Mexico. Heidi Sommer. National Center for Policy Analysis.
June 16, 2008.
Prior to the 1980s, high import tariffs and quotas characterized Mexico’s international trade policy, along with restrictions on foreign investment and ownership. But following a severe economic crisis in the early 1980s, the country began liberalizing its protectionist policies. In the years since, Mexico has implemented 11 free trade agreements--with the European Union, countries in South and Central America, Japan and, most importantly, the United States and Canada. The 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between Mexico and its two northern neighbors eliminated the majority of taxes on products traded among the countries, and called for a gradual phase-out of other tariffs. Although there have been calls to renegotiate or suspend NAFTA, after nearly 14 years under the treaty it is clear that both Mexico and the United States have benefitted from more open trade.

NAFTA's Bad Rap. Gary Clyde Hufbauer, and Jeffrey J. Schott. Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics.
August 25, 2008.
In January 2009, the North American Free Trade Agreement will reach its fifteenth birthday. No cause for celebration, say NAFTA critics, who argue that the trade pact must be fixed or ditched. Most economists disagree and regard NAFTA as a tremendous success, contributing to better jobs and higher income in the three partner countries--though in Mexico’s case well below levels promised by politicians during the ratification debate.

NAFTA and Mexico. Luis Rubio. Center for Hemispheric Policy.
July 17, 2008.
The North American region faces a stark choice: build a true integrated economy composed of Mexico, Canada and the United States, with all the structures capable of combining each country’s strengths to the benefit of all, or fall into a disorderly, conflict-ridden integration process that intensifies the region’s weaknesses at a cost to everyone. It is that simple: nobody can stop integration. The real question is whether it will be orderly or disorderly. But the consequences of each alternative are dramatically different.

NAFTA Revisited: How to Proceed. Jon Huenemann and Sidney Weintraub. The Center for Strategic and International Studies.
July 22, 2008.
During the Democratic Party presidential primary race, both candidates stated that they wished to renegotiate NAFTA in order to strengthen the labor and environmental accords and make them part of the underlying agreement. The two candidates also said they would support withdrawing from NAFTA if renegotiation failed. The risks of plunging into this are enormous. The Canadians have issues they could put on the table, including removal of the commitment made in NAFTA to provide the United States with its traditional share of oil during a shortage. Mexico has powerful interests that would prefer eliminating duty-free entry for corn, beans, and sweeteners that would unravel an unprecedented market access agreement for U.S. exporters. A majority of members of the U.S. Congress, if given the opportunity, would find it tough to vote for a new NAFTA unless it contained more protection for favored sectors. In short, efforts to renegotiate it would likely kill NAFTA.

The North American Free Trade Agreement: Time for a Change? Jeffrey J. Schott. Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics.
November 21, 2008.
The pact was “state of the art” when promulgated. But the world economy has changed significantly since then and it is fair to ask: Does NAFTA need to be revised? The incoming Obama administration will undoubtedly argue for such an initiative, since the President-elect criticized NAFTA’s provisions on, inter alia, labor and the environment during the US election campaign. The Democratic critique elicited a sharp response from Canadian and Mexican officials, who countered that “if it ain’t broken, don’t fix it” but if opened that they would demand revisions of NAFTA rules on energy, agriculture, and trucking. This paper argues that both sides are correct.

Reinvigorate NAFTA. Diana Villiers Negroponte. The Brookings Institution.
April 13, 2009.
Fifteen years after the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and with growing protectionist tendencies among the three countries there is a risk that NAFTA could become the European Free Trade Arrangement that withered to nothing in the 1980s. NAFTA was bold in its vision of opening markets and offering prospects for closer cooperation between Canada, Mexico and the United States, but the events of 9/11 have changed the vision that a North American community could emerge.

Renegotiating NAFTA and Other U.S. Trade Agreements: Fixing What Isn't Broken. Daniella Markheim. The Heritage Foundation.
October 24, 2008.
The argument that NAFTA has brought nothing but woe to the U.S. economy and America's workers is based on anecdotes and distorted data-and has gone far toward helping to misshape public perceptions about NAFTA's real impact.