Criticizing Nafta

Via Richard, this is an interesting and skeptical take on Nafta, based on a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace study of Mexico's economic performance from 1992 to 2007. Analyzing the effects of Nafta starting in 1992 is odd, since the agreement didn't come into effect until two years later. Also, if you use per capita growth, the 1994-1995 Mexico economic crisis, which wasn't caused by Nafta, will also make the impact look worse. At the same time, were you to study per capita growth from 1996-2009 instead of 1992-2007, I seriously doubt it would turn Nafta into a smashing success.

Nafta's negative impact on Mexico's rural sector (exacerbated by the government's failure to plan for it) is pretty well accepted in Mexico, and is alluded to here:

American jobs did move south, particularly into the export sector. The growth in services — new supermarkets, banks, tourism — also created jobs. But overall, Mexico was unable to create enough jobs to make up for all the jobs lost because of competition from imports, particularly purchases of subsidized grains from the United States.

But the biggest criticism isn't of Nafta per se but of the economic policies that went with it:

The authors conclude that “Mexico locked into place a set of economic policies that collectively produced disappointing results.” Mexico — and other countries seeking Nafta-style trade agreements with the United States — should reframe policies in terms of broader pro-growth strategies that channel the benefits from trade into other parts of the economy, the authors write.