scholarly journals CURRENT STATE AND PROSPECTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AREA

2020 ◽  
pp. 74-84
Author(s):  
S. Yakubovskiy ◽  
T. Rodionova ◽  
O. Tsviakh
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Interest Rates ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
North American ◽  
Free Trade Area ◽  
The United States ◽  
Investment Activity ◽  
Trade Area ◽  
The North ◽  
The U.S

This research aims to analyze current economic state of the North American Free Trade Area and to identify possible prospects for its development. The article explores the prerequisites for the formation of NAFTA, reasons for revising the agreement and compares the differences between the previous and updated agreements, an impact of integration association on the socio-economic status, trade and investment activity of the participating countries, prospects for its development and analysis of its economic cooperation with Ukraine. The empirical analysis shows a significant relationship between the U.S. GDP and foreign trade with Mexico and Canada, unemployment and interest rates. Its results revealed that the U.S. trade with Canada had a positive impact on the U.S. GDP; at the same time the U.S. trade with Mexico had a negative impact on the U.S. GDP, which became the main argument for President Trump in his pressure on Mexico to revise the terms of the NAFTA agreement. The regression analysis also showed that there is an inverse relationship between GDP and interest rate in the United States from 1994 to 2018. It was determined that the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) is not fundamentally different from the previous one, but it can create new opportunities, for example, for workers and farmers in the United States, and new difficulties for Canada and Mexico. This agreement tightens labor standards and protection of intellectual property rights, especially in Mexico, thus, probably decreasing the attractiveness of Mexican economy to foreign investors, that is likely to reduce the U.S. investment in Mexico. Thus, Canada and Mexico are expected to receive less benefit from the USMCA for their economies than the United States.

Neoliberalism and Counterinsurgency

Colombia ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard D. Mahoney
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Latin American ◽  
North American ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
The North ◽  
Trade Promotion ◽  
The U.S

How did the U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement come about? The officially named “U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement” was the stepchild of a rancorous hemispheric divorce between the United States and five Latin American governments over the proposal to extend the North American Free Trade Agreement...

The Political Economy of NAFTA/USMCA

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gustavo A. Flores-Macías ◽  
Mariano Sánchez-Talanquer
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Area ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Trade Area ◽  
The North ◽  
Positive Side ◽  
The One ◽  
United States Mexico

When the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) came into force on January 1st, 1994, it created the largest free trade area in the world, and the one with the largest gaps in development between member countries. It has since served as a framework for trilateral commercial exchange and investment between Canada, Mexico, and the United States. NAFTA’s consequences have been mixed. On the positive side, the total value of trade in the region reached $1.1 trillion in 2016, more than three times the amount in 1994, and total foreign direct investment among member countries also grew significantly. However, the distribution of benefits has been very uneven, with exposure to international competition reducing economic opportunity and increasing insecurity for certain sectors in all three countries. Twenty-four years later, the three countries renegotiated the terms of NAFTA and renamed it the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA). The negotiation responded in part to the need to modernize the agreement, but mostly to President Donald Trump’s concerns about NAFTA’s effect on the U.S. economy and the fairness of its terms. Although the revised agreement incorporated rules that modernize certain aspects of the institutional framework, some new provisions also make trade and investment relations in North America more uncertain.

scholarly journals North American Free Trade Agreement

Politeja ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (5(74)) ◽  
pp. 293-313
Author(s):  
Łukasz Wordliczek
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
North American ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
National Interest ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
The North ◽  
The U.S

The article deals with the relationship between the United States and Mexico from the perspective of the US national security. The key areas of strategic interest in Mexico on the part of the United States include: limiting illegal immigration, fighting drug-related crime, economic cooperation, both bilateral and in the wider international dimension, for example the North American Free Trade Agreement. According to the United States, all three factors and their successful implementation are necessary and constituent elements of the national interest of the United States in its most important scope, that is, in increasing the security of the state. The analysis focuses on the U.S. economic relations with Mexico at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries. The basis of economic relations between these countries is the North American Free Trade Agreement. The genesis of the NAFTA agreement and its effects on mutual relations in the context of the U.S. national interest and security was presented. Additionally, the reasons for President Donald Trump’s change from NAFTA to USMCA are described, from the perspective of U.S. strategic interests.

scholarly journals ANALYSIS OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE UNITED STATES IN THE PERIOD THE PRESIDENCY OF DONALD TRUMP (2017-2020)

2020 ◽  
pp. 35-39
Author(s):  
Andrei Martynov ◽  
Sergey Asaturov
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
United Arab Emirates ◽  
Migration Policy ◽  
Free Trade Area ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Trade Area

The European Union has met Donald Trump's presidency in a crisis, caused by Britain's exit, quarrels over migration policy and prospects for European integration. Trump has abandoned a project to create a transatlantic free trade area. He demanded a one-sided trade advantage for the United States. The rejection of the liberal project of multilateral foreign policy contributed to the deepening of contradictions between the EU and the US in the field of trade, environment, the regime of international disarmament treaties, the algorithm for resolving regional conflicts. The Trump era in US foreign policy was a time of abandoning liberal globalism. But it is impossible to realize this task in one cadence. The question is whether it is possible for Democrats to fully restore liberal globalism in equal cooperation with the European Union.Trump has abandoned the project of a transatlantic free trade area between the United States and the European Union. This shocked the European elites. Differences in approaches to world trade contributed to the coolness. The European Union is promoting a liberal approach. Trump insisted on the priority of the patronage of American interests. As a result, the tradition of relationships has suffered. Until 2017, the United States bought European goods and paid the most to the NATO budget. Trump demanded trade parity and more European funding for NATO. European elites perceived Trump's approach to migration issues as unacceptable. Trump's policy on international conflicts has become another reason for mutual misunderstanding. Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and helped establish diplomatic relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates. This has become a challenge for the European Union's Middle East policy.

The North American Free Trade Agreement: An ecological-economic synthesis for the United States and Mexico

1994 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward B. DeBellevue ◽  
Eric Hitzel ◽  
Kenneth Cline ◽  
Jorge A. Benitez ◽  
Julia Ramos-Miranda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
North American ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Ecological Economic ◽  
The North

scholarly journals The North American Lightning Detection Network (NALDN)—Analysis of Flash Data: 2001–09

2011 ◽  
Vol 139 (5) ◽  
pp. 1305-1322 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard E. Orville ◽  
Gary R. Huffines ◽  
William R. Burrows ◽  
Kenneth L. Cummins
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
North America ◽  
North American ◽  
The United States ◽  
The North ◽  
Lightning Detection ◽  
Geographical Regions ◽  
Positive Peak ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Cg Lightning

Cloud-to-ground (CG) lightning data have been analyzed for the years 2001–09 for North America, which includes Alaska, Canada, and the lower 48 U.S. states. Flashes recorded within the North American Lightning Detection Network (NALDN) are examined. No corrections for detection efficiency variability are made over the 9 yr of the dataset or over the large geographical area comprising North America. There were network changes in the NALDN during the 9 yr, but these changes have not been corrected for nor have the recorded data been altered in any way with the exception that all positive lightning reports with peak currents less than 15 kA have been deleted. Thus, the reader should be aware that secular changes are not just climatological in nature. All data were analyzed with a spatial resolution of 20 km. The analyses presented in this work provide a synoptic view of the interannual variability of lightning observations in North America, including the impacts of physical changes in the network during the 9 yr of study. These data complement and extend previous analyses that evaluate the U.S. NLDN during periods of upgrade. The total (negative and positive) flashes for ground flash density, the percentage of positive lightning, and the positive flash density have been analyzed. Furthermore, the negative and positive first stroke peak currents and the flash multiplicity have been examined. The highest flash densities in Canada are along the U.S.–Canadian border (1–2 flashes per square kilometer) and in the United States along the Gulf of Mexico coast from Texas through Florida (exceeding 14 flashes per square kilometer in Florida). The Gulf Stream is “outlined” by higher flash densities off the east coast of the United States. Maximum annual positive flash densities in Canada range primarily from 0.01 to 0.3 flashes per square kilometer, and in the United States to over 0.5 flashes per square kilometer in the Midwest and in the states of Louisiana and Mississippi. The annual percentage of positive lightning to ground varies from less than 2% over Florida to values exceeding 25% off the West Coast, Alaska, and the Yukon. A localized maximum in the percentage of positive lightning in the NALDN occurs in Manitoba and western Ontario, just north of North Dakota and Minnesota. When averaged over North America, first stroke negative median peak currents range from 19.8 kA in 2001 to 16.0 kA in 2009 and for all years, average 16.1 kA. First stroke positive median peak currents range from a high of 29.0 kA in 2008 and 2009 to a low of 23.3 kA in 2003 with a median of 25.7 kA for all years. There is a relatively sharp transition from low to high median negative peak currents along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts of the United States. No sharp transitions are observed for the median positive peak currents. Relatively lower positive peak currents occur throughout the southeastern United States. The highest values of mean negative multiplicity exceed 3.0 strokes per flash in the NALDN with some variation over the 9 yr. Lower values of mean negative multiplicity occur in the western United States. Positive flash mean multiplicity is slightly higher than 1.1, with the highest values of 1.7 observed in the southwestern states. As has been noted in prior research, CG lightning has significant variations from storm to storm as well as between geographical regions and/or seasons and, consequently, a single distribution for any lightning parameter, such as multiplicity or peak current, may not be sufficient to represent or describe the parameter.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document