The Political Economy of MERCOSUR

1994 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 101-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luigi Manzetti
Keyword(s):  
Free Trade ◽  
Regional Integration ◽  
Free Trade Area ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Trade Patterns ◽  
Research Technology ◽  
Trade Area ◽  
The North ◽  
Economic Trends

Recent literature on regional integration has stressed the key role that emerging trading blocs will have in shaping the world economy of the 21st-century. With the end of the Cold War, policymakers have refocused their attention on economic issues. Economic trends — such as rapid changes in research, technology, capital flow, and trade patterns — have assumed a new importance. Increasing competition in world markets has induced industrialized countries to cluster together in regional economic blocs. This has been the case with the European Community (EC), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) signatories (the United States, Canada, and Mexico), and possibly Japan and its East Asian neighbors. However, these experiments in regional integration differ appreciably in nature. For instance, the EC explicitly seeks an economic and political union, whereas the NAFTA is simply a free trade area whose goal is the eventual elimination of restrictions on investment flows.

scholarly journals A Solution for Africa

2009 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Collins
Keyword(s):  
Free Trade ◽  
Regional Integration ◽  
Market Integration ◽  
Free Trade Area ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Majority Voting ◽  
Regional Environment ◽  
Trade Area ◽  
The Eu

Regionalism—the efforts of a group of nations to enhance their economic, political, social, and cultural interaction—can assume various forms, including regional integration/cooperation, market integration, development integration, with the intent of accommodating the changing national, international, and regional environment. Despite the fact that to this day, attempts at integration (in particular, market integration based on the EU model) and regionalist impulses as they currently occur have been entirely unproductive throughout the African continent, regionalism continues to be regarded by African leaders as a reasonable strategy for increasing intra-regional trade and for reversing Africa’s rising marginalization in the world economy. They continue to be assured by the success of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the viability of the European Union’s (EU) model for integration, which begins with a free trade area or preferential trade area and ends with complete economic integration. The EU model features a specific mode of decision making (qualified majority voting), conflict resolution mechanism (role of the European Court of Justice), budgetary arrangements (revenue collection and distribution), and citizen involvement (direct elections to the European Parliament) and takes on increasingly state-like functions. While extremely successful in integrating its constituent member state in Europe, as a model it is limited, given the unique circumstances under which it was established and promoted. As noted by Emil Kirchner: Consideration of the EU as a model for other regional integration settings might be limited, given the unique circumstances in which it was established and promoted. Born out of conflict, the EU benefited from special circumstances in its development, e.g. the Cold War, the United States guarantee and nurturing role, and the industrialised nature of the European economies, which are not found elsewhere.

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 The Development of the Free Trade Area of the Americas: A Guide For Legal Research

2005 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle S. Viegas
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Free Trade Area ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
The United States ◽  
Common Market ◽  
Trade Area ◽  
The World

At the 1994 Summit of the Americas, leaders of democratic nations in the Western Hemisphere committed to establishing a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) by January 2005. The Declaration of Principles resulting from that Summit called for building on “existing sub-regional and bilateral arrangements in order to broaden and deepen hemispheric economic integration and to bring the agreements together.” Although ambitious, this endeavor was undertaken during a decade marked by an unprecedented proliferation of trade agreements. In 1991, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay agreed to initiate the formation of a common market now known as the MERCOSUR. Then in 1994, Canada, Mexico and the United States signed the North American Free Trade Agreement which replaced the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement. Later that year, nations around the world formalized the existing General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, creating the World Trade Organization. In 1997, the Andean Community of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela formalized its plans to establish a common market. Members of the Caribbean Community and Common Market also agreed in several protocols to further their economic and social integration. During the 1990's, numerous other trade agreements were negotiated, and their development continues at the same rapid pace today.

Free Trade Area or Common Capital Market? Notes on Mexico-US Economic Integration and Current NAFTA Negotiations

1992 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 53-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaime Ros
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Economic Integration ◽  
Free Trade Area ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Investment Liberalization ◽  
Trade Area ◽  
Mexican Government ◽  
Trade And Investment

This Article addresses some of the key issues involved in understanding current trade negotiations between Mexico and the United States, as well as their significance for the process of economic integration in North America. These issues derive from the new setting produced by (a) Mexico's trade and investment liberalization in the 1980s, (b) the incentives which underlie the drive towards integration, as well as (c) those factors which will condition the final content of the current negotiating process.A free trade agreement (FTA) with the United States could be seen as the logical conclusion of the process of trade and investment liberalization carried out by the Mexican government ever since the mid-1980s. At the same time, it also represents a shift in Mexico's initial trade strategy, from multilateralism to bilateralism, or from globalization to regionalization, as a consequence of the global trend, toward the end of the 20th century, to create large regional economic blocs.

The European Union and MERCOSUR: Prospects for a Free Trade Agreement

2000 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor Bulmer-Thomas
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Free Trade Area ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Customs Unions ◽  
Trade Area

Negotiations between the European Union and MERCOSUR aim to establish the first free trade agreement ever between two customs unions. Among the potential obstacles are compliance with World Trade Organization rules, treatment of “sensitive” products, and competition from the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas. This analysis reviews the economic background on both sides, the motivation, and the prospects for success, along with the agreement’s potential impact on the largest third party, the United States.

scholarly journals ASEAN: Regional Integration and Reforms

2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 44-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mari Pangestu ◽  
Lili Yan Ing
Keyword(s):  
Free Trade ◽  
Regional Integration ◽  
East Asian ◽  
Free Trade Area ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Area ◽  
Trading Partners ◽  
Asian Context ◽  
Asian Integration ◽  
Trade And Investment

Over recent decades ASEAN has advanced a policy of regional integration, starting with the ASEAN Free Trade Area, following on with the ASEAN+1 free trade agreements with its six main trading partners, and now with ASEAN+6. To further advance ASEAN's regional integration in the East Asian context, it should continue to focus on further liberalization of trade in goods, investment, and services that can facilitate more trade and investment. East Asian integration is designed not to be just an “extensive regional trade agreement,” but is more a “responsive vehicle” that consists of trade and investment commitments combined with facilitation. To keep regional integration viable, it should adopt an open regionalism.

scholarly journals AN AMERICAN DILEMMA: THE FLOW OF TRADE VERSUS THE FLOW OF PEOPLE IN NAFTA

2012 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-115
Author(s):  
Emilio C Viano
Keyword(s):  
Free Trade ◽  
Regional Integration ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Security ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Labour Mobility ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
Basic Premise ◽  
The North

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) of 1994 aims at creating the legal, political, and business conditions for a freer circulation of goods, capitals and services in North America. However it gives scant attention to the mobility of workers.  The basic premise of this paper is that globalisation of trade and the universal diffusion of human rights have evolved and progressed side by side, even though with difficulty and reluctantly, and that the regional liberalisation of trade must be deeply interwoven with issues related to socio-economic rights to be ultimately and durably successful.   This paper’s major questions are: How does NAFTA address labour mobility? Does NAFTA neglect, oppose or support the free movement of people across its borders? Does the agreement deal with labour mobility in a clear and definite manner or does it ignore it and give it short shrift? Should NAFTA support the liberalisation of immigration within its area as a long term objective, as part of a deeper and broader regional integration, conditioned on considerable reforms by its Member States, especially Mexico’s legal system, and energy, tax and banking policies, among others?  Is the free movement of people needed to be truly successful and provide economic security, survival and prosperity for its member countries in view of vastly changed economic and trade conditions since its inception? This paper first traces the history of the drafting of NAFTA. Then it examines what NAFTA means for labour mobility within the complex interaction between an economic colossus like the United States and a developing country like Mexico, also taking into account current migration trends. In this section, the paper also covers the liberalisation of the mobility of labour (albeit limited) brought about through administrative regulations. Interspersed with this there is a discussion of what should be a mutually reinforcing relationship between international free trade and social policy.

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.

Geo-Economic Competition in Latin America: Brazil, Venezuela, and Regional Integration in the 21st Century

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guilherme Casarões
Keyword(s):  
Latin American ◽  
Regional Integration ◽  
Free Trade Area ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Competition ◽  
Integration Model ◽  
Trade Area ◽  
Complex Processes ◽  
The Us ◽  
New Institutions

The institutional framework of Latin American integration saw a period of intense transformation in the 2000s, with the death of the ambitious project of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), spearheaded by the United States, and the birth of two new institutions, the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC). This article offers a historical reconstruction of regional integration structures in the 2000s, with emphasis on the fault lines between Brazil, Venezuela and the US, and how they have shaped the institutional order across the hemisphere. We argue that the shaping of UNASUR and CELAC, launched respectively in 2007 and 2010, is the outcome of three complex processes: (1) Brazil’s struggle to strengthen Mercosur by acting more decisively as a regional paymaster; (2) Washington’s selective engagement with some key regional players, notably Colombia, and (3) Venezuela’s construction of an alternative integration model through the Bolivarian Alliance (ALBA) and oil diplomacy. If UNASUR corresponded to Brazil’s strategy to neutralize the growing role of Caracas in South America and to break apart the emerging alliance between Venezuela, Argentina, and Bolivia, CELAC was at the same time a means to keep the US away from regional decisions, and to weaken the Caracas-Havana axis that sustained ALBA.

Recent Developments in the Regulation of Investor-State Dispute Resolution: Any Lessons for the Southern African Development Community?

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 180-204
Author(s):  
Lawrence Ngobeni ◽  
Babatunde Fagbayibo
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Area ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Southern African Development Community ◽  
African Union ◽  
Foreign Investments ◽  
African Development ◽  
Trade Area ◽  
Recent Developments

Abstract In 2016, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) amended Annex 1 of the SADC Protocol on Finance and Investment (FIP) in order to remove investor access to international arbitration or Investor-State Dispute Resolution (ISDS). The recent formation of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) and the COMESA-EAC-SADC Tripartite Free Trade Agreement (T-FTA) are factors that will likely curtail SADC’s ability to regulate foreign investments. Both AfCFTA and T-FTA are supposed to have their own investment protocols. This means that SADC faces the loss of regulatory authority over foreign investments. The recent formation of the Pan African Investment Code (PAIC) has shown that some African Union (AU) Member States want to provide ISDS for their investors, while others including SADC Members States do not. This article intends to evaluate the lessons SADC can learn from other jurisdictions in terms of the effective regulation of ISDS.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document