scholarly journals The The Impact of the Renegotiation of United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) on the Agricultural Exports of Sinaloa State of Mexico

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-55
Author(s):  
José G. Vargas-Hernández ◽  
Icela Flores Osuna ◽  
Omar Vargas-González
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Policy Formulation ◽  
Agricultural Exports ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
The North ◽  
Negative Effect ◽  
United States Mexico ◽  
The Impact

Purpose: Mexico, like other countries, invested in measures to attract foreign direct investment to its territories. It, therefore, signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994, a treaty that facilitated Mexico to be the largest direct exporter to the United States. However, in 2018 the agreement was renegotiated and replaced with United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA). This research is carried out to determine the advantages and disadvantages of renegotiation for Sinaloa's agricultural exports, with the question of whether it would negatively impact the Sinaloa's agricultural exports. Methods: The study focuses on the impact of renegotiation of the NAFTA on agricultural exports of the state of Sinaloa with indicators such as the Exports-Trade, GDP, and GDP Per capita of Mexico, opening to new markets, and logistics. Results: The renegotiation has a direct relationship with agricultural production in Sinaloa, with a serious negative effect, since overproduction would be created if the new destination for exporting from Sinaloa was not quickly available. Implications: This research can be of much use to the main agricultural exporting companies in Sinaloa, government agencies, and the Sinaloa Chambers of Commerce for decision making and policy formulation.

The Impact of the Renegotiation of USCM on the Agricultural Exports of Sinaloa

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
José G. Vargas-Hernández
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Direct Investment ◽  
Direct Investment ◽  
The United States ◽  
Agricultural Exports ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Negative Effect ◽  
The Impact

Mexico, like other countries, invested in measures to attract foreign direct investment to their territories. I, therefore, signed USCM in 1994, a treaty that imposed Mexico as the largest direct exporter of the United States, a country that is likely to leave the treaty by renegotiating USMC. Therefore, this research is carried out to determine the advantages and disadvantages of renegotiation based on Sinaloa’s agricultural exports, with the question of whether it would negatively impact the USMC renegotiation of Sinaloa’s agricultural exports, with the hypothesis that renegotiation of USMC has a negative effect on Sinaloa agricultural exports. The purpose of this paper will be with results in favor of the hypothesis employed.

scholarly journals Quebec’s Economic and Commercial Linkages with the United States, 1994–2017

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Earl H. Fry
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
The North ◽  
Nation States ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Government ◽  
Big Picture ◽  
The Impact

This article examines the ebb and flow of the Quebec government’s economic and commercial relations with the United States in the period 1994–2017. The topic demonstrates the impact of three major forces on Quebec’s economic and commercial ties with the US: (1) the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which became operational in 1994 and was fully implemented over a 15-year period; (2) the onerous security policies put in place by the US government in the decade following the horrific events of 11 September 2001; and (3) changing economic circumstances in the United States ranging from robust growth to the worst recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The article also indicates that the Quebec government continues to sponsor a wide range of activities in the United States, often more elaborate and extensive than comparable activities pursued by many nation-states with representation in the US. 1 1 Stéphane Paquin, ‘Quebec-U.S. Relations: The Big Picture’, American Review of Canadian Studies 46, no. 2 (2016): 149–61.

scholarly journals NAFTA Is Renegotiated and Signed by the United States

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (1) ◽  
pp. 150-159 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Dairy Products ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Negotiation Process ◽  
Rules Of Origin ◽  
The North ◽  
United States Mexico

A twenty-four-year-old agreement was reborn on October 1, 2018, when President Trump announced that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) had been successfully renegotiated. The deal came after an arduous, year-long negotiation process that almost left Canada behind. As one indicator of its contentiousness, the deal lacks an agreed-upon name, but the United States is referring to it as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). It keeps some key NAFTA provisions mostly the same, including with respect to state-to-state dispute resolution, but eliminates, modifies, and adds other provisions. Among the changes: investor-state dispute settlement has been eliminated as between the United States and Canada; rules of origin for automobiles and rules for U.S. dairy products have been modified; and new provisions address labor protections, intellectual property rights, rights for indigenous persons, rules for trade negotiations with non-market countries, and the agreement's termination. The agreement was formally signed by the leaders of all three countries on November 30, 3018. It must be approved through the domestic ratification procedures of the three countries before it enters into force.

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.

NAFTA and the United States and Mexico maize belts 1994–2017

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 385-402
Author(s):  
José Osorio-Antonia ◽  
Lila Margarita Bada-Carbajal ◽  
Luis Arturo Rivas-Tovar
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Department ◽  
Maize Production ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Maize Productivity ◽  
The North ◽  
The Impact

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is twofold. First, the impact of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) on the agribusinesses of corn production in Mexico is analyzed, taking into special consideration the policy of encouragement to small producers, productive restructuring and identification of positive and negative effects. Second, the evolution of the US–Mexican maize belts (1994–2017) is analyzed, establishing the economic and political impacts with respect to NAFTA.Design/methodology/approachThe paper opted for a documentary meta-analysis study using data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the System of Agricultural and Fishery Information (SIAP) in Mexico. The data were completed with documentary analysis of research on maize productivity.FindingsProvided is the information about the impacts of maize belts in the United States (US) and Mexico, where it was determined that the leading states maintained productive hegemony to a greater and lesser extent and that Mexico experienced a productive reorientation. The findings show that it is a myth that there are losers in the maize agroindustry of Mexico and the United States as it is suggested that after twenty-four years they have become complementary.Research limitations/implicationsSummarized is the state of knowledge from 1994 to 2017, aligned to the databases of the United States and Mexico.Originality/valueA need to study the relation between the productive evolution of maize production and NAFTA is identified.

North American Free Trade Agreement Truck Highway Corridors: U.S.-Mexican Truck Rivers of Trade

1998 ◽  
Vol 1613 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
John P. McCray
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
North American ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Advocacy Groups ◽  
The North ◽  
Federal Highway ◽  
The Impact

The dramatic growth in trade between the United States and Mexico from $12.39 billion to $56.8 billion of U.S. exports and $17.56 billion to $73 billion of U.S. imports between 1977 and 1996 and the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have focused attention on the impact that the truck-transported portion of this trade has on U.S. highways. State and federal highway administrators are concerned with the planning implications this additional unexpected traffic may have on the transportation infrastructure. Public advocacy groups want additional highway funds to promote one NAFTA highway corridor over others in an effort to stimulate additional economic development. Most of these groups advocate a north-south route through the United States between Canada and Mexico that follows the alignment of an existing federal highway number. Research conducted by the U.S. government under the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act has failed to define NAFTA highway corridors adequately, leaving policy makers with little concrete information with which to combat the rhetoric of the trade highway corridor advocacy groups. A report is provided on research critical to the needs of both highway administrators and corridor advocacy groups, namely, the location of U.S.-Mexican trade highway corridors and the trade truck density along these corridors.

Mexico

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roderic Ai Camp
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
The South ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
Institutional Revolutionary Party ◽  
The North ◽  
Drug Violence ◽  
The Impact

Today all would agree that Mexico and the United States have never been closer--that the fates of the two republics are inextricably intertwined. It has become an intimate part of life in almost every community in the United States, through immigration, imported produce, business ties, or illegal drugs. It is less a neighbor than a sibling; no matter what our differences, it is intricately a part of our existence. In the fully updated second edition of Mexico: What Everyone Needs to Know®, Roderic Ai Camp gives readers the most essential information about our sister republic to the south. Camp organizes chapters around major themes--security and violence, economic development, foreign relations, the colonial heritage, and more. He asks questions that take us beyond the headlines: Why does Mexico have so much drug violence? What was the impact of the North American Free Trade Agreement? How democratic is Mexico? Who were Benito Juárez and Pancho Villa? What is the PRI (the Institutional Revolutionary Party)? The answers are sometimes surprising. Despite ratification of NAFTA, for example, Mexico has fallen behind Brazil and Chile in economic growth and rates of poverty. Camp explains that lack of labor flexibility, along with low levels of transparency and high levels of corruption, make Mexico less competitive than some other Latin American countries. The drug trade, of course, enhances corruption and feeds on poverty; approximately 450,000 Mexicans now work in this sector. Brisk, clear, and informed, Mexico: What Everyone Needs To Know® offers a valuable primer for anyone interested in the past, present, and future of our neighbor to the South.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document