Rethinking NAFTA

June 7, 1996 • Volume 6, Issue 21
Does the trade pact help or hurt U.S. workers?
By Mary H. Cooper


The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is no longer a decisive issue in the 1996 presidential campaign. But Pat Buchanan's protectionist rhetoric struck a chord with voters worried about job security and stagnant wages. Critics of the free-trade agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico say it has encouraged U.S. manufacturers to move their operations south of the border to take advantage of Mexico's low wages, flooded the market with defective goods and aggravated environmental problems in the Southwest. Supporters say NAFTA has helped U.S. workers by creating new high-skill, high-wage jobs. The debate may determine the outcome of ongoing negotiations to expand NAFTA to include the rest of the Western Hemisphere by 2005.

ISSUE TRACKER for Related Reports
United States and Foreign Trade
Jul. 16, 2021  U.S. Trade Policy
Sep. 13, 2013  U.S. Trade Policy
Jun. 07, 1996  Rethinking NAFTA
Jan. 29, 1993  U.S. Trade Policy
Dec. 08, 1989  North America Trade Pact: a Good Idea?
Sep. 05, 1986  Trade Trouble-Shooting
Mar. 04, 1983  Global Recession and U.S. Trade
Jan. 12, 1979  Trade Talks and Protectionism
Dec. 16, 1977  Job Protection and Free Trade
May 14, 1976  International Trade Negotiations
Dec. 06, 1961  Revision of Trade and Tariff Policy
Mar. 21, 1960  European Trade Blocs and American Exports
Jan. 30, 1958  Foreign Trade Policy
Jul. 28, 1954  Foreign Trade and the National Interest
Jan. 25, 1940  Tariff Reciprocity and Trade Agreements
Jun. 11, 1935  Foreign Trade Policy of the United States
Jan. 25, 1934  Foreign Trade and Currency Stability
Nov. 01, 1930  Foreign Trade of the United States
Sep. 27, 1923  Combining for the Import Trade
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
Regional Political Affairs: Canada
Regional Political Affairs: Latin America and the Caribbean