It is difficult to find a direct link between NAFTA and overall employment trends. The Economic Policy Institute, partially funded by trade unions, estimated that in 2013, 682,900 net jobs were supplanted by the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico. In a 2015 report, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) said NAFTA „has not caused the huge job losses that critics fear.“ On the other hand, it allowed that „in some sectors, trade-related effects may have been greater, particularly in sectors that have been more exposed to the removal of tariff and non-tariff barriers, such as textiles, clothing, automobiles and agriculture.“ US President Donald Trump opposed it during his election campaign and promised to renegotiate the agreement and „open it“ if the US could not get its desired concessions. A renegotiated agreement between the United States and Mexico-Canada was adopted in 2020 to update NAFTA. But why did Trump and many of his supporters see NAFTA as „the worst trade deal of all time,“ while others saw their main flaw as a lack of ambition and the solution as even more regional integration? What did we promise? What was delivered? Who were the winners of NAFTA and who were the losers? Read on to learn more about the history of the agreement, as well as the key players in the agreement, and how they paid off. NAFTA met all seven objectives and established the region`s largest free trade area in terms of gross domestic product. It has also increased foreign investment in all three countries. NAFTA has profoundly reshaped North American economic relations and encouraged unprecedented integration between Canada`s developed economies and the United States and Mexico`s developing countries. In the United States, nafta originally enjoyed multi-party support; It was negotiated by Republican President George H.W.

Bush, passed by a Democratic-controlled Congress and implemented under Democratic President Bill Clinton. Regional trade tripled under the agreement and cross-border investment between the three countries also increased significantly. Such trade benefits often come under interest, because while costs are highly concentrated in certain sectors such as the automotive industry, the benefits of an agreement such as NAFTA are widespread in society. PROPONENTs of NAFTA estimate that about 14 million U.S. jobs depend on trade with Canada or Mexico, and that the nearly two hundred thousand export-related jobs created each year by the pact cost an average of 15-20% more than lost jobs.