Cambridge Business Association
NAFTA Renegotiation
Article

NAFTA Renegotiation

Separating Fact from Fiction

Amanda Waldron
Brookings Institution, 2017
Read the article

Read or listen offline

Amazon Kindle
自动生成的音频
  • 0.5×
  • 0.75×
  • 1×
  • 1.25×
  • 1.5×
  • 1.75×
1×
自动生成的音频

Editorial Rating

8

Qualities

  • Controversial
  • Overview
  • Hot Topic

Recommendation

One of Donald Trump’s banner campaign promises was to revamp or eliminate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which he called “the worst trade deal” in US history. He blames NAFTA for the loss of US manufacturing jobs. Soon after the election, the White House set a renegotiation in motion. However, the Brookings Institution’s Amanda Waldron makes the case that the effort to revise or toss the agreement may be misguided and potentially dangerous. getAbstract recommends this succinct but cogent article to trade experts and to executives whose companies would bear the impacts of changes to NAFTA.

Summary

In July 2017, the Trump administration signaled that one of its major objectives in renegotiating NAFTA is to cut the trade deficit, blamed for factory closings and job losses in US manufacturing. If trade officials from the United States, Mexico and Canada can agree to new terms, Congress will still need to approve the changes. But before all that happens, claims that NAFTA is harming the American economy need greater scrutiny.

Since its inception in 1994, NAFTA has created benefits that outweigh its drawbacks. Critics point to the US loss of ...

About the Author

Amanda Waldron is a digital media manager at the Brookings Institution.

Comment on this summary