El TLCAN ha sido positivo para México?

Un estudio recién hecho público por el Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
Rethinking Trade Policy for Development: L essons From Mexico Under NAFTA, sugiere que no mucho. Este es un estudio de muchos ya circulando en donde encontramos de todo tipo de opiniones, tanto a favor como en contra, y con la finalidad de promover mayor debate vale la pena revisar ambos lados de la moneda.

En resumen, este estudio sugiere:

.

Summary
• The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is a good place to begin a
comprehensive review of U.S. trade agreements, as called for by President Obama. Any U.S.
review of NAFTA should, however, go beyond its impact on the United States to assess its
effects on Mexico.
• The evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that Mexico’s reforms, backed by
NAFTA, have largely been a disappointment for the country. Despite dramatic increases in
trade and foreign investment, economic growth has been slow and job creation has been weak.
Now, with its economy so closely tied to that of its northern neighbor, Mexico is suffering the
most severe economic crisis in the region.
• Reforms to the template for U.S. trade agreements must go deeper than the incorporation of
improved labor, environmental, and intellectual property provisions, as seen in more recent U.S.
trade agreements. Such measures are laudable, but they would have had little impact on the
negative trends we have seen in Mexico under NAFTA.
• U.S. trade agreements with developing countries should avoid NAFTA’s restrictions on
government policies proven to promote dynamic development. They should leave countries
such as Mexico the flexibility to deploy effective policies for industrialization, rural
development, poverty alleviation, and environmental protection.
• Mexico’s experience under NAFTA shows that U.S. trade agreements must include robust
funding for development to create a more level playing field among trading partners