The North American Free Trade Area and the European Union Compared

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000194 EndHTML:0000145959 StartFragment:0000006757 EndFragment:0000145923 SourceURL:file://localhost/Users/olga/Desktop/ENGLISHNAFTA_Trade_BlocsDrLAZIN%20(2).doc


Emerging World Trade Blocs: The North American Free Trade Area and the European Union Compared

By

Dr. Olga M. Lazin, UCLA

 

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The North American Free Trade Area, is together with the European Union, one of the largest manageable trade areas in the world. For all of its successes, the European Union is more than a customs union, it is a free mobility space for all European nationalities, which makes it the template, a model for progress.

Let us compare for the early 1990s:

(a) the 15 countries comprised in the European Union (data for which here include three countries that were to join in January 1995),

(b) the six Eastern European countries likely to join the European Union in the long term under the Europe Agreement,(1)

(c) the EU constituencies; 27 countries to date (2011),

(d) EU and NAFTA countries compared,

(d) major world trading blocs, especially Mercosur which is being courted by both NAFTA and EU, and

(f) the NAFTA schedule for managing the opening of duty-free trade by item for each of the three countries.

Data on the major trade blocs are included in order to show the context in which NAFTA and EU discuss expansion. The Europe Agreement to unite the continent east and west was signed on October 5, 1992, at Luxembourg; and the EU’s negotiations to develop a special relationship with Mercosur have acquired importance by mid-1994 as Mercosur debates how closely to try to relate to NAFTA.

Comparison is presented in five tables. Tables 1, 2, and 3 cover population, GNP, GNP/C, and export share in GNP for the EU, Eastern Europe, and NAFTA. Table 4 covers the same data for major trade blocs. Table 5 shows the relative importance of the major trade blocs, using the USA as reference point. Table 6 presents the current situation of economic blocs as through statistics for six countries, Japan standing as its own economic bloc.

Table 1 allows us to examine the ranges in country size for population. Reunited Germany has the largest population, 81 million. Italy and the U.K. follow as the second and third largest countries, virtually tied at 58 million persons. Germany’s population is 207 times larger than the smallest country–Luxembourg has only 389,000 persons. In terms of GNP, Germany is 134 higher than that of Luxembourg

Given such disparities in size, is it “fair” that the EU member countries have disproportionate voting rights which are weighted in favor of small countries? (For shares of voting rights, see Appendix A.) One good argument for such weighting is that Luxembourg has the highest GNP/C of EU’s (US$ 35,260) and the highest export share in GNP (94%). Spain has a larger population (39 million) but has EU’s lowest export share in GNP (17%). Such complexities explain why weighted voting rights are not as arbitrary as first glance might have us believe. In any case big countries have enough votes that it takes the votes of many small countries to reach the present blocking minority of 23 votes, a total which once the EU reaches 15 countries will be 26 votes. (2)

Table 2 shows ranges in size for the six countries of Eastern Europe seeking to join the EU. Poland has the highest GNP (US$ 75 billion), much higher than that of EU member Ireland (US$ 42 billion). Unfortunately Poland is weak in exports, which amount to 19% of its GNP. Hungary’s advantage is due to its earlier leadership among the former communist countries in carrying out economic reform, its GNP/C being 54% higher than that of Poland.

The relationship of Poland to “smaller” countries is interesting. Although Poland has 4 times the population of Bulgaria’s 9 million, Poland has the lowest export share of GNP. Bulgaria has the second largest export share in GNP (45), after the Czech Republic, which leads both in export share in GNP (58) and also in GNP/C (US$ 2,440) as compared to the rest of the Eastern European countries.

With regard to the two poorest countries seeking to join the EU, the poor economic performance of Romania is noteworthy. The Romanian GNP is hardly double that of the Slovak Republic (US$ 10 billion), yet the two countries are equal in GNP export share (28%). Romania’s trade with Eastern Europe collapsed in 1991 along with the COMECON trading organization. Subsequent growth in trade with the West has been slow, and current-account deficits of more than US$ billion have been recorded in each of the last four years. In terms of population, Romania is 4 times larger than that of the Slovak Republic (5.3 million). The legacy of a high-inflation environment and modest growth accounts for the Romanian currency’s very small purchasing power. Despite all theses shortcomings Romania became a full member of EU in ten years, that is December 1st, 2007.

The Slovak Republic with its small population and economy calls our attention. How can it hope to compete in an expended EU? Although its population is only 5 million and its GNP is only US$ 10 billion, Slovakia has a relatively high level of export in GNP, 60% higher than the larger Romania.

Given the above disparities, interests within the EU have been divided into five “constituencies.” (3) (See Chart 1.) The “Core” constituency is France and Germany (which founded in 1951 the European Coal and Steel Community to rebuild war-torn Western Europe). To this core are appended Belgium, Holland, and Luxembourg, too close geographically and too small economically to avoid being drawn into the orbit of power.

The second EU constituency is made of the “free traders” Britain and Denmark (both of which joined the EU in the early 1970s). Britain leads the way to open a common market of goods, services, capital, and people while at the same time trying to prevent the rise in Europe of any singly powerful country.

The EU third constituency involves the poorer, newly democratic members admitted in 1980s (Greece, 1981; Portugal and Spain, 1986), each seeking to modernize their economies in order to guarantee against a resurgence of any authoritarian rule. This expansion widened the gap between richer and poorer countries, the latter including Ireland and to some extent Italy.

The fourth constituency involves Eastern Europe, which freed itself from Russian rule after 1989. It sees admission to the EU, proposed for the year 2000 by Germany, as guarantee against the resurgence of Russian authority in the region.

The fifth EU constituency involves the European Free Trade Association (Austria, Finland, Norway, Sweden), which has realized, except for Norway, that it must not be left out of the EU as it expands to include even Eastern Europe. Indeed Austria may move directly into the Core.

Given the divergent interests of these five constituencies, two models offer future direction to solve the problem of disunity within unity. The British model, which seeks to give more or less equal weight to, the concentric circles depicted in Chart 1, thus encourage cooperative diversity; and the German-French model, which seeks to move forward with monetary union and unified foreign policy focused on the center circle in Chart 1. The idea that Britain may resist France and Germany by refusing to join the EU monetary union has prompted The Economist to write:

If Britain stays out, only to change its mind later [as it did about the EU], it leaders may seem as silly as Churchill now seems, for this comment on the founding of the European Coal and Steel Community 43 years ago: ‘I love France and Belgium but we must not allow ourselves to be pulled down to that level.” (4)

Turning now to a comparison of the EU and NAFTA, several factors emerge. The population of the two trade blocks is about the same (363.3 million for NAFTA, 345.0 million for the 12 EU countries, and 368.8 for the 15 countries in 1992). With regard to economic differences, Germany emerges as having the biggest sheer economic power, followed by France and Italy within the EU.

Noticeable is that the USA has the highest GNP among all countries (US$ 5.9 trillion) and the highest GNP/C within NAFTA (US$ 23,120).

Comparing the countries with lowest export share of GNP in each unit, NAFTA’s Mexico with only 14% has much less than the EU’s Greece, which stands at 23%. Romania and the Slovak Republic have twice Mexico’s export share in GNP.

With regard to the power of population and GNP, the index in Table 5 is based on the fact that the most important country is the USA, which equals 100. while Mexico has one-third of the U.S. population, but only 5% of GNP.

Table 5 shows why Japan is often seen as the economic “enemy” of both NAFTA and the EU, its power being concentrated in one county which has established a web of trade dependency worldwide. Its GNP/C is 21% higher than that of the USA.

Japan’s accumulation of world trade capital is one of the reasons why so many other countries are trying to compete globally by implicitly forming trade blocks. NAFTA gives the USA, Canada and Mexico the possibility of expanding international and international trade at Japan’s expense. After the earthquake and the tsunami, Japan no longer poses a great threat to NAFTA. Many computer chip parts and Toyota car parts will be delayed in reaching the U.S. unfortunately after the disasters that hit Japan in March 2011.

The USA dwarfs most of the Western hemisphere in terms of GNP, except for Canada, which reaches 84.3% of the U.S. total. (See Table 5.) Although the European Union is 48% larger in population than the USA, its GNP/C is only 89% of the U.S. amount.

In establishing itself as FTA linchpin in the Americas, (5) Mexico has done so in spite of the fact that it has only one-third of the U.S. population, 5% of the U.S. GNP, and 15.3% of the U.S. GNP/C at the same time, however the NAFTA framework enhances Mexico’s tremendously as U.S. business investment has arrived with new impetus beginning in 1994, especially after the national “defeat” of the Chiapas rebels in August at ballot boxes almost everywhere in Mexico.

In relation to the USA, Mexico’s GNP/C exceeds by 3.5% that of Mercosur’s 12.8% share of the USA’s GNP/C, while Germany, with about the same population as Mexico, has 96% of U.S. GNP/C, raising the average for the EU to 80% of the same figure.

To further this comparison, let us note the fact that since 1994 the New York Times (NYT) is carrying a regular comparison of the NAFTA-EU-Japan economic situation for competition (See Table 6.) To represent the EU, the NYT gives Britain and Germany; to represent NAFTA, it gives all three partners; to represent global competition, it gives Japan.

The bottom line for global competition is shown in the 1993 manufacturing wage gap given in Table 7. With five leading countries of Western Europe trying to compete under a burden of hourly scale averaging nearly US$ 21, Japan and the United States nearly tied in the US$ 16 hourly range, and the Asian “tigers” (Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, and Hong Kong) averaging about US$ 5 hourly, two facts are clear. Mexico with its US$ 2.41 hourly manufacturing average is the attractive partner wherein factories can be established in the Western Hemisphere. Eastern Europe with its US$ .90 is the equivalent area of the future for the European Union.

Although Germany is moving important manufacturing funds into Romania, for example, the EU has yet to formally bring Eastern Europe into a formal relationship like that enjoyed by Mexico with NAFTA. Eastern Europe as a whole (except for the Czech Republic) awaits the opening of it economies, which remain largely non-market as is shown in Appendix B.

The NAFTA model for opening its three countries over 15 years provides a much easier process than that faced by Eastern Europe of having to integrate into the EU on a complete basis and mostly all at once. The effect of NAFTA integration on Mexico, the USA and Canada is shown in Table 8, which divides the process into the following time frames for elimination of tariffs: immediately as of January 1, 1994, and within 5, 10 years, and 15 years.

With regard to immediate action by Mexico, it eliminated duties on all U.S. and Canadian products not made in Mexico, that is on 43 percent of its purchases in those two countries. Although most of Mexico’s purchases seemingly come from the USA (63.4 percent in 1992) and little from Canada (1.0 percent), the reality is that much of the Canada-Mexico trade is lost statistically when it passes through the USA where it becomes incorporated into U.S. trade data.

The USA took immediate action to eliminate duties on nearly 50 percent of Mexican imports and Canada 19 percent of Mexican imports. Canada’s actions involved a complete opening to Mexican textiles (including thread, cloth, and clothing), which in 1992 reached about 17 million dollars in value. (Mexican textile exports to the USA were 56 times greater.)

CONCLUSION and Positive Outcomes, as well as updates on NAFTA

NAFTA and the EU differ greatly in three major ways. The EU goes beyond NAFTA’s trading plan to include free movement of citizens as workers and students; and EU seeks eventual unification of such potentially controversial areas as currency, foreign policy, and military coordination.

The second difference is that NAFTA has the trading edge to expand beyond Mexico into Latin America. Not only do the USA and Mexico have large trade experience with the region that dwarfs that of the EU, but Mexico has made the many agreements that at once make expanded trade possible as well as require it to make multilateral sense of its many bilateral agreements. Canada has far to go in developing trade beyond the USA, and both countries face stiff competition from Japan. Under Mexico’s leadership in bringing about the integration of the Americas, however, NAFTA seems well positioned to compete with the EU as it takes its first serious steps to develop relations with Mercosur.

The third major difference is that the “core” for NAFTA is the USA, for EU it is two countries. With Mitterrand’s term coming to an end in France and Jacque Delors not only retiring as the unifying head of the European Commission but declining to be the front-runner to replace Mitterrand as president of France, the question is whether or not Germany can count on either a dynamic concept of the EU or France as traditional ally as it seeks ever greater EU unity on all fronts.

  1. 1. North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and European Union (EU) Review.

 

Topics
NAFTA
EU
Target A trade in goods market Transnational criteria to create step by step a political, economic and population union
Activity Each member sets its own foreign policy subject to negotiation Council of Ministers (it’s the main decision-making body, it represents the member states) making decisions apply to all members
Currency Each member has its own currency The members have established a common currency unit (ECU) but each country retains its own currency. Under the Maastricht Treaty, was programmed to the ECU would become the only currency for 1999
Tariffs Each country retains its own tariff regulations Members were united in a single market from January 1, 1993. Capital, goods and services move between EU countries. There is a commitment to abolish controls on internal migration, but some countries have postponed their implementation
Transportation Authorization to trucks and common carriers to move between countries. (The truck traffic freely cross the Mexican border in 1999.) It established a common policy for blocs without borders and the full opening of transport routes, truck traffic except that it is forbidden to Swiss and Austrian Alps
Employment Workers are not included Workers can move freely between member countries
Migration and Citizenship Only professionals, business persons and investors have the right to work in member states Citizens of EU countries have guaranteed freedom of movement and residence. Citizens vote for European Parliament in their places of residences regardless of their citizenship. Passports are being introduced in red color throughout the EU
Trade agreements with non-members countries Not included Trade agreements are signed by the Union, not by individual countries
Foreign policy Not included Members are committed to a common foreign policy, but few countries actually seek their full compliance
Inflation and macroeconomic management Not included Members countries must to adhere to the maxim limits
Competition and quality Not included The members agreed to develop common strategies to make all countries equally competitive. Quality standards norms are minimal

 

Consumer Protection Not included Members adhere to standard regulations are being established.
Social policy Not included Standard criteria were applied to all countries (eg social security).
Tax Legislation Double Taxation Treaty included Establishing a standard pattern for all members. Special privileges are granted to assist in economically deprived areas such as Spain and Portugal, Finland and Austria will benefit from it becoming members.
Environment The members are establishing common standards in bilateral treaties The members have established a foreign policy of standards and measures.
Health Not included The members have established a common program
Education Even NAFTA is an Economic Union, there has been a lateral agreement but not at the same level as ERASMUS program. Establishing student and university professors exchange programs for higher education. The ERASMUS program supports students to study up to one year in another EU country
Defense Not included Members seek to develop a common security policy. It has established a common military system, but each country retains its own militia.

 

2. Population, production and exportation indicator from European Union1

Country
Population (thousands)
Gross Domestic Product (million of dollars)
Gross Domestic Product per capita (dollars)
Exports as percent of Gross domestic product
Germany2 80,553 1,846,064 23,030 24
Austria 7,906 174,767 22,110 41
Belgium 10,039 209,594 20,880 73
Denmark 5,166 133,941 25,930 37
Spain 39,077 547,947 14,020 17
Finland 5,062 116,309 22,980 22
France 57,338 1,278,652 22,300 23
Greece 10,454 75,106 7,180 23
Ireland 3,536 42,798 12,100 62
Italy 57,844 1,186,568 20,510 20
Luxembourg 389 13,716 35,260 94
Netherlands 15,167 312,340 20,590 54
Portugal 9,843 73,336 7,450 35
United Kingdom 57,701 1,024,769 17,760 24
Sweden 8,707 233,209 26,780 28
15 countries 368,782 7,269,116 19,6583 27c
12 countries 347,107 6,978,040 20,1034 25c

 

3. Population, production and exportation indicator from Eastern Europe

Country
Population (thousands)
Gross Domestic Product (million of dollars)
Gross Domestic Product per capita (dollars)
Exports as percent of Gross domestic product
Bulgaria 8,952 11,906 1,330 45
Hungary 10,202 30,671 3,010 33
Poland 38,365 75,268 1,960 19
Czech Republic 10,383 25,313 2,440 58
Slovak Republic 5,346 10,249 1,920 28
Romania 22,865 24,865 1,090 28
Total 96,113 178,272 1,854a 305

 

4. Population, production and exportation indicator from North America

Country
Population (thousands)
Gross Domestic Product (million of dollars)
Gross Domestic Product per capita (dollars)
Exports as percent of Gross domestic product
Canada 27,844 565,787 20,320 25
United States 255,414 5,904,822 23,120 11
Mexico 84,967 294,831 13,470 14
Total 368,225 6,765,440 18,374a 126

 

5. Major global trading blocs 7

Trading Blocs
Members
Population (thousands)
Gross Domestic Product (million of dollars)
Gross Domestic Product per capita (dollars)
         
NAFTA 3 363.3 6,404.2 17,622
SICA 6 29.5 36.0 1,222
ACS 25 198.7 474.0 2,386
G3 3 137.8 377.7 2,740
Andean Pact 5 93.8 160.1 1,707
MERCOSUR 4 191.6 544.1 2,840
European Union 8 15 368.8 7,269.1 19,658
European Union 12 345.0 6,144.0 17,809
APEC 13 1,961.0 11,135.1 5,678
         
         
NAFTA        
Mexico   83.3 282.5 3,391
United States   252.7 5,610.8 22,203
Canada   a 27.3 510.8 18,711
         
SICA        
Costa Rica   3.1 5.6 1,796
         
ACS        
Cuba   10.7 26.9 2,500
         
G3        
Colombia   33.6 41.7 1,241
         
Andean Pact        
Venezuela   20.2 53.4 2,644
         
MERCOSUR9        
Brazil   151.4 414.1 2,735
Chile6   13.4 31.3 2,336
         
European Union        
Germany   79.6 1,692.0 21,256
         
APEC        
Japan   124.0 3,337.0 26,911

 

As of 2010 we have now 27 countries which are members of the EU.

Statistics from source: Olga M. Lazin, “Mexico as

Linchpin for Free Trade in the Americas,” in  Statistical Abstract of

Latin America, vol. 31, 2001.

 

 

Why Japan is often seen as the economic “enemy” of both NAFTA and the EU, its because economic power being concentrated in one country which has established a web of trade dependency worldwide. Its GNP/C is 21% higher than that of the USA.  Just analyze the key high technology products that depend on Japanese computer parts. The computer chips situation, and car parts where the U.S., France, Germany, Spain and Shreveport, La are strongly hit, as parts will only come eventually in October.

Down the chain, the earthquake has hit the Japanese ports, and badly needed of Hitachi air-flow sensors will be late. Many and other countries’ car industries depend on the supply line from  Japan, especially from Shin-Etsu a plant that made silicon ingots used in Santa Clara,  California. (see” Japan Quake squeezes  global industry,” , LATimes, april6, 2011.)

Japan’s accumulation of world trade capital in the 1990s is one of the reasons why so many other countries are trying to compete globally by implicitly forming trade blocks. NAFTA gives the USA, Canada and Mexico the possibility of expanding international and international trade at Japan’s expense. After the earthquake and the tsunami, Japan no longer poses a great threat to NAFTA. Many computer chip parts and Toyota car parts will be delayed in reaching the U.S. unfortunately after the disasters that hit Japan in March 2011.

The USA dwarfs most of the Western hemisphere in terms of GNP, except for Canada, which reaches 84.3% of the U.S. total. (See Table 5.) Although the European Union is 48% larger in population than the USA, its GNP/C is only 89% of the U.S. amount.

In establishing itself as FTA linchpin in the Americas, (5) Mexico has done so in spite of the fact that it has only one-third of the U.S. population, 5% of the U.S. GNP, and 15.3% of the U.S. GNP/C at the same time, however the NAFTA framework enhances Mexico’s tremendously as U.S. business investment has arrived with new impetus beginning in 1994, especially after the national “defeat” of the Chiapas rebels in August at ballot boxes almost everywhere in Mexico.

In relation to the USA, Mexico’s GNP/C exceeds by 3.5% that of Mercosur’s (Mercado Común del Sur) 12.8% share of the USA’s GNP/C, while Germany, with about the same population as Mexico, has 96% of U.S. GNP/C, raising the average for the EU to 80% of the same figure.

To further this comparison, let us note the fact that since 1994 the New York Times (NYT) is carrying a regular comparison of the NAFTA-EU-Japan economic situation for competition (See Table 6.) To represent the EU, the NYT gives Britain and Germany; to represent NAFTA, it gives all three partners; to represent global competition, it gives Japan.

The bottom line for global competition is shown in the 1993 manufacturing wage gap given in Table 7. With five leading countries of Western Europe trying to compete under a burden of hourly scale averaging nearly US$ 21, Japan and the United States nearly tied in the US$ 16 hourly range, and the Asian “tigers” (Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, and Hong Kong) averaging about US$ 5 hourly, two facts are clear. Mexico with its US$ 2.41 hourly manufacturing average is the attractive partner wherein factories can be established in the Western Hemisphere. Eastern Europe with its US$ .90 is the equivalent area of the future for the European Union.

Although Germany is moving important manufacturing funds into Romania, for example, the EU has yet to formally bring Eastern Europe into a formal relationship like that enjoyed by Mexico with NAFTA. Eastern Europe as a whole (except for the Czech Republic) awaits the opening of it economies, which remain largely non-market as is shown in Appendix B.

The NAFTA model for opening its three countries over 15 years provides a much easier process than that faced by Eastern Europe of having to integrate into the EU on a complete basis and mostly all at once. The effect of NAFTA integration on Mexico, the USA and Canada is shown in Table 8, which divides the process into the following time frames for elimination of tariffs: immediately as of January 1, 1994, and within 5, 10 years, and 15 years.

With regard to immediate action by Mexico, it eliminated duties on all U.S. and Canadian products not made in Mexico, that is on 43 percent of its purchases in those two countries. Although most of Mexico’s purchases seemingly come from the USA (63.4 percent in 1992) and little from Canada (1.0 percent), the reality is that much of the Canada-Mexico trade is lost statistically when it passes through the USA where it becomes incorporated into U.S. trade data.

The USA took immediate action to eliminate duties on nearly 50 percent of Mexican imports and Canada 19 percent of Mexican imports. Canada’s actions involved a complete opening to Mexican textiles (including thread, cloth, and clothing), which in 1992 reached about 17 million dollars in value. (Mexican textile exports to the USA were 56 times greater.)

 

 

 

Copyright Ó Olga Lazin, 2011

 

 

 

6. Population and economic power index from developed countries in the world trade 2010

Area
Population
GNP
GNP/C
       
Mexico 33.0 5.0 15.3
Canada 10.8 9.1 84.3
MERCOSUR 75.8 9.7 12.8
Germany 31.5 30.2 95.7
United States 147.6 131.5 89.1
Japan 49.0 59.5 121.2

To conclude on a general note, NAFTA is more equitably positioned in terms of internal wage gap between countries than is the EU. For NAFTA, the U.S. manufacturing wage rate is 6.8 time larger than Mexico. For the EU, the existing gap between the highest wage-paying Western Germany and the lowest paying Portugal is 5.4, but the potential gap once EU expands into Eastern Europe is 36.6 times–the difference between West Germany and Bulgaria.

Equity is not the only issue, however, and indeed inequity in this case may help Eastern Europe attract capital in the competition for ever cheaper manufacturing sites in an era of globalization.

Crossing back over the Atlantic, Mexico has taken up a leading role in requiring better Labor laws and environmental standards which are to be perfected within NAFTA, otherwise the second bigger free trade alliance will remain only a mere customs union.

 

RECENT POSITIVE DEVELOPMENTS:

1. Obama agrees to reinstate Bush pilot program for Mexico trucks and drivers to enter USA, thus potentially ending WTO authorization of tariffs to punish U.S. for having violated NAFTA.

 

2. Mexico is now benefiting from the electrical and hybrid car boom in the USA, U.S. auto companies have made Mexico their assembly/manufacturing base also because of Maquiladora  legal advantages.

 

3. Auto and other manufacturing companies in EU countries (or other countries which do not have an FTA (Free Trade Area) with NAFTA or the USA are taking advantage of the fact that Mexico is the only country that has an FTA with NAFTA, thus EU countries, e.g., use Mexico as their manufacturing/assembly base to send their exports from Mexico to the USA as Mexican exports.

 

4. Mexico is still the only country to have an FTA with both NAFTA and the EU.

Canada is far from an accord with EU because each of the 27 EU countries will have to approve of that FTA.

 

5. European and Asian countries are using Mexico as the base to export to Central and South Americas as well as the Caribbean.

 

6. Many companies who left for China have returned to Mexico which has more secure legal system, does not demand co-ownership, and has much, much lower transport costs. Further, U.S. Executive can fly from many U.S.

cities and still be in the same time zone and not suffer from long-flight jetlag to Asia.

 

7. The Asian fresh vegetable market for export to USA is based on Mexico’s West Coast. (The Dominican Republic failed for Asian exporters, owing to infrastructure and transport issues into the USA as well as time delay to reach the American West Coast where the Asian population has grown exponentially.)

 

7. Many U.S. Companies requiring high-tech industrial skills have moved back to Mexico from the Caribbean (where they moved when the USA signed FTAs with that area.) Caribbean countries tend to lack high-tech advantages. Plus hurricanes are very disruptive.

 

B. Continuing Problem: NAFTA Red Flags

 

1. Labor rights and double taxation and social security issues for

workers are not included and far from inclusion.

 

2. Public safety issues for executives and employees are of great concern to foreign companies.

Olga Lazin Ó 2011 Smashwords edition

-----

 

 

Footnotes

(1)

Desmond Dinan, Ever Closer Union? An Introduction to the European Community (Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1994), p. 479.

(2)

Currently 54 votes out of 76 total are needed to obtain a “qualified” (decisive) majority; once the number of countries reaches 15, the decisive majority will be 62 votes out of 87 total. the U.K.’s concern is that even if it were to be joined by Germany and Holland to form a “liberal group,” they could not form a blocking minority even though they have 40% of the vote between them. See Appendix A and “The European Union Survey,” The Economist, October 22, 1994, p. 20.

(3)

“The European Union: Back to the Drawing Board,” The Economist, September 10, 1994, pp. 21-23.

(4)

Ibid, p. 23.

(5)

See Olga Lazin and James W. Wilkie, “Mexico as Linchpin for Free Trade in the Americas,” Background Study prepared for PROFMEX-ANUIES Conference on “Mexico and the Americas,” Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, November 13-16, 1994,

 

(6)        http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/8467402-what-is-new-with-nafta, March 16, 2011

 

Advertisements

About DrOlgaLAZIN

Published writer and university lecturer. 25 years in Education. My website: http://www.olgalazin.net My books are here: http://www.olgalazin.net/books.html Also on Amazon.com check out my books in English, and Spanish.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to The North American Free Trade Area and the European Union Compared

  1. drolgaandrei says:

    LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION:
    It is with great confidence that I recommend Jessica Elihu to work at UCLA. She is the finest Teaching Assistant I have had in the past 20 yeas of teaching within the CSU system.
    As an experienced educator, I have had my fair share of students with different aspirations and attitudes towards learning and succeeding. Jessica, by far stands out to be one of the brightest, diligent, and most exceptional, who I have had the opportunity to teach and work very closely with. Always, in her work, Jessica is consistent, dedicated and passionate; enthusiastic, cheerful, and a pleasure to work with. She has incredible creative energies and a refreshing idealism tempered only enough to accomplish what needs to be done. I highly recommend her for any position of work, leadership, education, or any other capacity in which she can spread her excitement and share her talents with others.

    Perhaps the strongest characteristic of Jessica’s is her work ethic. I cannot recall another student who worked as hard as Jessica. She has shown tremendous leadership, whether it be assisting her classmates, or setting the tone for class discussions. Jessica is an outstanding student, who always participates in discussions and always has something intelligent and relevant to say, and this did not happen in my class alone.

    An independent and motivated high achiever, Jessica has the qualifications that empower her to succeed. With great devotion, she has undertaken a complex project. After having her research under my wing on Latin American elite lore and their subjugation of women, I have realized a great deal about Jessica. She is wealthy in her spirit, generous with kindness and inspired by her dream of accomplishment. As she did in depth research aside from a lengthy compilation of her analyses, she not only delved into a plethora of information, but also demonstrated a criticality in her thinking. Her analytical abilities demonstrate her ability to draw conclusions readily. She exercises good judgment and adept deductions in her intellectual capacity. Aside from her in depth comprehension of material, her writing exhibits another dimension which is impeccable. I am certain she will soar to levels beyond our ordinary expectations if given the opportunity.

    Jessica is a most motivated young woman of numerous talents and considerable self-discipline. She is likeable, enthusiastic, trusting and trustworthy. Jessica exhibits an awareness and complex understanding of the “big picture.” I highly recommend Jessica to your institution with absolute confidence as being an excellent choice, and I hope that you will carefully consider her application.

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Olga Lazin, UCLA

    405 Hilgard Ave
    Los Angeles, CA 90095
    Tel. 1 310-208-2244

  2. Magdalena says:

    Targeted research on migrants social security, medicare, and other U.S.-Mexican issues, next posting.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s