and liberalized trade in services and cross-border business investments. The formation of
NAFTA was controversial. In Mexico there were fears of jobs lost to more productive U.S. and
Canadian firms, as well as the loss of political sovereignty as NAFTA committed Mexico to
change a number of its government policies. In the United States there were fears of job losses to
low-wage Mexico, as well as complaints about linking with a country that has a corrupt political
system and poor environmental protection. Proponents in both Mexico and the United States
hoped that NAFTA would commit the Mexican government to maintain and extend its
market-oriented reforms.
NAFTA has resulted in substantial increases in trade among the three members. The standard
view is that trade creation has been larger than trade diversion, with substantial net gains for
Mexico. However, there is also some research that suggests that trade diversion has been large,
so that the net gains are close to zero. Studies of Canada indicate that it gained from increased
competition that forced high-cost plants to close down, from the achievement of scale economies
through longer production runs as access to the large U.S. market became assured, and from
increased innovation driven by increased competition and assured market access. In addition to
the trade effects, Mexico has also gained from the substantially increased inflows of direct
investment by foreign firms that have located production in Mexico to serve the NAFTA area.
NAFTA has not caused massive shifting of total employment between the member countries, but
it has altered the composition of jobs, with pressures on wage rates for different types of
workers.
For decades efforts to form functioning trade blocs among developing countries failed. Success
is now more likely, as many developing countries have shifted toward outward-oriented and
market-oriented government policies. MERCOSUR (the Southern Common Market) began in
1991 and has been reasonably successful in freeing internal trade and establishing common
external tariffs. Yet, there are some fears that it has also led to substantial trade diversion.
A trade embargo is economic warfare. It hurts both the target country and the country imposing
the trade block, and it creates opportunities for other countries that are not taking part in the
embargo. An embargo can fail to force the target country to change its policy for at least two
reasons. First, the target country’s national decision makers may decide that they can and must
endure their losses, even if these losses are large—political failure of an embargo. Second, the
embargo may simply fail to inflict much loss on the target country—economic failure of an
embargo. An embargo that prohibits exports to the target country is more likely to succeed
economically when the target country has an inelastic demand for imports and countries outside
the embargo have low elasticities of export supply. This is more likely when a group of large
countries imposes an embargo on a small country, and when the embargo is sudden and extreme.
Tips
The unifying theme is trade discrimination, and the material is not too difficult. The diagrams
represent fairly straightforward extensions from those in previous chapters.
For class presentation of trade blocs, it may be useful to present a case of pure trade creation (in
which the partner country is the low-priced world supplier), a case of pure trade diversion (in