The Premise of NAFTA in the Auto Industry
Ostensibly, NAFTA was enacted with the end goal of giving the major industrial nations of North America, namely Mexico, Canada and the United States, the ability to competitively compete with the rest of the world, and conduct business in such a way that each of these nations would mutually benefit (Koechlin, et al, 1992). Quite literally, the idea was for the nations to work together rather than trying to undermine one another, thereby providing a level of strength in numbers. Especially, this was envisioned for the automobile industry of the US, with NAFTA being used as the catalyst to allow the US to export automobiles to Mexico and Canada, increasing the market for American automobiles, and giving the often struggling industry a chance to revive and grow from where it was originally struggling in light of foreign competition, cheap labor from other nations, and so forth. However, the reality is that NAFTA achieved exactly the opposite effect when discussing the US automobile industry.
History of the US Automobile Industry Leading up to NAFTA
Traditionally, the US enjoyed dominance of the automobile industry due to mass production techniques, a ready supply of labor, and the might of the "big three" automobile manufacturers- Ford, General Motors and Chrysler. After World War II, this dominance began to slide in the midst of the rise of Japan and other nations who prospered in the post-war reconstruction period. In the modern age of the US automobile industry, however, to best understand the situation, one must go back to the early part of the 21st century; despite other economic disasters like the dot-com collapse, the American automobile industry still remained strong (Yang, 1995). Like so many other industries, however, the events of September 11, 2001 changed all of that. Borders tightened and the face of global trade changed. Specifically, for the US automobile industry, some of the contributing factors that placed an excessive burden on them were soaring transportation costs, insurance costs, and the like. Directly relating to NAFTA were likewise some very specific effects.
NAFTA had intended to create equal economic opportunity through the promotion of free trade; however, the rippling effect of NAFTA actually brought about a whole new set of problems. From the viewpoint of the US, the lowering of import restrictions allowed Mexico and Canada to flood American markets with vehicles that were cheaper to produce, and therefore sold at a lower price and commanded a larger market share. Faced with this increased competition and lower revenues, the US automakers in many cases ended up actually closing manufacturing facilities domestically and opening facilities in Mexico and Canada to take advantage of the lower priced labor themselves. Also in the US, many of the manufacturers of components used in the final assembly of automobiles were destroyed by a glut of lower priced materials coming from the other nations that benefited from NAFTA much more than did the US in many ways (Klier, 2005).
Additional Damage NAFTA Inflicts on the US Automobile industry
Actually, NAFTA also hurt the US automobile industry from yet another fascinating angle; because of the increased need for labor in Mexico and Canada to operate the automobile manufacturing plants, many of which were in fact opened by the US automobile makers themselves, encouraged many people to leave the rural areas and come to the cities where the better paying, while not great paying, jobs were to be found. This in turn led to inflated prices for produce and other such items because of the increases in labor costs (Koechlin, et al, 1992). More importantly, and tragically for the US automobile industry, this influx of labor only served to keep wages and costs low for the foreign manufacturers, making it even harder for the US to try to compete.
Summary
NAFTA, when first unveiled, held a great deal of promise, at least theoretically; however, in the final analysis, once the program took hold, the results were quite the opposite. In closing, perhaps the most important lesson to take away from this situation is that free trade is never totally free-someone always pays. Unfortunately, in this case, the US automobile industry has been forced to foot the bill.
References
Klier, T. (2005). Determinants of Supplier Plant Location: Evidence from the Auto Industry. 2+.
Koechlin, T., & Larudee, M. (1992). The High Cost of NAFTA. Challenge, 35(5), 19+.
Yang, X. (1995). Globalization of the Automobile Industry: The United States, Japan, and the People's Republic of China. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Published by Edward Raver
To briefly describe myself, I am a full time business professional, who enjoys freelance writing as a part time endeavor. I find it quite rewarding; moreover, my professional experience, education and intere... View profile
How NAFTA Has Affected MexicoThe North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has been surrounded by controversy ever since its inception in 1994. The effects of NAFTA on the economy and citizens of Mexico c...- An American Free Trade Area: NAFTAA look at the positives and potential negatives of the NAFTA agreement among Canada, Mexico and the U.S.
- Understanding the Mexican Economy After NAFTAThis is a paper reviewing the Mexican economy after NAFTA was passed.
- NAFTA Effect: Free-Trade and the Mexican Economy A guide to understanding the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and its effects on Mexico.
Bring Passport to Mexico and Canada?A person will now have to bring a passport to go to and from Mexico and Canada from the United States.
- NAFTA: the Good, the Best, and the Ugly for the Americas
- Auto Industry TV Ads: No Creativity
- The Impact of CAFTA on Mexico and Central American Countries
- The United States of America Vs. 2009
- McCain Economic Adviser Carly Fiorina: Federal Government Cannot Save Auto Industry
- Does Trade Protection Help or Hurt International Business?
- Does Trade Protectionism Hinder or Promote International Development?

1 Comments
Post a CommentIs this supposed to be a neatural academic paper. Cause if that was your intention you definatly did not hit the mark