Analysts agree that NAFTA has opened up new opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises. Each year, Mexican consumers spend more on U.S. products than their counterparts in Japan and Europe, which means the stakes are high for entrepreneurs. (Most NAFTA studies focus on the impact of U.S. affairs with Mexico. Trade with Canada has also been improved, but the passage of the trade agreement has not had such a significant impact on the already liberal trade practices that America and its northern neighbour have complied with.) The largest multilateral agreement is the agreement between the United States, Mexico-Canada (USMCA, formerly the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the United States, Canada and Mexico. The United States has another multilateral regional trade agreement: the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR). This agreement with Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua eliminated tariffs on more than 80% of U.S. non-textile industrial exports.

First, the tariffs and other provisions of each of the free trade parties applicable at the time of the creation of this free trade area are no higher or more restrictive for trade with non-parties to that free trade area than the corresponding tariffs and other signatory parties prior to the creation of the free trade area. In other words, the creation of a free trade area to give preferential treatment to their members is legitimate under WTO law, but parties to a free trade area are not allowed to treat non-parties less favourably than before the creation of the territory. A second requirement under Article XXIV is that tariffs and other trade barriers must be eliminated primarily for all trade within the free trade area. [10] The arguments in favour of protectionism fall within the economic category (trade harms the economy or economic groups) or the moral category (the effects of trade could help the economy, but have negative effects in other areas). A general argument against free trade is that it represents colonialism or in disguise imperialism. The moral category is varied, including the concern for: [58] [best source needed] The literature that analyzes the free trade economy is rich. Economists have done important work on the theoretical and empirical effects of free trade. Although it produces winners and losers, the broad consensus among economists is that free trade represents a net benefit to society. [22] [23] In a 2006 survey of U.S.

economists (83 respondents), “87.5% agreed that the United States should eliminate tariffs and other trade barriers” and “90.1% disagree with the proposition that the United States should prevent employers from relocating their work abroad.” [24] Controversy over the provisions of the Treaty on the Application of Environmental Protection remained heated in the late 1990s. North American trade interests have tried to weaken a major NAFTA agreement on environmental protection and enforcement. This agreement – one of the few provisions welcomed by environmental groups allows groups and ordinary citizens to criticise Member States for not enforcing their own environmental laws. A three-country environmental cooperation commission is tasked with investigating these allegations and disclosing public reports. “This process is slow, but the embarrassment factor has proven surprisingly high,” Business Week noted. Since 2005, the U.S. government has opposed NAFTA revisions. But the Canadian government and many companies in the three countries continue to work to amend this agreement. Free trade policy has not been as popular with the general public. Key issues include unfair competition from countries where lower labour costs are reducing prices and the loss of well-paying jobs for producers abroad.

On the other hand, cer