NAFTA¹ was negotiated in the early nineties, signed by President Clinton and ratified by Congress in 1993. It includes the USA, Canada and Mexico and was the first regional trade accord to take place. It was modeled to a large degree after an existing agreement between US and Canada, Canada/USA Free Trade Agreemnt (CUFTA).

The US uses NAFTA as a model for other trade deals. Like all bilateral and regional trade agreements, NAFTA expanded the scope of liberalization beyond the current agreements at the WTO (formerly the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade -GATT).

When NAFTA was signed, it was predicted to open borders across the three countries, create new jobs, harmonize controls and pave the way for freer trade across the region. Now, eleven years later, it is being challenged by a number of organizations and academic institutions from the three countries who show that post-NAFTA, rural unemployment has risen in Mexico, migration (including illegal) to the US has grown, all 50 states of the U.S. have experienced job loss since NAFTA,² Canada’s social programs have sharply declined,³ and there is a general race to the bottom in terms of workers’ rights and environmental protection being eroded and corporations’ rights to invest preceding those of national governments. This is not to say that some haven’t benefited from NAFTA. However, NAFTA has not increased the living standards of the majority of people in the three countries.

The below articles analyze the impact of NAFTA on women in the region:

A Statement of Opposition to the USA-Peru Free Trade Agreement By USGTN, August 2007.

US Social Forum: Linking Social Movements and Seeking Sustainable Alternatives By Abiosseh Davis, Center of Concern/USGTN, August 2007.

Women's Experiences of Economic Liberalization: Confronting Challenges, Developing Opportunities By COC/USGTN, May 2006

Bankrupt US Economic Policy Forecloses on Women's Human Rights, February 2005, edited by Kristin Sampson, Alexandra Spieldoch and Maria Riley. 

After 11 years of NAFTA and 10 years of US participation in the WTO with a political emphasis on greater international trade as the engine of economic growth, we must ask the question: Are women in the US benefiting–or being harmed–from current trade and investment policy?   This report focuses on the impact greater international trade, privatization and deregulation are having on USA women, their families and their communities, and tackles the critical issues of job opportunities, wages, access to social services, agriculture and democracy.

Beijing + 10 in light of the North American Free Trade Agreement: How have women fared?, January 2005, Alexandra Spieldoch, USGTN.

Ten years after the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, China, US women in solidarity with their sisters in other parts of the world are struggling to understand what gains were made in the area of the economy – not only for themselves, but their families and their communities. In the US, it is clear that the government has not lived up to its promises in Beijing.   Despite advocacy from national women’s, development, labor and human rights groups, since Beijing the US has done little to incorporate a gender analysis into its macroeconomic policies and into decision-making processes, nor has it acknowledged that its trade policies are having a negative and disproportionate impact on women and children versus men.

NAFTA Through a Gender Lens: What "Free Trade" Pacts Mean for Women, December 2004, Alexandra Spieldoch, USGTN

This article originally appeared in the December 30, 2004 edition of CounterPunch.

After more than 10 years of NAFTA and WTO, one fact stands out: in the area of the macroeconomy, women in the US and abroad have experienced major shifts, many of them negative. These shifts have occurred in employment, consumption, and general well-being for women, their families, and their communities. Some of the shifts can be linked to NAFTA and other free trade agreements, while other trends are part of the long-term privatization and deregulation agenda (implemented in the US since the 1980s) that forms the foundation for much of the US trade agenda in key sectors such as services, agriculture, and investment.

¹This NAFTA overview is from the forthcoming work Trade in the Americas: Women Central to the Debate, by Alexandra Spieldoch, USGTN.

² Robert. E. Scott. “The High Price of ‘Free’ Trade: NAFTA’s Failure Has Cost the United States Jobs Across the Nation.” Economic Policy Institute Briefing Paper. November, 2003.

³ Sarah Anderson and John Cavanagh, “Rethinking the NAFTA Record.” Institute for Policy Studies. August 8, 2002.