Content Marketing & Messaging | LinkedIn

Messaging | LinkedIn:



'via Blog this'

Skip to main content

LinkedIn

• Inbox. You have 242 new messages242

  Messages (242)

  Compose Message

  1. 
     Dec 13

     Alexandra Rynne

     Content Marketing on LinkedIn

     Here is your tactical guide
  2. 
     Dec 11

     LinkedIn Member

     Ce mai faci dragă?
• Notifications. You have 11 unseen notifications11
• Add Connections226
• 

  • 

• Home
• Profile
• Connections
• Jobs
• Interests

Pulse

Publish a post

Dr Olga M. Lazin-Andrei

UCLA Visiting Scholar - Education & Information Studies Dpt.

Following

The European Union And NAFTA Compared: Issues of Integration

Jul 16, 2015

• 139 views
• 7 Likes
• 0 Comments

• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter

Finally I have finished my 3rd book; it took me 7 years to write the last one. The first one is on Smashwords.com. It's title:  U.S. Model for Philanthropy: NAFTA and The European Union Compared is very revealing and can be downloaded from Kindle. The second book, titled Positive And Negative Aspects of Globalization, has been published by UCLA and the University of Guadalajara, in Mexico. Can be downloaded here:http://www.olgalazin.com/books.html

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

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 and failures, 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, despite its shortcomings on the EURO.

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. Hillary Clinton is proposing some positive changes to help labour and environmental laws fortify the agreement. She is running on this platform in 2016. The Trans-Pacific Free Trade Agreement has been approved by Congress this July, 2015, to Barack Obama's credit.

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. Greece has been offered a good deal by the IMF, now that the EU has been shaken up by the possibility of having to let go of Greece, because the country could not pay off its debt in July 16, 15.

The second difference is that NAFTA has the trading edge to expand beyond Mexico into Latin America, using Mexico as a linchpin. 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.

Sumario de provisiones del Tratado de Libre Comercio de America del Norte (TLC) y la UniónEuropea (UE)
TLC	UE
Metas	Un mercado de comercio de bienes	Criterios transnacionalespara crear, paso a paso, una unión política, económicay de población.
Actividad	Cada miembro establecesu propia politico externa sujeta a negociaciones.	El Consejo de Ministros(el principal órgano de toma de decisiones con representaciónde todos los paises) toma decisiones aplicable.s a todos los miembros.
Moneda	Cada miembro tienesu propia moneda.	Los miembros han establecido una unidad monetaria común (el ECU) pero coda paísmantiene aún su propia moneda. Bajo el Tratado de MaastricL, seprogramó que el ECU se volvlera la única unidad moneuriapara 1999
Aranceles	Cada pais conserve sus propias regulaciones arancelaria.	Los miembros se unieron en un sólo mercado a partir del 1 de enero de 1993. Capital,bienes y servicios circulan entre los paises de la UE. Existe el compromiso para abolir los controles de migración interna, pero algunospaises han pospuesto su cumplimiento.
Transporte	Autoriza a camionesy cargueros comunes para circular entre paises. (El tráfico camioneroen cruzará la frontera mexicana libremente para 1999.)	Se establecióuna política común para un bloque sin fronteras y la apertureto total de las rutas de transporte, excepto el tráfico camionero,que está prohibido Los Alpes suizos y austríacos.
Empleo	Los trabajadoresno están incluidos.	Los trabajadores   pueden moverse libremente entre los paises miembros.
MigraciónyCiU adanía	Sólo profesionistas,persona de negocios e inversionistas aenen el derecho de trabajar en losestados miembros.	Los ciudadanos delos paises de la UE tienen garantizada la libertad de movimiento y residencia.Los ciudadanos votan par el Parlamento Europeo en su lugar de residenciasin importer su ciudadanía. Están siendo introducidos pasaportesde color tinto en to da la UE.
Acuerdos de comerciocon otros países no mlembros	No cubiertos.	Los acuerdos de comercio son firmados par la Unión, no por países individuales.
Políticaexterna	No cubierta.	Los miembros estáncomprometidos con una política externa común, pero pocuspaises buscan en realidad su cabal cumplimiento.
Inflacióny administrac ión macroeconómica	No incluidas.	Los pulses miembrosdeben adherirse a los límites máximos.
Competencia y calldad	No cubiertas.	Los miembros acordaronestablecer estrategias comunes para hacer a todos Los países igualmentecompetitivos. Las normac de calidad.son mínimac.
Protecciónal consumidor	No cubierta.	Los miembros seadhieren a regulaciones estándar que están siendo establecidas.
Politica social	No cobierta.	Se aplican criteriosestándar a todos los paises (por ejemplo, la seguridad social).
Legislacion de impuestos	Cubre sóloel Tratado de Doble Impuesto.	Establece una pauta estándar para todos los miembros. Se otorgan privilegios especialespara ayudar en las area económicamente necesitadas tale. como Españay Portugal. Finlandia y Austria se beneficiarán al volverse miembros.
Medio ambiente	Los participantesestán estableciendo estándares comunes en Los tratados Iaterales	Los miembros hanestablecido una política externa de estándares y medidas.
Salud	No cubierta.	Los miembroshan establecido un programa común
Educación	Aunque el TLC esuna unión economica, ha surgido un acuerdo lateral, pero no al mismonivel que para el programa ERASMUS.	Establece programasde intercambio para estudiante de educación superior y profesoresunlversitarios. El programa ERASMUS apoya a los estudiantes que estudienhaste un afio en otro pais de la UE.
Defensa	No cobierta.	Los miembros buscandesarrollar una política común de seguridad. Se ha establecidoun sistema militar común, pero coda pais conserve su propia milicia.

Indicadores de poblacion, produccion y exportacionesde Union Europea 1
Pais	Poblacion (miles)	Producto interno bruto(millones de dolares)	Produtcto interno bruto per capita (dolares)	Proporcion del producto interno bruto dedicadoa la exportacion
Alemania2	80,553	1,846,064	23,030	24
Austria	7,906	174,767	22,110	41
Belgica	10,039	209,594	20,880	73
Dinamarca	5,166	133,941	25,930	37
Espana	39,077	547,947	14,020	17
Finlandia	5,062	116,309	22,980	22
Francia	57,338	1,278,652	22,300	23
Grecia	10,454	75,106	7,180	23
Irlanda	3,536	42,798	12,100	62
Italia	57,844	1,186,568	20,510	20
Luxembourgo	389	13,716	35,260	94
Paises Bajos	15,167	312,340	20,590	54
Portugal	9,843	73,336	7,450	35
Reino Unido	57,701	1,024,769	17,760	24
Suecia	8,707	233,209	26,780	28
15 paises	368,782	7,269,116	19,6583	27c
12 paises	347,107	6,978,040	20,1034	25c

Indicadores de poblacion, produccion y exportaciones de Europa Oriental
Pais	Poblacion (miles)	Producto interno bruto(millones de dolares)	Produtcto interno bruto per capita (dolares)	Proporcion del producto interno bruto dedicadoa la exportacion
Bulgaria	8,952	11,906	1,330	45
Hungria	10,202	30,671	3,010	33
Polonia	38,365	75,268	1,960	19
Republica Checa	10,383	25,313	2,440	58
Republica Slovaca	5,346	10,249	1,920	28
Rumania	22,865	24,865	1,090	28
Total	96,113	178,272	1,854a	305

Indicadores de poblacion, produccion y exportacionesde America del Norte
Pais	Poblacion (miles)	Producto interno bruto(millones de dolares)	Produtcto interno bruto per capita (dolares)	Proporcion del producto interno bruto dedicadoa la exportacion
Canada	27,844	565,787	20,320	25
Estados Unidos	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

Principales bloques de comercio mundial7
Bloque Comercial	Miembros	Poblacion (millones)	Producto interno bruto(millones de dolares)	Produtcto interno bruto per capita (dolares)
TLC	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
Pacto Andino	5	93.8	160.1	1,707
MERCOSUR	4	191.6	544.1	2,840
Union Europea8	15	368.8	7,269.1	19,658
Union Europea	12	345.0	6,144.0	17,809
APEC	13	1,961.0	11,135.1	5,678
TLC
Mexico		83.3	282.5	3,391
Estados Unidos		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
Pacto Andino
Venezuela		20.2	53.4	2,644
MERCOSUR9
Brazil		151.4	414.1	2,735
Chile6		13.4	31.3	2,336
Union Europea
Alemania		79.6	1,692.0	21,256
APEC
Japon		124.0	3,337.0	26,911

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

We will explain here 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.)

Population and economic power index from developed countries (population and economic power index in areas of the world in 2010)
Area	Population/Poblation	GNP	GNP/C
Mexico	33.0	5.0	15.3
Canada	10.8	9.1	84.3
MERCOSUR	75.8	9.7	12.8
Alemania	31.5	30.2	95.7
EU	147.6	131.5	89.1
Japon	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 faltering 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’s 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

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

1. 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.

1. 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.)

1. 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.

1. Continuing Problem: NAFTA Red Flags

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

workers are not included and far from inclusion.

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

Copyright, Olga Lazin, 2015 ----- 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 James W. Wilkie and Olga Lazin, "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

©

To: Visible

Dr Olga M. Lazin-Andrei

UCLA Visiting Scholar - Education & Information Studies Dpt.

United States

Report this

• 

  Written by

  Dr Olga M. Lazin-Andrei

  Following

LikeComment

• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter

7 likes

0 comments

Be the first to comment and start the conversation!

Published by www.bloomberg.com

Wall Street, Techdom and the Hard Truth About Parental Leave

Jan 6, 2016

• 24 Likes
• 1 Comment

• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter

There’s never been a better time to have a baby at Facebook Inc. Or at Netflix Inc. Or Credit Suisse Group AG.

Show full article

• Featured In 
  • Careers: Getting Started, 
  • Careers: The Next Level, 
  • Company Culture, 
  • Editor's Picks

Alexandra Rynne

Content Marketing on LinkedIn

Dear Dr Olga,

Your new plan for driving awareness and revenue on LinkedIn has arrived.

80% of B2B leads come from LinkedIn. Are you missing out on the opportunity to get your brand in front of the 400 million professionals waiting to consume your content?

Our newest mini-eBook, The LinkedIn Content Marketing Tactical Plan, provides a quick, printable plan for driving ROI with LinkedIn Company Pages, SlideShare, Publishing on LinkedIn, LinkedIn Sponsored Updates and LinkedIn Groups.

Download your plan to learn:

What content drives the most engagement on LinkedIn

Action items and time investment needed to succeed with LinkedIn Marketing tools

Insider, research-backed tips from LinkedIn Marketing’s own Content Marketing Manager

No matter what your goals are - brand awareness, thought leadership, or lead generation - this plan will set you down the right path. Let’s dive in, shall we?

Enjoy,

Alexandra Rynne

From Alexandra Rynne today:

Content Marketing on LinkedIn

Dear Dr Olga,

Your new plan for driving awareness and revenue on LinkedIn has arrived.

80% of B2B leads come from LinkedIn. Are you missing out on the opportunity to get your brand in front of the 400 million professionals waiting to consume your content?

Our newest mini-eBook, The LinkedIn Content Marketing Tactical Plan, provides a quick, printable plan for driving ROI with LinkedIn Company Pages, SlideShare, Publishing on LinkedIn, LinkedIn Sponsored Updates and LinkedIn Groups.

Download your plan to learn:

• What content drives the most engagement on LinkedIn
• Action items and time investment needed to succeed with LinkedIn Marketing tools
• Insider, research-backed tips from LinkedIn Marketing’s own Content Marketing Manager

No matter what your goals are - brand awareness, thought leadership, or lead generation - this plan will set you down the right path. Let’s dive in, shall we?

Enjoy,
Alexandra Rynne