U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations:
Trends, Issues, and Implications
M. Angeles Villarreal
Specialist in International Trade and Finance
November 9, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL32934
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications

Summary
The bilateral economic and trade relationship with Mexico is of interest to U.S. policymakers
because of Mexico’s proximity to the United States and because of the strong cultural and
economic ties that connect the two countries. Also, it is of national interest for the United States
to have a prosperous and democratic Mexico as a neighboring country. Mexico is the United
States’ third-largest trading partner, while the United States is, by far, Mexico’s largest trading
partner. Mexico ranks third as a source of U.S. imports, after China and Canada, and second, after
Canada, as an export market for U.S. goods and services. The United States is the largest source
of foreign direct investment (FDI) in Mexico. The 111th Congress has maintained an active
interest in Mexico on issues related to economic conditions, trade issues, counternarcotics,
migration, and border issues.
The United States and Mexico have strong economic ties through the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA), which has been in effect since 1994. Prior to NAFTA, Mexico had
followed a strong protectionist policy for decades until it began to unilaterally liberalize its trade
regime in the late 1980s. Not all trade-related job gains and losses since NAFTA can be entirely
attributed to the agreement because of the numerous factors that affect trade, such as Mexico’s
trade liberalization efforts, economic conditions, and currency fluctuations. NAFTA may have
accelerated the ongoing trade and investment trends that were already taking place at the time.
Most studies show that the net economic effects of NAFTA on both countries have been small but
positive, though there have been adjustment costs to some sectors within both countries.
The current trade issue of most concern to Members of Congress involves NAFTA trucking
provisions. Under NAFTA, Mexican commercial trucks were to have been given full access
throughout the United States by 2000 but the United States did not implement these provisions
due to alleged safety concerns. Mexico objected and a NAFTA dispute resolution panel supported
Mexico’s position in 2001. In 2009, the Mexican government began imposing retaliatory tariffs
on certain U.S. products with a value of $2.4 billion in exports to Mexico. Numerous Members of
Congress continue to oppose the implementation of the trucking provisions because they are
concerned about the safety of Mexican trucks in the United States, while others support a
resolution to the issue. They argue that Mexico’s retaliatory tariffs are having strong negative
effects on local U.S. industries and affecting U.S. jobs, especially in the agricultural sectors. They
also argue that the United States is in violation of NAFTA by not implementing these provisions.
Also of interest to many policymakers are the economic disparity between the two countries and
migration issues. The United States and Mexico have been involved in ongoing efforts to address
economic prosperity and regulatory economic cooperation. During the 2009 North American
Leaders Summit in Guadalajara, Mexico, President Barack Obama met with Mexican President
Felipe Calderón and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to discuss issues of prosperity and
security in North America. In May 2010, Mexican President Calderón made a state visit to the
United States in which he emphasized the need for increased cooperation in North America to
increase the competitiveness of the region. In a meeting hosted by President Obama, the two
leaders reaffirmed their shared values and the need for focusing on economic growth. They
vowed to enhance and reinforce efforts to create jobs, promote economic recovery and expansion,
and encourage prosperity across all levels of society in both countries. President Obama
underscored his commitment to comprehensive immigration reform in the United States while
President Calderón stated that his administration was committed to creating more job and
educational opportunities in Mexico.
Congressional Research Service

---

U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
U.S.-Mexico Economic Trends.................................................................................................... 1
Mexico-U.S. Bilateral Foreign Direct Investment .................................................................. 5
Mexico’s Export-Oriented Assembly Plants........................................................................... 7
Mexico’s Regulations for Manufacturing Plants .............................................................. 7
Plants and Employment Levels........................................................................................ 8
Worker Remittances to Mexico ............................................................................................. 8
Economic Regulatory Cooperation...................................................................................... 10
The Mexican Economy ............................................................................................................. 11
History of Economic Reforms ............................................................................................. 11
Effects of the Global Financial Crisis .................................................................................. 13
Poverty in Mexico............................................................................................................... 15
Mexico’s Regional Free Trade Agreements.......................................................................... 16
NAFTA and the U.S.-Mexico Economic Relationship ............................................................... 16
Effects on the U.S. Economy............................................................................................... 17
Effects on the Mexican Economy ........................................................................................ 18
Major Issues in U.S.-Mexico Trade Relations ............................................................................ 20
Mexico Trucking Issue........................................................................................................ 20
U.S. Pilot Program for Mexican Trucks ......................................................................... 21
Mexico’s Retaliatory Tariffs and Efforts in the United States to Resolve the Issue.......... 22
Other Trade Issues .............................................................................................................. 23
Policy Issues ............................................................................................................................. 24

Figures
Figure 1. U.S. Merchandise Trade with Mexico........................................................................... 3
Figure 2. GDP Growth Rates for the United States and Mexico ................................................. 14

Tables
Table 1. Key Economic Indicators for Mexico and the United States ........................................... 2
Table 2. U.S. Imports from Mexico: 2003-2009........................................................................... 4
Table 3. U.S. Exports to Mexico: 2003-2009 ............................................................................... 5
Table 4. U.S.- Mexican Foreign Direct Investment Positions: 1994-2009 Historical Cost
Basis........................................................................................................................................ 5
Table 5. Percent Changes in Remittances to Mexico .................................................................... 9

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 27
Congressional Research Service

---

U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications

Introduction
The bilateral economic relationship with Mexico is of key interest to the United States because of
Mexico’s proximity and because of strong cultural and economic ties between the two countries.
Mexico has a population of 111 million people, making it the most populous Spanish-speaking
country in the world and the third-most populous country in the Western Hemisphere (after the
United States and Brazil). The economic relationship with Mexico has strengthened considerably
under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), with trade between the two countries
more than tripling since the agreement was implemented. Through NAFTA, the United States,
Mexico, and Canada form the world’s largest free trade area, with about one-third the world’s
total gross domestic product (GDP).
The United States and Mexico share many common interests related to trade, investment, and
regulatory cooperation and are closely tied in other areas as well. The two countries share a 2,000
mile border and have extensive interconnections through the Gulf of Mexico. There are links
through migration, tourism, environment issues, health concerns, and family and cultural
relationships.1 The economic relationship with Mexico is important to U.S. national interests and
to the U.S. Congress for many reasons. The 111th Congress has maintained an active interest in
Mexico on issues related to counternarcotics, economic conditions, migration, trade, and border
issues. Comprehensive immigration reform was debated early in the 110th Congress. While
President Barack Obama has affirmed his support for comprehensive immigration reform
legislation that includes increased enforcement as well as a pathway to legal residence for certain
unauthorized residents, the 111th Congress has not considered immigration reform legislation.
This report provides an overview of U.S.-Mexico trade and economic trends, the Mexican
economy, the effects of NAFTA, and major trade issues between the United States and Mexico.
U.S.-Mexico Economic Trends
The size of the Mexican economy is much smaller than that of the United States. Mexico’s gross
domestic product (GDP) was an estimated $875 billion in 2009, about 6% of U.S. GDP of $14.3
trillion. The Mexican economy is very much tied to the U.S. economy because of Mexico’s
reliance on the United States as an export market and the relative importance of exports to its
overall economic performance. Exports accounted for 26% of Mexico’s GDP in 2009 (see Table
1). The United States is, by far, Mexico’s most important partner in trade and investment, while
Mexico is the United States third-largest trade partner after China and Canada. Many economists
have focused much attention on the ongoing transformation of Mexico into a manufacturing-for-
export nation since the late 1980s and the importance of exports to its economy. After oil and gas,
most of Mexico’s exports are manufactured goods. Over 80% of Mexico’s exports are headed to
the United States.

1 For more information on issues related to Mexico, see CRS Report RL32724, Mexico-U.S. Relations: Issues for
Congress, by Clare Ribando Seelke.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications

Table 1. Key Economic Indicators for Mexico and the United States
Mexico
United
States
1999
2009a 1999 2009a
Population (millions)
99 111 279 307
Nominal GDP (US$ billions)b 520
875
9,354
14,258
GDP, PPPc Basis (US$ billions) 969
1,611
9,354 14,258
Per Capita GDP (US$)
5,277
7,870
33,520
46,480
Per Capita GDP in $PPPs 9,825
14,480 33,520 46,480
Total Merchandise Exports (US$ billions)
136 230 696
1,057
Exports as % of GDPd
28% 26% 11% 11%
Total Merchandise Imports (US$ billions)
142 234 1,025 1,558
Imports as % of GDPd
30% 29% 13% 14%
Public
Debt/GDP
44% 39% 39% 47%
Source: Compiled by CRS based on data from Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) online database.
a. Some figures for 2009 are estimates.
b. Nominal GDP is calculated by EIU based on figures from World Bank and World Development Indicators.
c. PPP refers to purchasing power parity, which reflects the purchasing power of foreign currencies in U.S.
dollars.
d. Exports and Imports as % of GDP derived by EIU.
Mexico’s reliance on the United States as a trade partner appears to be diminishing, although
slightly. Between 2004 and 2009, the U.S. share of Mexico’s total imports decreased from 56% to
48%, while the share of total Mexican exports going to the United States decreased from 89% to
81%. Mexico’s share of the U.S. market has lost ground since 2002. In 2003, China surpassed
Mexico as a top supplier of U.S. imports, and Mexico now ranks third, after China and Canada, as
a source of U.S. imports. Because over 80% of Mexico’s exports are destined for the United
States, any change in U.S. demand can have strong economic consequences in Mexican industrial
sectors. The recent downturn in the world economy has caused a decline in U.S.-Mexico trade.
Mexico ranks second among U.S. export markets and is the United States’ third-largest trading
partner in terms of total trade. In 2009, about 12% of total U.S. merchandise exports were
destined for Mexico and 11% of U.S. merchandise imports came from Mexico. The downturn in
the U.S. and Mexican economies that resulted from the global financial crisis has resulted in
significant decreases in trade between the two countries. U.S. exports to Mexico decreased 19.6%
in 2009, while imports from Mexico decreased by 18.5%. For Mexico, the United States is a
much more significant trading partner. About 81% of Mexico’s exports go to the United States
and 48% of Mexico’s imports come from the United States. Mexico’s second-largest trading
partner is China, accounting for approximately 6% of Mexico’s exports and imports.2
Although some of the increase in U.S.-Mexico trade since the 1990s could be attributable to
NAFTA, there are other variables that affect trade, such as exchange rates and economic

2 Data compiled by CRS using Global Trade Atlas database.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications

conditions. Mexico’s currency crisis of 1995 limited the purchasing power of the Mexican people
in the years that followed and also made products from Mexico less expensive for the U.S.
market. Economic factors such as these played a role in the increasing U.S. trade deficit with
Mexico, which went from a $1.4 billion surplus in 1994 to a $90.8 billion deficit in 2007. Since
then, however, the deficit has fallen to $70.6 billion in 2009 (see Figure 1). U.S. imports from
Mexico increased from $85.0 billion in 1997 to $216.3 billion in 2008 but then decreased to
$176.3 billion in 2009. U.S. exports to Mexico increased from $68.4 billion in 1997 to $131.5
billion in 2008; exports then decreased to $105.7 billion in 2009.
Figure 1. U.S. Merchandise Trade with Mexico
(U.S. $ in billions)
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
U.S. Exports
U.S. Imports
Trade Balance

Source: Compiled by CRS using USITC Interactive Tariff and Trade data.
Several studies between 2003 and 2004 on the effects of NAFTA found that U.S. trade deficits
with Mexico were largely driven by macroeconomic trends, and, in the case of U.S.-Mexico
trade, caused by the respective business cycles in Mexico and the United States.3 Strong U.S.
growth in the 1990s, combined with Mexico’s deep recession in 1995, were the main factors cited
for the large deficits. None of the studies attributed the peso crisis to NAFTA, but to structural
misalignments in the Mexican economy combined with political events.4
The leading U.S. import items from Mexico in 2009 were oil and gas, which amounted to $21.16
billion, or 12% of total U.S. imports from Mexico (see Table 2). Oil and gas imports from

3See CRS Report RS21737, NAFTA at Ten: Lessons from Recent Studies, by J. F. Hornbeck.
4 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications

Mexico decreased by 44.2% in 2009. The next leading import items were motor vehicles ($18.41
billion); audio/video equipment ($15.63 billion); motor vehicle parts ($15.35 billion); and
communications equipment ($12.84 billion). All leading imports from Mexico fell in 2009. The
leading U.S. export item to Mexico in 2009 was motor vehicle parts, which amounted to $8.8
billion, or 8% of total exports to Mexico (see Table 3). U.S. motor vehicle parts exports to
Mexico decreased 12.5% in 2009. The next leading export items were petroleum and coal
products ($6.60 billion); basic chemicals ($6.17 billion); resin, synthetic rubber and related
products ($4.91 billion); and oilseeds and grains ($4.17 billion). All leading exports to Mexico
decreased markedly in 2009, as shown in Table 3. U.S. trade data show that Mexico’s exports to
the United States from January-June 2010 are up 38.2% and imports from the United States are
up 30.0% year-on-year.
The immigration issue has received much attention by political leaders in recent years, and it is
one that can be linked to the economic situation in Mexico, although it has social and political
aspects as well. In March 2008, there were approximately 12 million unauthorized immigrants
living in the United States, with 59% from Mexico.5 Economic conditions in Mexico and other
countries, such as poverty and unemployment, are a major factor related to the migration issue.
These workers often send money to their families in Mexico to help provide food and shelter.
Table 2. U.S. Imports from Mexico: 2003-2009
(U.S. $ in billions)
%
Change
Leading Items
2008-
(NAIC 4-digit)
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2009
Oil and Gas
13.67
17.23
22.48
29.38
30.27
37.93
21.16
-44.2
Motor
Vehicles
19.03 18.77 18.36
23.24
23.08
22.02 18.41 -16.4
Audio/Video
6.91 8.18 9.87
13.89
17.06
17.84 15.63 -12.4
Equipment
Motor Vehicle
15.99 17.82 19.33
20.81
22.65
20.58 15.35 -25.4
Parts
Communications
5.98 7.45 7.34
8.73
13.06
12.99 12.84 -1.2
Equipment
Other
75.62 85.51 91.84
101.01
104.04
104.97 92.92 -11.5
Total
137.20 154.96 169.22
197.06
210.16
216.33 176.31 -18.5
Source: Compiled by CRS using USITC Interactive Tariff and Trade DataWeb at http://dataweb.usitc.gov:
NAIC4-digit level.
Note: Nominal U.S. dollars.

5 Pew Hispanic Center, Trends in Unauthorized Immigration: Undocumented Inflow Now Trails Legal Inflow, October
2, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications

Table 3. U.S. Exports to Mexico: 2003-2009
(U.S. $ in billions)
%
Change
Leading Items
2007-
(NAIC 4-digit)
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2008
Motor Vehicle
7.11 7.55 7.39
8.60
9.40
10.06 8.80 -12.5
Parts
Petroleum and
2.31 2.78 4.73
4.98
5.66
9.63 6.60 -31.5
Coal Products
Basic
Chemicals
3.35 4.43 5.01
5.74
6.50
7.16 6.17 -13.8
Resin, Synthetic
2.94 3.57 4.51
5.37
5.43
5.95 4.91 -17.4
Rubber & Related
Products
Oilseeds and
2.61 2.58 2.52
3.05
3.97
5.94 4.17 -29.8
Grains
Other
64.79 72.11 77.51
86.82
88.42
92.77 75.07 -19.08
Total
83.11 93.02 101.67
114.56
119.38
131.51 105.72 -19.6
Source: Compiled by CRS using USITC Interactive Tariff and Trade DataWeb at http://dataweb.usitc.gov:
NAIC4-digit level.
Note: Nominal U.S. dollars.
Mexico-U.S. Bilateral Foreign Direct Investment
Foreign direct investment (FDI) has been an integral part of the economic relationship between
the United States and Mexico since NAFTA implementation. FDI consists of investments in real
estate, manufacturing plants, and retail facilities, in which the foreign investor owns 10% or more
of the entity. The United States is the largest source of FDI in Mexico. U.S. FDI on a historical
cost basis in Mexico increased from $17 billion in 1994 to $97.9 billion in 2009, a 477% increase
(see Table 4).
Mexican FDI in the United States is much lower than U.S. investment in Mexico, with levels of
Mexican FDI fluctuating over the last 10 years. In 2009, Mexican FDI in the United States totaled
$11.4 billion (see Table 4).
Table 4. U.S.- Mexican Foreign Direct Investment Positions:
1994-2009 Historical Cost Basis
(U.S. $ in millions)
Year
Mexican FDI in the U.S.
U.S. FDI in Mexico
1994 2,069 16,968
1995 1,850 16,873
1996 1,641 19,351
1997 3,100 24,050
1998 2,055 26,657
Congressional Research Service
5

---

U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications

Year
Mexican FDI in the U.S.
U.S. FDI in Mexico
1999 1,999 37,151
2000 7,462 39,352
2001 6,645 52,544
2002 7,829 56,303
2003 9,022 56,851
2004 7,592 63,384
2005 3,595 73,687
2006 5,310 82,965
2007 7,688 91,046
2008 9,444 89,610
2009 11,361 97,897
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
The sharp rise in U.S. investment in Mexico since NAFTA implementation is also a result of the
liberalization of Mexico’s restrictions on foreign investment in the late 1980s and the early 1990s.
Prior to the mid-1980s, Mexico had a very protective policy that restricted foreign investment and
controlled the exchange rate to encourage domestic growth, affecting the entire industrial sector.
Mexico’s trade liberalization measures and economic reform in the late 1980s represented a sharp
shift in policy and helped bring in a steady increase of FDI flows into Mexico. NAFTA provisions
on foreign investment helped to lock in the reforms and increase investor confidence. Under
NAFTA, Mexico gave U.S. and Canadian investors nondiscriminatory treatment of their
investments as well as investor protection. NAFTA may have encouraged U.S. FDI in Mexico by
increasing investor confidence, but much of the growth may have occurred anyway because
Mexico likely would have continued to liberalize its foreign investment laws with or without the
agreement.
Nearly half of total FDI investment in Mexico is in the manufacturing industry of which the
maquiladora industry forms a major part. (See “Mexico’s Export-Oriented Assembly Plants”
below.) In Mexico, the industry has helped attract investment from countries such as the United
States that have a relatively large amount of capital. Therefore, Mexico is able to attract some of
the foreign direct investment it was seeking when it liberalized trade and investment barriers. For
the United States, the industry is important because U.S. companies are able to locate their labor-
intensive operations in Mexico and lower their labor costs in the overall production process.
Many economists believe that maquiladoras are an important part of U.S. corporate strategy in
achieving competitively priced goods in the world marketplace.6 Other analysts are concerned
that the industry has caused U.S. companies to move their manufacturing facilities to Mexico at
the expense of U.S. workers.

6 Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, “The Binational Importance of the Maquiladora Industry,” Southwest Economy Issue
6, November/December 1999.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications

Mexico’s Export-Oriented Assembly Plants
Mexico’s export-oriented assembly plants are closely linked to U.S.-Mexico trade in various
labor-intensive industries such as auto parts and electronic goods. These export-oriented plants
generate a large amount of trade with the United States and a majority of the plants have U.S.
parent companies. Foreign-owned assembly plants, which originated under Mexico’s
maquiladora program in the 1960s,7 account for a substantial share of Mexico’s trade with the
United States. The border region with the United States has the highest concentration of assembly
plants and workers. The Mexican cities with the highest manufacturing activity as of December
2009 were the Mexican border cities of Tijuana, Baja California, 590 plants with 136,957
employees, and Cd. Juárez, Chihuahua, 339 plants with 168,011 employees.8 Prior to NAFTA, a
maquiladora was limited to selling up to 50% of the previous year’s export production to the
domestic market. Most maquiladoras export the majority of their production to the U.S. market.
Private industry groups have stated that these operations help U.S. companies remain competitive
in the world marketplace by producing goods at competitive prices. In addition, the proximity of
Mexico to the United States allows production to have a high degree of U.S. content in the final
product, which could help sustain jobs in the United States. Critics of these types of operations
argue that they have a negative effect on the economy because they take jobs from the United
States and help depress the wages of low-skilled U.S. workers.
Some observers believe that the correlation in maquiladora growth after 1993 is directly due to
NAFTA, but in reality it was a combination of factors that contributed to growth. Trade
liberalization, wages, and economic conditions, both in the United States and Mexico, all affected
the growth of Mexican export-oriented assembly plants. Although some provisions in NAFTA
may have encouraged growth in certain sectors, manufacturing activity has been more influenced
by the strength of the U.S. economy and relative wages in Mexico.
Mexico’s Regulations for Manufacturing Plants
Changes in Mexican regulations on export-oriented industries after NAFTA merged the
maquiladora industry and Mexican domestic assembly-for-export plants into one program called
the Maquiladora Manufacturing Industry and Export Services (IMMEX). In 2001, the North
American rules of origin determined the duty-free status for a given import and replaced the
previous special tariff provisions that applied only to maquiladora operations. The initial
maquiladora program ceased to exist and the same trade rules applied to all assembly operations
in Mexico.

7 Mexico’s export-oriented industries began with the maquiladora program established in the 1960s by the Mexican
government, which allowed foreign-owned businesses to set up assembly plants in Mexico to produce for export.
Maquiladoras could import intermediate materials duty-free with the condition that 20% of the final product be
exported. The percentage of sales allowed to the domestic market increased over time as Mexico liberalized its trade
regime. U.S. tariff treatment of maquiladora imports played a significant role in the industry. Under HTS provisions
9802.00.60 and 9802.00.80, the portion of an imported good that was of U.S.-origin entered the United States duty-
free. Duties were assessed only on the value added abroad. After NAFTA, North American rules of origin determine
duty-free status. Recent changes in Mexican regulations on export-oriented industries merged the maquiladora industry
and Mexican domestic assembly-for-export plants into one program called the Maquiladora Manufacturing Industry
and Export Services (IMMEX).
8 Data from Mexico’s Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI).
Congressional Research Service
7

---

U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications

NAFTA rules for the maquiladora industry were implemented in two phases, with the first phase
covering the period 1994-2000, and the second phase starting in 2001. During the initial phase,
NAFTA regulations continued to allow the maquiladora industry to import products duty-free into
Mexico, regardless of the country of origin of the products. This phase also allowed maquiladora
operations to increase maquiladora sales into the domestic market. Phase II made a significant
change to the industry in that the new North American rules of origin determined duty-free status
for U.S. and Canadian products exported to Mexico for maquiladoras. The elimination of duty-
free imports by maquiladoras from non-NAFTA countries under NAFTA caused some initial
uncertainty for the companies with maquiladora operations. Maquiladoras that were importing
from third countries, such as Japan or China, would have to pay applicable tariffs on those goods
under the new rules.
Mexico had another program for export-oriented assembly plants called the Program for
Temporary Imports to Promote Exports (PITEX) that was established in 1990 to allow qualifying
domestic producers to compete with maquiladoras. In 2007, a new set of government regulations
on export-oriented industries merged the maquiladora industry and PITEX plants into the
Maquiladora Manufacturing Industry and Export Services, or IMMEX. Industry data regarding
Mexico’s export-oriented assembly plants no longer distinguish maquiladora plants from other
Mexican manufacturing plants.9
Plants and Employment Levels
The number of maquiladora plants expanded rapidly in the 1990s after NAFTA implementation.
Plants increased from 1,920 at the end of 1990 to 3,590 in 2000, and then fell to 2,860 in 2003.
Between 2004 and 2007, the last year maquiladoras were classified as such by the Mexican
government, the number of plants stayed at approximately the same level, about 2,819.10 After
July 2007, the Mexican government published statistics for all manufacturing plants in Mexico
under the IMMEX program (which combined maquiladora data with other manufacturing).
The recent downturn in the Mexican economy, combined with the increased violence along the
U.S.-Mexico border, has hurt the manufacturing industry, and many IMMEX plants have shut
down as a result. In Cd. Juárez, Chihuahua, the city with the highest number of jobs in export
assembly plants, IMMEX employment decreased from 214,272 in July 2007 to 168,011 in
December 2009, a loss of 46,261 jobs (22% decrease). In Tijuana, Baja California, employment
decreased from 174,105 in July 2007 to 136,957 in December 2009, a loss of 37,148 jobs (21%
decrease). The total number of IMMEX plants in Mexico increased from 5,083 in July 2007 to
5,245 in December 2009. However, employment decreased from 1,910,112 million in July 2007
to 1,641,465 in December 2009, a loss of 268,647 jobs (14% decrease).11
Worker Remittances to Mexico
Remittances are the second-highest source of foreign currency for Mexico, after oil and tourism.
Most worker remittances to Mexico come from workers in the United States who send money

9 Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, “Spotlight: Maquiladora Data, Mexican Reform Clouds View of Key Industry,”
Southwest Economy, Issue 3, May/June 2007.
10 Based on data from INEGI, at http://www.inegi.org.mx.
11 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications

back to their relatives in Mexico. Mexico receives the largest amount of remittances in Latin
America and the third-largest in the world, after India and China. On January 27, 2010, the Banco
de México, Mexico’s Central Bank, reported that remittance inflows fell 16.0% in 2009 to $21.1
billion. The decline in remittances is at least partially due to the global financial crisis and the
slowdown in the U.S. economy as the rising jobless rate has taken a toll on Mexican immigrants
in the United States. Mexico’s close economic ties to the United States, particularly in the housing
and services sectors, which have both been negatively affected by the financial crisis, contributed
to the decline. Approximately 239,000 immigrant Hispanics lost their jobs in 2008, with almost
100,000 of these jobs in the construction industry, according to one estimate.12
For a number of years, remittances were considered a stable financial flow for Mexico as workers
in the United States made efforts to send money to family members, especially to regions of the
country experiencing economic crises or natural disasters. Annual remittances to Mexico grew
substantially between 2001 and 2008, from $8.9 billion to $25.1 billion, an increase of 182.0%.
The annual growth rate reached a high of 26.3% in 2003, then continued at a slower rate until
2009 (see Table 5). There is an interrelationship between remittances to Mexico and economic
growth in the United States, such as 2004 and 2005, in which the U.S. economy grew by 3.6%
and 3.1%, respectively, but not much is known about the extent of this relationship.13 Although
the relationship between GDP growth and the level or remittances is not very clear, the Mexican
government attributed the 2009 decline to the global financial crisis.14
Table 5. Percent Changes in Remittances to Mexico
(U.S. $ in billions)

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Amount
8.9
10.5 13.3
16.6
20.0
23.7
24.0 25.1
21.1
% Change
—
18.5%
26.3%
25.2%
20.6%
18.5%
1.0%
4.9%
-16.0%
Source: Compiled by CRS using data from the Inter-American Development Bank, The Multilateral
Investment Fund.
Worker remittance flows to Mexico have an important impact on the Mexican economy, in some
regions more than others. Some studies on remittance flows to Mexico report that in southern
Mexican states, remittances mostly or completely cover general consumption and/or housing.
One study estimates that 80% of the money received by households goes for food, clothing,
health care, and other household expenses. Another study estimates that remittances in Mexico
are responsible for about 27%, and up to 40% in some cases, of the capital invested in
microenterprises throughout urban Mexico.15 The economic impact of remittance flows is

12 Joel Millman, “Remittances to Mexico Fall More than Forecast,” Wall Street Journal, January 28, 2009, p. A3.
13 Migration Policy Institute, Migration Facts, “Variable Impacts: State-level Analysis of the Slowdown in the Growth
of Remittances to Mexico,” September 2007.
14 E. Eduardo Castillo, “Mexico Sees Record 15.7 percent Annual Drop in Money Sent Home by Migrants,” Associated
Press, January 27, 2010.
15 The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas report “Workers’ Remittances to Mexico” (2004) evaluated the economic
impact of worker remittances to Mexico and cites a number of reports by the World Bank and the Mexican
government.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications

concentrated in the poorer states of Mexico. The government has sponsored programs to channel
the funds directly to infrastructure and investment rather than consumption.16
Economic Regulatory Cooperation
At the 2009 North American Leaders Summit in Guadalajara, Mexico, President Barack Obama
met with Mexican President Felipe Calderón and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to
discuss issues of prosperity and security in North America. The three leaders renewed their
commitment to regulatory cooperation by instructing ministers to build upon previous efforts,
develop focused priorities, and form a specific time line. The three countries confirmed their
commitment to regulatory cooperation at an October 2009 meeting of the Free Trade Commission
(FTC).
The ongoing efforts to increase North American cooperation began with the Security and
Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), a trilateral government initiative launched in
March 2005. The main goal was to increase and enhance prosperity in the United States, Mexico,
and Canada through regulatory cooperation. Though the SPP forum, which began under the Bush
Administration, is no longer active, much of the prior work on the underlying issues is continuing
under the Obama Administration.
The SPP was endorsed by all three countries, but it was not a signed agreement or treaty and,
therefore, contained no legally binding commitments or obligations. It could, at best, be
characterized as an endeavor to facilitate communication and cooperation across several key
policy areas of mutual interest. Although the SPP built upon the existing trade and economic
relationship of the three countries, it was not part of NAFTA. The efforts to increase North
American cooperation under the SPP were not an effort to create a common market in North
America. Such a move would require a government approval process within each of the three
countries.
Efforts to increase North American regulatory cooperation have mostly focused on the
recommendations of special working groups created under the SPP. The latest recommendations
came in 2008 when the groups agreed to continue to identify and focus on a set of high priority
initiatives to: 1) increase the competitiveness of North American businesses and economies
through more compatible regulations; 2) make borders smarter and more secure by coordinating
long-term infrastructure plans, enhancing services, and reducing bottlenecks and congestion at
major border crossings; 3) strengthen energy security and protect the environment by developing
a framework for harmonization of energy efficiency standards and sharing technical information;
4) improve access to safe food, and health and consumer products by increasing cooperation and
information sharing on the safety of food and products; and 5) improve the North American
response to emergencies by updating bilateral agreements to enable government authorities from
the three countries to help each other more quickly and efficiently during times of crisis.
North American efforts related to increasing prosperity within the region have mainly consisted
of increasing cooperation in information sharing, harmonization of standards, productivity
improvement, reductions in the costs of trade, and enhancement of the quality of life. The three
countries have also addressed the need to enhance North American competitiveness through

16 Ibid., p. 4.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications

compatible regulations and standards that would help them protect health, safety and the
environment, as well as to facilitate trade in goods and services across borders.
Some critics of the Obama Administration’s efforts on North American regulatory cooperation
contend that it is a continuation of President Bush’s SPP initiative and an attempt to create a
common market or economic union in North America. Others contend that past efforts under the
SPP were contributing to the creation of a so-called “NAFTA Superhighway” that would link the
United States, Mexico, and Canada with a “super-corridor”. Proponents of North American
competitiveness and security cooperation view the initiatives as constructive to addressing issues
of mutual interest and benefit for all three countries. Business groups generally support increased
North American cooperation and believe that it is necessary to enhance the competitiveness of
U.S. businesses in the global market.
The U.S. government has made no plans to pursue a “North American Union” with Mexico and
Canada. Neither has the federal government made any plans to build a “NAFTA Superhighway,”
nor for a super-corridor initiative of any sort. Further, no legal authority exists and no funds have
been appropriated to construct such a superhighway. If the United States were to potentially
consider the formation of a customs union or common market with its North American neighbors,
it would require approval by the U.S. Congress.
The Mexican Economy
Mexico has a free market economy with a strong export sector, but this has not always been the
case. The transformation of Mexico into an export-based economy began in the late 1980s when
the government started to liberalize its trade policy and adopt economic reform measures. The
Mexican economy is highly sensitive to economic developments in the United States because of
its dependence on the United States as an export market. The state of the Mexican economy is
also important to the United States, because of the close trade and investment ties between the
two countries, and because of other social and political issues that could be affected by economic
conditions, particularly those related to social stability and immigration.
History of Economic Reforms
In the late 1980s and early into the 1990s, the Mexican government implemented a series of
measures to restructure the economy that included steps toward trade liberalization. For many
years, Mexico had protectionist trade policies to encourage industrial growth in the domestic
economy, but the policies did not have the expected positive results on industrial growth. The
1980s in Mexico were marked by inflation and a declining standard of living. After the 1982 debt
crisis in which the Mexican government was unable to meet its foreign debt obligations, the
country began experiencing a number of economic challenges. Much of the government’s effort
in addressing the challenges was placed on privatizing state industries and moving toward trade
liberalization. Efforts included privatization of sea ports, railroads, telecommunications,
electricity, natural gas distribution and airports. The negotiation and implementation of NAFTA
played a major role in Mexico’s changing economic policy in the early 1990s.
Mexico’s economic reforms initially attracted a large amount of private foreign investment, but
by 1993 the inflow of foreign capital began to slow down. By the end of 1994, Mexico faced a
currency crisis, putting pressure on the government to abandon its previous fixed exchange rate
Congressional Research Service
11

---

U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications

policy and adopt a floating exchange rate regime. As a result, Mexico’s currency plunged by
around 50% within six months, sending the country into a deep recession.17 Several factors
influenced the decision to float the peso: overspending in the economy had generated a significant
current account deficit; the Mexican government had accumulated large levels of debt with
insufficient reserves; and the banking system was facing a crisis due to overexposure.18 Mexico’s
finance minister at the time, Guillermo Ortiz, stated later that Mexico had “no choice” but to float
the peso because the government had run out of reserves.19
In the aftermath of the 1994 devaluation, Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo took several steps to
restructure the economy and lessen the impact of the currency crisis among the more
disadvantaged sectors of the economy. The goal was to create conditions for economic activity so
that the economy could adjust in the shortest time possible. The United States and the IMF
assisted the Mexican government by putting together an emergency financial support package of
up to $50 billion, with most of the money coming from the U.S. Treasury. The Zedillo
Administration wanted to demonstrate its commitment to fulfill all its financial obligations
without a default on its debt by adopting tight monetary and fiscal policies to reduce inflation and
absorb some of the costs of the banking sector crisis. The austerity plan included an increase in
the value-added tax, budget cuts, increases in electricity and gasoline prices to decrease demand
and government subsidies, and tighter monetary policy.20
Following the lead of former President Ernesto Zedillo, former President Vicente Fox continued
efforts to liberalize trade, privatize government enterprises, and deregulate the economy. Through
tighter monetary and fiscal policies, the Fox Administration was able to decrease the fiscal deficit,
control inflation, and help economic growth.
The peso steadily depreciated through the end of the 1990s, which led to greater exports and
helped the country’s exporting industries. However, the peso devaluation also resulted in a
decline in real income, hurting the poorest segments of the population and also the newly
emerging middle class. NAFTA and the change in the Mexican economy to an export-based
economy helped to soften the impact of the currency devaluation.
After a real decline in GDP of 6.22% in 1995, the Mexican economy managed to grow 5%-6% in
each of the three years to 1998. The combination of a stronger peso and the slowdown in the U.S.
economy in 2001, which worsened after the September 11 terrorist attacks, hit Mexico’s economy
hard. Real GDP growth dropped from 6.2% in 2000 to -0.16% in 2001. Improving economic
conditions in the United States helped Mexico’s economy improve as well. Real GDP growth in
2004 was 4.37%, up from 1.41% in 2003 and 0.81% in 2002 (see Figure 2). Real GDP went from
a 4.8% growth rate in 2006 to a contraction of 6.9% in 2009.

17 The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), “Mexico Finance: The Peso Crisis, Ten Years On,” January 3, 2005.
18 Agustín G. Carstens and Alejandro M. Werner, “Mexico’s Monetary Policy Framework Under a Floating Exchange
Rate Regime,” Banco de México, May 1999.
19 EIU, “Mexico Economy: Mexico Begins to See Benefits of Free-Floating Peso,” December 20, 2004.
20 Joachim Zietz, “Why Did the Peso Collapse? Implications for American Trade,” Global Commerce, Volume 1, No.
1, Summer 1995.
Congressional Research Service
12

---

U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications

Effects of the Global Financial Crisis
The global financial crisis, and the subsequent downturn in the U.S. economy, resulted in the
sharpest economic contraction in the Mexican economy in twenty years. It is estimated to have
contracted by 6.6% in 2009, as shown in Table 1, while the Mexican peso depreciated against the
dollar by 25%.21 Mexican merchandise exports to the United States decreased sharply. Mexico
also experienced liquidity problems and a loss in investor confidence as a result of large losses on
corporate foreign exchange positions in 2008, in addition to the uncertainty over the outbreak of
the H1N1 virus in mid-2009.22 Mexico’s policy measures in response to the crisis and its prior
economic performance have helped the economy begin to recover and the exchange rate to
improve. Estimates for 2010 project that the economy will grow by about 3% to 4% and that
domestic demand will also improve, though not significantly. The recovery is also due to an
increase in external demand, which has driven up manufacturing exports, rather than from
internal demand.23 Sectors of the economy that depend significantly on domestic demand, such as
utilities, construction, and retail, are struggling, though an improvement is expected in coming
months. The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) projects GDP growth at 2.7% for 2011.24

21 International Monetary Fund (IMF), “IMF Executive Board Concludes 2010 Article IV Consultation with Mexico,”
Public Information Notice (PIN) No. 10/39, March 16, 2010, p. 2.
22 Ibid.
23 EIU, ViewsWire, “Mexico economy: Externally driven rebound,” May 17, 2010.
24 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
13

---

U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications

Figure 2. GDP Growth Rates for the United States and Mexico

Source: Economist Intelligence Unit.
Mexico experienced the deepest recession in the Latin America region following the crisis. This
is largely due to its high dependence on manufacturing exports and its ties to the U.S. economy,
though other factors have also contributed. Other Latin American countries have experienced
negative economic consequences from the global financial crisis, but to a lesser extent. In Central
America, the economy of Honduras was the most affected, with a contraction of 4.4%. Economic
growth in most South American countries was affected by the crisis, but because most of these
countries were experiencing high levels of growth prior to the crisis, the effect was not as severe.
Paraguay was the country most adversely affected in South America, with a -3.8% change in real
GDP.
President Calderón of Mexico has implemented a number of measures to help cushion the
Mexican economy from the fallout of the global economic crisis and the onset of recession in the
United States. Mexico’s policy measures in response to the crisis and its prior economic
performance have helped the economy begin to recover and the exchange rate to improve.25
Mexico’s Central Bank made substantial interventions to stabilize conditions in the foreign
exchange market and secured lines of credit through the U.S. Federal Reserve swap line and the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) to improve confidence in the economy. The IMF set up
flexible credit lines to help countries deal with the effects of the global recession and provided a
credit line of $48 billion for Mexico in 2009, which was set to expire in April 2010. The IMF

25 IMF, “IMF Executive Board Concludes 2010 Article IV Consultation with Mexico,” PIN No. 10/39, March
16, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
14

---

U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications

renewed the $48 billion credit line for Mexico on March 25, 2010, to protect against possible
market turmoil.26 Mexico indicated that it does not intend to draw on the resources, but sought the
renewal to provide confidence to investors and financial markets in the event that global
conditions were to deteriorate.27
The Mexican government has also taken a series of measures to strengthen the economy. The
FY2010 budget included a substantive tax reform that was designed to offset the revenue losses
from lower oil production. Mexico’s requirements on corporate disclosure of derivative exposures
have been tightened. In addition the government has made structural reforms to enhance growth
potential, most recently in the electricity sector, and announced plans to gradually increase
foreign exchange reserves.28 However, Mexico’s dependence on falling oil revenues and weak
prospects for reforming the oil industry may continue its vulnerability to future external shocks.29
Poverty in Mexico
Poverty has been one of Mexico’s more serious and pressing economic problems for many years.
The Mexican government has made progress in its poverty reduction efforts over the last ten
years, but poverty continues to be a basic challenge for the country’s development. The authors of
a World Bank study note that poverty is often associated with social exclusion, especially of
indigenous groups of people who comprise 20% of those who live in extreme poverty.30 In 2002,
over half of the population lived in poverty. According to World Bank estimates, the percentage
of people living in extreme poverty, or on less than $1 per day, fell from 24.2% of the population
in 2000, to 20.3% in 2002, and 18% in 2005. Those living in moderate poverty, or on about $10 a
day, fell from 53.7% in 2000 to 51.7% of the population in 2002 and 45% in 2005. Mexico’s
continuing problem of poverty is especially widespread in rural areas and remains at the Latin
American average.31
The alleviation of poverty has been a high priority for the Mexican government. Mexico’s main
program to reduce the effects of poverty is the Oportunidades program (formerly known as
Progresa). The program seeks to not only alleviate the immediate effects of poverty through cash
and in-kind transfers, but to break the cycle of poverty by improving nutrition and health
standards among poor families and increasing educational attainment. This program provides
cash transfers to families in poverty who demonstrate that they regularly attend medical
appointments and can certify that children are attending school. The government provides
educational cash transfers to participating families. The program also provides nutrition support
to pregnant and nursing woman and malnourished children. Monthly benefits are a minimum of

26 IMF, “IMF Renews $48 billion Credit Line for Mexico,” Press Release No. 10/114, March 25, 2010.
27 IMF, “Mexico Recovering, but Crisis Spotlights Challenges, says IMF,” Survey Magazine: In the News, March 16,
2010.
28 IMF, “IMF Executive Board Concludes 2010 Article IV Consultation with Mexico,” PIN No. 10/39, March 16,
2010, p. 2.
29 EIU, Country Report: Mexico, March 2010.
30 The World Bank Group, “Mexico Makes Progress and Faces Challenges in Poverty Reduction Efforts,” press
release, July 2004.
31 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
15

---

U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications

$15 with a cap of about $150. The majority of households receiving Oportunidades benefits are
in Mexico’s six poorest states: Chiapas, Mexico State, Puebla, Veracruz, Oaxaca, and Guerrero.32
Mexico’s Regional Free Trade Agreements
Since the early 1990s, Mexico has had a growing commitment to trade liberalization, and its trade
policy is among the most open in the world. Mexico has pursued free trade agreements (FTAs)
with other countries as a way to bring benefits to the economy and also to reduce its economic
dependence on the United States. By early 2006, Mexico had entered into a total of 12 FTAs
involving 42 countries. The Mexican government has negotiated bilateral or multilateral trade
agreements with most countries in the Western Hemisphere, including the United States and
Canada, Chile, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Uruguay, Colombia, Guatemala, El Salvador, and
Honduras.33
Mexico has ventured out of the hemisphere in negotiating FTAs, and, in July 2000, entered into
agreements with Israel and the European Union. Mexico became the first Latin American country
to have preferred access to these two markets. Mexico has also completed an FTA with the
European Free Trade Association (EFTA) of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland.
The Mexican government has continued to look for potential free trade partners, and expanded its
outreach to Asia in 2000 by entering into negotiations with Singapore, Korea and Japan. Mexico
and Japan signed a free trade agreement, formally called an Economic Partnership Agreement
(EPA) in September 2004. The EPA was Japan’s second free trade agreement, but its most
comprehensive bilateral agreement at that time.34 Mexico’s negotiations on FTAs with Korea and
Singapore are stalled.
In addition to the bilateral and multilateral free trade agreements, Mexico is a member of the
WTO,35 the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, and the OECD.36 In September 2003,
Mexico hosted the WTO Ministerial Meeting in Cancun.
NAFTA and the U.S.-Mexico Economic Relationship
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has been in effect since January 1994.
There are numerous indications that NAFTA has achieved many of the intended trade and
economic benefits as well as incurred adjustment costs. This has been in keeping with what most
economists maintain, that trade liberalization promotes overall economic growth among trading
partners, but that there are significant adjustment costs.

32 Santiago Levy, Progress Against Poverty, Brookings Institution, 2006.
33 Organization of American States, Foreign Trade Information System (SICE), at http://www.sice.oas.org.
34 “Japan, Mexico Ink Landmark Accord,” The Asahi Shumbun, September 20, 2004.
35 The WTO allows member countries to form regional trade agreements, but under strict rules. The position of the
WTO is that regional trade agreements can often support the WTO’s multilateral trading system by allowing groups of
countries to negotiate rules and commitments that go beyond what was possible at the time under the WTO. The WTO
has a committee on regional trade agreements that examines regional groups and assesses whether they are consistent
with WTO rules. See The World Trade Organization, “Understanding the WTO: Cross-Cutting and New Issues,
Regionalism: Friends or Rivals?” http://www.wto.org.
36 U.S. Commercial Service, Country Commercial Guide: Mexico, August 13, 2004, p. 6.
Congressional Research Service
16

---

U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications

Most of the trade effects in the United States related to NAFTA are due to changes in U.S. trade
and investment patterns with Mexico. At the time of NAFTA implementation, the U.S.-Canada
Free Trade Agreement already had been in effect for five years, and some industries in the United
States and Canada were already highly integrated. Mexico, on the other hand, had followed an
aggressive import-substitution policy for many years prior to NAFTA in which it had sought to
develop certain domestic industries through trade protection. One example is the Mexican
automotive industry, which had been regulated by a series of five decrees issued by the Mexican
government between 1962 and 1989. The decrees established import tariffs as high as 25% on
automotive goods and had high restrictions on foreign auto production in Mexico. Under
NAFTA, Mexico agreed to eliminate these restrictive trade policies.
Not all changes in trade and investment patterns between the United States and Mexico since
1994 can be attributed to NAFTA because trade was also affected by other unrelated economic
factors such as economic growth in the United States and Mexico, and currency fluctuations.
Also, trade-related job gains and losses since NAFTA may have accelerated trends that were
ongoing prior to NAFTA and may not be totally attributable to the trade agreement. Overall,
Mexico has experienced a slight shift in the composition of trade with the United States since the
late 1980s from oil to non-oil exports. In 1987, crude oil and natural gas comprised 17% of
Mexico’s exports to the United States. The percentage of oil and natural gas exports had declined
to 11% in 2004, increased to 14% in 2007 due to higher oil prices, and went back down to 12% in
2009.
Effects on the U.S. Economy
The overall effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy has been relatively small, primarily because
two-way trade with Mexico amounts to less than 3% of U.S. GDP. Thus, any changes in trade
patterns with Mexico would not be expected to be significant in relation to the overall U.S.
economy. In some sectors, however, trade-related effects could be more significant, especially in
those industries that were more exposed to the removal of tariff and non-tariff trade barriers, such
as the textile and apparel, and automotive industries.
Since NAFTA, the automotive, textile, and apparel industries have experienced some of the more
noteworthy changes in trading patterns, which may also have affected U.S. employment in these
industries. U.S. trade with Mexico has increased considerably more than U.S. trade with other
countries, and Mexico has become a more significant trading partner with the United States since
NAFTA implementation.
In the automotive industry, the industry comprising the most U.S. trade with Mexico, NAFTA
provisions consisted of a phased elimination of tariffs, the gradual removal of many non-tariff
barriers to trade including rules of origin provisions, enhanced protection of intellectual property
rights, less restrictive government procurement practices, and the elimination of performance
requirements on investors from other NAFTA countries. These provisions may have accelerated
the ongoing trade patterns between the United States and Mexico. Because the United States and
Canada were already highly integrated, most of the trade impacts on the U.S. automotive industry
relate to trade liberalization with Mexico. Prior to NAFTA Mexico had a series of government
decrees protecting the domestic auto sector by reserving the domestic automobile market for
domestically produced parts and vehicles. NAFTA established the removal of Mexico’s restrictive
trade and investment policies and the elimination of U.S. tariffs on autos and auto parts. By 2006,
the automotive industry has had the highest dollar increase ($41 billion) in total U.S. trade with
Mexico since NAFTA passage.
Congressional Research Service
17

---

U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications

The main NAFTA provisions related to textiles and apparel consisted of eliminating tariffs and
quotas for goods coming from Mexico and eliminating Mexican tariffs on U.S. textile and apparel
products. To benefit from the free trade provision, goods were required to meet the rules of origin
provision which assured that apparel products that were traded among the three NAFTA partners
were made of yarn and fabric made within the free trade area. The strict rules of origin provisions
were meant to ensure that U.S. textiles producers would continue to supply U.S. apparel
companies that moved to Mexico. Without a rules of origin provision, apparel companies would
have been able to import low-cost fabrics from countries such as China and export the final
product to the United States under the free trade provision.37
While some U.S. industries may have benefitted from increased demand for U.S. products in
Mexico, creating new jobs, other industries have experienced job losses. Data on the effects of
trade liberalization with Mexico are limited and the effect on specific sectors of the U.S. economy
is difficult to quantify. Trade-related job gains and losses since NAFTA may have accelerated
trends that were ongoing prior to NAFTA and may not be totally attributable to the trade
agreement.38 Quantifying these effects is challenging because of the other economic factors that
influence trade and employment levels. The devaluation of the Mexican peso in 1995 resulted in
lower Mexican wages, which likely provided an incentive for U.S. companies to move to lower
their production costs. Trade-related employment effects following NAFTA could have also
resulted from the lowering of trade barriers, and from the economic conditions in Mexico and the
United States influencing investment decisions and the demand for goods.
Effects on the Mexican Economy
A number of studies have found that NAFTA has brought economic and social benefits to the
Mexican economy as a whole, but that the benefits have not been evenly distributed throughout
the country. Most studies after NAFTA have found that the effects on the Mexican economy
tended to be modest at most.39 While there have been periods of positive growth and negative
growth in Mexico after the agreement was implemented, much of the increase in trade began in
the late 1980s when the country began trade liberalization measures. Though its net economic
effects may have been positive, NAFTA itself has not been enough to lower income disparities
within Mexico, or between Mexico and the United States or Canada.
A 2005 World Bank study assessing some of the economic impacts from NAFTA on Mexico
concluded that NAFTA helped Mexico get closer to the levels of development in the United
States and Canada. The study states that NAFTA helped Mexican manufacturers to adopt to U.S.
technological innovations more quickly and likely had positive impacts on the number and
quality of jobs. Another finding was that since NAFTA went into effect, the overall
macroeconomic volatility, or wide variations in the GDP growth rate, has declined in Mexico.
Business cycles in Mexico, the United States, and Canada have had higher levels of synchronicity
since NAFTA, and NAFTA has reinforced the high sensitivity of Mexican economic sectors to
economic developments in the United States.40

37 See CRS Report RL31723, Textile and Apparel Trade Issues, by Bernard A. Gelb.
38 See CRS Report 98-783, NAFTA: Estimates of Job Effects and Industry Trade Trends After 5 1/2 Years, by Mary
Jane Bolle.
39 See CRS Report RS21737, NAFTA at Ten: Lessons from Recent Studies, by J. F. Hornbeck.
40 Daniel Lederman, William F. Maloney, and Luis Servén, Lessons from NAFTA for Latin America and the
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
18

---

U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications

Several economists have noted that it is likely that NAFTA contributed to Mexico’s economic
recovery directly and indirectly after the 1995 currency crisis. Mexico responded to the crisis by
implementing a strong economic adjustment program but also by fully adhering to its NAFTA
obligations to liberalize trade with the United States and Canada. NAFTA may have supported the
resolve of the Mexican government to continue with the course of market-based economic
reforms, resulting in increasing investor confidence in Mexico. The World Bank study estimates
that FDI in Mexico would have been approximately 40% lower without NAFTA.41
One of the main arguments in favor of NAFTA at the time it was being proposed by policymakers
was that the agreement would improve economic conditions in Mexico and narrow the income
gap between Mexico and the United States. Studies that have addressed the issue of economic
convergence42 have noted that economic convergence in North America might not materialize
under free trade as long as “fundamental differences” in initial conditions persist over time. One
study argues that NAFTA is not enough to help narrow the disparities in economic conditions
between Mexico and the United States and that Mexico needs to invest more in education;
innovation and infrastructure; and in the quality of national institutions. The study states that
income convergence between a Latin American country and the United States is limited by the
wide differences in the quality of domestic institutions, in the innovation dynamics of domestic
firms, and in the skills of the labor force.43 Another study also notes that the ability of Mexico to
improve economic conditions depends on its capacity to improve its national institutions, adding
that Mexican institutions did not improve significantly more than those of other Latin American
countries during the post-NAFTA period.44
Mexican wages rose steadily from the early 1980s until the mid-1990s, when the currency crisis
hit. After a drop in average real wages in 1996 of 15.5%, real wages increased steadily until 2000,
when the average rate of growth was 11.8%. Since then the average rate of growth has only
varied slightly (see Figure 2). Mexico’s trade liberalization measures may have affected the ratio
between skilled and non-skilled workers in Mexico. In 1988, the real average wage of skilled
workers in Mexico’s manufacturing industry was 2.25 times larger than that of non-skilled
workers. This ratio increased until 1996, when it was about 2.9, but then remained stable until
2000.45 The World Bank study found that NAFTA brought economic and social benefits to the
Mexican economy, but that the agreement in itself was not sufficient to ensure a narrowing of the
wage gap between Mexico and the United States. The study states that NAFTA had a positive
effect on wages and employment in some Mexican states, but that the wage differential within the
country increased as a result of trade liberalization.46

(...continued)
Caribbean, The World Bank, 2005.
41 Ibid.
42 Economic convergence can be broadly defined as a narrowing of the disparities in the economic levels and the
manufacturing performances of particular countries or their regions. The goal of the theory of economic convergence is
to research and analyze the factors influencing the rates of economic growth and real per capita income in countries.
43 Daniel Lederman, William F. Maloney, and Luis Servén, Lessons from NAFTA for Latin America and the
Caribbean, The World Bank, 2005.
44 William Easterly, Norbert Fiess, and Daniel Lederman, “NAFTA and Convergence in North America: High
Expectations, Big Events, Little Time,” Economia, Fall 2003.
45 Esquivel, Gerardo, and José Antonio Rodríguez-López, “Technology, trade, and wage inequality in Mexico before
and after NAFTA,” Journal of Development Economics, 2003.
46 Daniel Lederman, William F. Maloney, and Luis Servén, Lessons from NAFTA for Latin America and the
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
19

---

U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications

Major Issues in U.S.-Mexico Trade Relations
Major trade disputes between Mexico and the United States since NAFTA have involved the
access of Mexican trucks to the United States; the access of Mexican sugar and tuna to the U.S.
market; and the access of U.S. sweeteners to the Mexican market.
Mexico Trucking Issue
The most recent U.S.-Mexico trade issue of concern to Members of Congress has been the
implementation of NAFTA trucking provisions. Under NAFTA, Mexican commercial trucks were
to have been given full access to four U.S. border states in 1995 and full access throughout the
United States in 2000. Citing safety concerns, however, the United States refused to implement
NAFTA’s trucking provisions. The Mexican government objected and claimed that U.S. actions
were a violation of U.S. commitments under NAFTA. A NAFTA dispute resolution panel
supported Mexico’s position in February 2001. President Bush indicated a willingness to
implement the provision, but the U.S. Congress required additional safety provisions in the
FY2002 Department of Transportation Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-87).
On November 27, 2002, with safety inspectors and procedures in place, the Bush Administration
announced that it would begin the process that would open U.S. highways to Mexican truckers
and buses, but environmental and labor groups went to court in early December to block the
action. On January 16, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that full
environmental impact statements were required for Mexican trucks to be allowed to operate on
U.S. highways. However, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed that decision on June 7, 2004.
The United States and Mexico have worked to resolve the trucking issue since 2004. The two
governments have engaged in numerous talks regarding a number of safety and operational
issues. The Obama Administration has indicated it intends to propose a revamped Mexican truck
pilot program that began under the Bush Administration (see “U.S. Pilot Program for Mexican
Trucks” section, below). At a hearing of the Senate Appropriations Transportation Subcommittee
on March 4, 2010, Department of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood stated that the
Administration was close to finalizing a plan to resolve the truck dispute.47 According to a recent
report, the Department of Transportation has developed a proposal for resolving the bilateral trade
dispute with Mexico but it is not expected to unveil the proposal until after the November 2010
elections.48 The Mexican government has argued that any deal must provide its industry with full
access to the U.S. market and greater “certainty” that it will continue to have access in the
future.49
A truck safety statistic on “out-of-service” rates indicates that Mexican trucks operating in the
United States are now safer than they were a decade ago. The data indicate that Mexican trucks

(...continued)
Caribbean, The World Bank, 2005.
47 Amy Tsui, “Plan to Resolve Mexican Trucking Dispute ‘Very Near,’ DOT’s LaHood Tells Lawmakers,”
International Trade Reporter, March 11, 2010.
48 World Trade Online, Inside U.S. Trade, “DOT has Mexican Trucks Proposal, Will Not Unveil it Until After
Elections,” October 15, 2010.
49 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
20

---

U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications

and drivers have a comparable safety record to U.S. truckers. Another study indicates that the
truck driver is usually the more critical factor in causing accidents than a safety defect with the
truck itself. Service characteristics of long-haul trucking suggest that substandard carriers would
likely not succeed in this market.50
U.S. Pilot Program for Mexican Trucks
In February 2007, the Bush Administration announced a pilot project to grant Mexican trucks
from 100 transportation companies full access to U.S. highways. In September 2007, the
Department of Transportation (DOT) launched a one-year pilot program to allow approved
Mexican carriers beyond the 25-mile commercial zone in the border region, with a similar
program allowing U.S. trucks to travel beyond Mexico’s border and commercial zone. Over the
18 months that the program existed, 29 motor carriers from Mexico were granted operating
authority in the United States. Two of these carriers dropped out of the program shortly after
being accepted, while two others never sent trucks across the border. In total, 103 Mexican trucks
were used by the carriers as part of the program.51
In the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161), signed into law in December
2007, Congress included a provision prohibiting the use of FY2008 funding for the establishment
of a pilot program. However, the DOT determined that it could continue with the pilot program
because it had already been established. In March 2008, the DOT issued an interim report on the
cross-border trucking demonstration project to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation. The report made three key observations: (1) the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) planned to check every participating truck each time it crossed the
border to ensure that it met safety standards; (2) there was less participation in the project than
was expected; and (3) the FMCSA implemented methods to assess possible adverse safety
impacts of the project and to enforce and monitor safety guidelines.52
In early August 2008, the DOT announced that it would be extending the pilot program for an
additional two years. In opposition to this action, the House approved on September 9, 2008 (by a
vote of 396 to 128) H.R. 6630, a bill that would have prohibited the Department of Transportation
from granting Mexican trucks access to U.S. highways beyond the border and commercial zone.
The bill also would have prohibited the Department of Transportation from renewing such a
program unless expressly authorized by Congress. No action was taken by the Senate on the
measure.
The FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-8) terminated the pilot program that began in
September 2007. The FY2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act passed in December 2009 (P.L.
111-117) did not preclude funds from being spent on a long-haul Mexican truck pilot program,
provided that certain terms and conditions were satisfied.53 Numerous Members of Congress have
urged President Obama to find a resolution to the dispute in light of the effects that Mexico’s
retaliatory tariffs are having on U.S. producers.

50 See CRS Report RL31738, North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Implementation: The Future of
Commercial Trucking Across the Mexican Border, by John Frittelli.
51 Ibid.
52 Department of Transportation, “Cross-Border Trucking Demonstration Project,” March 11, 2008.
53 See CRS Report RL31738, North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Implementation: The Future of
Commercial Trucking Across the Mexican Border, by John Frittelli.
Congressional Research Service
21

---

U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications

Mexico’s Retaliatory Tariffs and Efforts in the United States to Resolve
the Issue
In response to the abrupt end of the pilot program, the Mexican government announced in March
2009 that it would retaliate by increasing duties on 90 U.S. products with a value of $2.4 billion
in exports to Mexico. The tariffs, effective as of March 19, 2009, ranged from 10% to 45% and
covered a range of products that included fruit, vegetables, home appliances, consumer products,
and paper.54 Subsequently, a group of 56 Members of the House of Representatives wrote to
United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk and DOT Secretary Ray LaHood requesting the
Administration to resolve the trucking issue.55 The bipartisan group of Members stated that they
wanted the issue to be resolved soon because the higher Mexican tariffs were having a
“devastating” impact on local industries, especially in agriculture, and area economies in some
states. One reported estimate stated that U.S. potato exports to Mexico had fallen 50% by value
since the tariffs were imposed and that U.S. exporters were losing market share to Canada.56
On August 16, 2010, the Mexican government announced a new list of retaliatory tariffs on
imports from the United States. The new list added 26 products to and removed 16 products from
the original list of 89, bringing the new total to 99 products from 43 states with a total export
value of $2.6 billion. Products that were added to the list include several types of pork products,
several types of cheeses, sweet corn, pistachios, oranges, grapefruits, apples, oats and grains,
chewing gum, ketchup, and other products. The largest in terms of value are the two categories of
pork products, which had an estimated export value of $438 million in 2009.57 Products that were
removed from the list include peanuts, dental floss, locks, and other products.58 The new
retaliatory tariffs are lower than the original tariffs and range from 5% to 25%. Mexico rotated the
list of products to put more pressure on the United States to seek a settlement for the trucking
dispute.59 U.S. producers of fruits, pork, cheese, and other products that are bearing the cost of the
retaliatory tariffs have expressed concern at the lack of progress in resolving the trucking issue
and have stated, both to the Obama Administration and to numerous Members of Congress, that
they are at risk of losing millions of dollars in sales as a result of this dispute.60
The Mexican government has indicated it is willing to resolve the ongoing dispute with the
Obama Administration but that is not willing to agree to another pilot program that was
terminated in March 2009. During an October 2010 event organized by the National Foreign
Trade Council, the head of Mexico’s Trade and NAFTA office in Washington, Minister José Luis

54 Rosella Brevetti, “Key GOP House Members Urge Obama to Develop New Mexico Truck Program,” International
Trade Reporter, March 26, 2009.
55 Amy Tsui, “Plan to Resolve Mexican Trucking Dispute ‘Very Near,’ DOT’s LaHood Tells Lawmakers,”
International Trade Reporter, March 11, 2010.
56 Ibid.
57 Inside U.S. Trade’s World Trade Online, “Pork, Cheeses, Fruits to Face new Tariffs Due to Mexico Trucks Dispute,”
August 17, 2010.
58 Ibid.
59 Inside U.S. Trade’s World Trade Online, “New Mexican Retaliatory Tariffs in Trucks Dispute Designed to Spur
U.S.,” September 3, 2010.
60 See ”Sen. Murray Holds Meeting with LaHood, Farmers on Mexican Truck Dispute Duties,” International Trade
Reporter, September 16, 2010; “U.S. Confectioners Hurt by Mexican Trucking Tariffs,” International Trade Reporter,
September 9, 2010; and U.S. Dairy Export Council, “NAFTA Trucking Dispute’s Negative Spillover on U.S. Dairy
Exports,” available at http://www.usdec.org.
Congressional Research Service
22

---

U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications

Paz Vega, indicated that Mexico is seeking a permanent solution to the dispute that provides
certainty to Mexican trucking services providers and that complies fully with NAFTA.61
Other Trade Issues
The United States and Mexico resolved a long-standing trade dispute in 2006 involving sugar and
high fructose corn syrup. Mexico argued that the sugar side letter negotiated under NAFTA
entitled it to ship net sugar surplus to the United States duty-free under NAFTA, while the United
States argued that the sugar side letter limited Mexican shipments of sugar. Mexico also
complained that imports of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) sweeteners from the United States
constituted dumping, and it imposed anti-dumping duties for some time, until NAFTA and WTO
dispute resolution panels upheld U.S. claims that the Mexican government colluded with the
Mexican sugar and sweetener industries to restrict HFCS imports from the United States.
In late 2001, the Mexican Congress imposed a 20% tax on soft drinks made with corn syrup
sweeteners to aid the ailing domestic cane sugar industry, and subsequently extended the tax
annually despite U.S. objections. In 2004, the United States Trade Representative (USTR)
initiated WTO dispute settlement proceedings against Mexico’s HFCS tax, and following interim
decisions, the WTO panel issued a final decision on October 7, 2005, essentially supporting the
U.S. position. Mexico appealed this decision, and in March 2006, the WTO Appellate Body
upheld its October 2005 ruling. In July 2006, the United States and Mexico agreed that Mexico
would eliminate its tax on soft drinks made with corn sweeteners no later than January 31, 2007.
The tax was repealed, effective January 1, 2007.
The United States and Mexico reached a sweetener agreement in August 2006. Under the
agreement, Mexico can export 500,000 metric tons of sugar duty-free to the United States from
October 1, 2006, to December 31, 2007. The United States can export the same amount of HFCS
duty-free to Mexico during that time. NAFTA provides for the free trade of sweeteners beginning
January 1, 2008. The House and Senate sugar caucuses expressed objections to the agreement,
questioning the Bush Administration’s determination that Mexico is a net-surplus sugar producer
to allow Mexican sugar duty-free access to the U.S. market.62
On tuna issues, the Clinton Administration lifted the embargo on Mexican tuna in April 2000
under relaxed standards for a dolphin-safe label in accordance with internationally agreed
procedures, and U.S. legislation passed in 1997 that encouraged the unharmed release of dolphins
from nets. However, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that the standards of the law had not
been met, and the Federal Appeals Court in San Francisco sustained the ruling in July 2001.
Under the Bush Administration, the Commerce Department ruled on December 31, 2002, that the
dolphin-safe label may be applied if qualified observers certify that no dolphins were killed or
seriously injured in the netting process, but Earth Island Institute and other environmental groups
filed suit to block the modification. On April 10, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California enjoined the Commerce Department from modifying the standards for the

61 Inside U.S. Trade’s World Trade Online, “Mexico Will Not Accept Re-Implementation of Same Trucking Pilot
Program,” October 22, 2010.
62 See “Bush Administration Defends Sugar Deal to Congress,” Inside U.S. Trade, November 3, 2006; “Grassley, U.S.
Industry Welcome Agreement with Mexico on Sugar, HFCS,” International Trade Reporter, August 3, 2006; and,
“U.S., Mexico Reach Agreement on WTO Soft Drink Dispute Compliance Deadline,” International Trade Reporter,
July 13, 2006.
Congressional Research Service
23

---

U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications

dolphin-safe label. On August 9, 2004, the federal district court ruled against the Bush
Administration’s modification of the dolphin-safe standards and reinstated the original standards
in the 1990 Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act. That decision was appealed to the
U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled against the Administration in April 2007,
finding that the Department of Commerce did not base its determination on scientific studies of
the effects of Mexican tuna fishing on dolphins. In late October 2008, Mexico initiated World
Trade Organization dispute proceedings against the United States, maintaining that U.S.
requirements for Mexican tuna exporters prevents them from using the U.S. “dolphin-safe” label
for its products.63
On other issues, in early October 2002, the U.S.-Mexico working group on agriculture dealt with
major agricultural issues, including Mexico’s anti-dumping decisions on apples, rice, swine, and
beef, and safeguard actions on potatoes. In January 2003, the countries agreed to permit Mexican
safeguard measures against U.S. imports of chicken legs and thighs, and in July 2003, these
safeguard measures were extended until 2008, with tariffs declining each year. In September
2006, Mexico revoked anti-dumping duties imposed on U.S. rice imports in 2002 following
rulings by the WTO and WTO Appellate Body in 2005, which found that the duties were contrary
to WTO rules. Mexico banned beef imports from the United States in December 2003 following
the discovery of one cow infected with mad cow disease in Washington State. Mexico resumed
importation of boneless beef in early March 2004, and bone-in beef in February 2006, in response
to improved beef cattle screening.
Policy Issues
The economic relationship with Mexico is important to U.S. policymakers because of the
implications it has for bilateral trade, economic conditions in both countries, economic
competitiveness, and border security. Mexican President Felipe Calderón made a state visit to the
United States in May 2010 in which he emphasized the need for increased cooperation in North
America to increase the competiveness of the region.64 In a meeting hosted by President Barack
Obama, the two leaders discussed numerous key bilateral and hemispheric issues affecting both
countries. The leaders reaffirmed their shared values and the need for focusing on economic
growth. They vowed to enhance and reinforce efforts to create jobs, promote economic recovery
and expansion, and encourage inclusive prosperity across all levels of society in both countries.65
The two leaders also underscored the importance of human capital and touched upon the issue of
immigration. President Obama underscored his commitment to comprehensive immigration
reform in the United States while President Calderón stated that his administration was
committed to creating more job and educational opportunities in Mexico. Both leaders
acknowledged the importance of taking actions to address illegal immigration, border security,
and human trafficking groups, and agreed to set priorities for the future.66

63 Daniel Pruzin, “Mexico Initiates WTO Dispute Proceeding Against U.S. ‘Dolphin-Safe’ Label for Tuna,”
International Trade Reporter, October 30, 2008.
64 CSIS Americas Program, Hemisphere Highlights, May 2010, pp. 1-2.
65 The White House, “Joint Statement from President Barack Obama and President Felipe Calderón,” press release,
May 19, 2010.
66 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
24

---

U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications

The current trade issue of most concern to Members of Congress involves NAFTA trucking
provisions. Numerous Members of Congress continue to oppose the implementation of the
trucking provisions because they are concerned about the safety of Mexican trucks in the United
States, while others want the issue to be resolved. They argue that Mexico’s retaliatory tariffs are
having strong negative effects on local U.S. industries and affecting U.S. jobs, especially in the
agricultural sectors. U.S. producers of fruits, pork, cheese, and other products that are bearing the
cost of the retaliatory tariffs have been very vocal about the lack of progress in resolving the
trucking issue and argue that the issue is having a devastating impact on local industries. The
Mexican government has expressed that it is not willing to accept another pilot program as in the
past. It is currently unclear whether the Obama Administration will be announcing a new trucking
program soon or whether it will be more of a permanent implementation of the NAFTA trucking
provisions than the previous pilot program implemented by the Bush Administration.
The economic hardship in certain sectors and regions of Mexico has been a major reason behind
unauthorized Mexican migration to the United States. President Calderón made his first official
visit to the United States as President-elect in early November 2006, after first visiting Canada
and several Latin American countries. During his visit, Calderón criticized the recent
authorization of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border and noted that it complicated U.S.-Mexico
relations. He asserted that job creation and increased investment in Mexico would be more
effective in reducing illegal migration from Mexico than a border fence. Calderón signaled a shift
in Mexican foreign policy when he noted that while immigration is an important issue in the
bilateral relationship, it is not the only issue, as trade and economic development are also
important.
Mexico voiced concern in the past about alleged abuses suffered by Mexican workers in the
United States and for the loss of life and hardships suffered by Mexican migrants as they use
increasingly dangerous methods to cross into the United States. During his administration, former
Mexican President Vicente Fox held the view that the migrants are “undocumented workers” and
that because the U.S. market attracts and provides employment for the migrants, it bears some
responsibility. He pressed proposals for legalizing undocumented Mexican workers in the United
States through amnesty or guest worker arrangements as a way of protecting their human rights.
In 2004, President Bush proposed an overhaul of the U.S. immigration system to permit the
matching of willing foreign workers with willing U.S. employers when no U.S. documented
workers could be found to fill the jobs.
The U.S. Senate began consideration of comprehensive immigration reform in May 2007. Mexico
had long lobbied for immigration reform in the United States and cautiously watched the debate
in 2007 on this measure. Legal immigration reform stalled in the 110th Congress. The 111th
Congress has not attempted to tackle comprehensive immigration reform.
Another policy issue is related to the changing trade trends throughout the world that are affecting
North American trading patterns. Some observers have analyzed the possibility of furthering
economic integration with Mexico as the influence of China and other low-wage countries
increases. According to a recent study on economic integration in North America, a major shift is
under way in trade patterns among NAFTA partners with exports among NAFTA economies
growing more slowly than their exports with the rest of the world, reversing the previous 10-year
trend. The report finds that lower-cost suppliers, primarily China and India, are displacing North
American imports and could weaken North American integration. The report states that furthering
continental integration would require “renewed efforts at resolving long-standing trade disputes,
Congressional Research Service
25

---

U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications

new liberalization initiatives, or greater policy harmonization in areas such as border security,
labor mobility, or corporate taxation.”67
If the United States continues to deepen economic integration with Mexico, one area that may
need more attention is the issue of the difference in income levels between the two countries. The
economic relationship with Mexico is unique because of Mexico’s proximity to the United States,
but also because of the wide differences in levels of economic development between the two
countries. Mexico is the first developing country with which the United States entered into a free
trade agreement. In Mexico, NAFTA has had an uneven effect in different parts of the country
and it has not been a solution to the problem of poverty and unemployment. Mexico’s problem
with poverty cannot be attributed directly to NAFTA because it was in existence prior to the
agreement. At the time of NAFTA there was hope that Mexico’s economy would grow
sufficiently to create jobs in urban areas and help alleviate poverty in rural areas. However, the
economy did not expand as expected and the problem of poverty continues.
Another policy option that has been mentioned is withdrawal from NAFTA. Legislation was
introduced in the 111th Congress for the United States to withdraw from NAFTA (H.R. 4759). The
bill would require the President to give written notice to Mexico and Canada of the U.S.
withdrawal, which would occur six months after the bill’s enactment. The bill had 27 co-sponsors
and was referred to the House Ways and Means Committee. Supporters of the bill believe that
NAFTA did not live up to its promises and that it has resulted in large job losses in the United
States and Mexico. Opponents of the bill believe that NAFTA has had “incredible” successes in
all three countries of North America and that withdrawing from NAFTA would cause job losses in
the United States to increase and that U.S. exports to Mexico would be sharply impacted. They
point to the losses in exports that have occurred already from Mexico’s retaliatory tariffs due to
the trucking dispute and state that those exports represent only a small percentage of total U.S.
exports to Mexico.68
Another policy issue relates to whether trade agreements are enough, or are the appropriate policy
instrument, to resolve income disparities among trading partners or even within a developing
country. A World Bank study on the effects of NAFTA on Mexico concluded that NAFTA has
helped to improve economic conditions in Mexico but it has not been enough to narrow the
economic disparities with the United States. The authors of the study stated, among other things,
that Mexico needs to invest more in education, infrastructure, and institutional strengthening to
benefit more fully from freer trade.69 A possible consideration for policymakers is whether to help
Mexico improve the quality of education and strengthen its national institutions through foreign
aid programs or other mechanisms.


67 ITR, “North American Integration Slipping Due to China’s Strong Growth, Report Says,” Volume 22, Number 8,
February 24, 2005.
68 Derrick Cain, “Legislation for Withdrawal from NAFTA Introduced in House with Bipartisan Support,”
International Trade Reporter, March 11, 2010.
69 Daniel Lederman, William F. Maloney, and Luis Servén, Lessons from NAFTA for Latin America and the
Caribbean, The World Bank, 2005.
Congressional Research Service
26

---

U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications

Author Contact Information

M. Angeles Villarreal

Specialist in International Trade and Finance
avillarreal@crs.loc.gov, 7-0321



Congressional Research Service
27

---