NOT YET

During the 2008 election campaign Clinton and Obama, as well as many other
leading Democrats, called for the amendment of NAFTA to include additional labor
and environmental standards. Clinton had advocated for the implementation of
periodic reviews of NAFTA, and both candidates pledged in a February 26 campaign
debate to use the lever of a U.S. "opt-out" to press Canada and Mexico to
renegotiate the terms of the deal. Canadian officials have noted they also hold a
major negotiating card in the sense that U.S. economic interests could face severe
problems if Canada uses a renegotiation to stiffen conditions on energy exports.
Mexico has made similar threats (IBT), saying it might not be as accommodating
about accepting U.S. agricultural exports the second time around. Since the
election, neither President Obama nor Secretary of State Clinton has made any
mention of strengthening NAFTA's provisions for labor and environmental
standards.

Many economists who broadly support NAFTA agree that TAA reforms could prove
broadly useful as a way of quelling anger directed at trade liberalization. Experts
including Alden note that positive long-term economic change often is accompanied
by job-market turbulence. The United States is currently working to reform TAA,
which helps retrain and relocate workers who face job loss due to trade. One
component of a reformed TAA could be wage insurance, which a recent Council
Special Report argues would protect workers who face sustained long-term wage
losses.

NOT YET
NAFTA's effects, both positive and negative, have been quantified by several
economists, whose findings have been reported in publications such as the World
Bank's Lessons from NAFTA for Latin America and the Caribbean, NAFTA's Impact on
North America, and NAFTA Revisited by the Institute for International Economics.
Some argue that NAFTA has been positive for Mexico, which has seen its poverty
rates fall and real income rise (in the form of lower prices, especially food), even
after accounting for the 1994–1995 economic crisis. Others argue that NAFTA has
been beneficial to business owners and elites in all three countries, but has had
negative impacts on farmers in Mexico who saw food prices fall based on cheap
imports from U.S. agribusiness, and negative impacts on U.S. workers in
manufacturing and assembly industries who lost jobs. Critics also argue that NAFTA
has contributed to the rising levels of inequality in both the U.S. and Mexico. Some
economists believe that NAFTA has not been enough (or worked fast enough) to
produce an economic convergence, or to substantially reduce poverty rates. Some
have suggested that in order to fully benefit from the agreement, Mexico must
invest more in education and promote innovation in infrastructure and agriculture.