Question:

Differances between European Union and NAFTA?

by  |  earlier

0 LIKES UnLike

Hey guys, what are some of the differances and similarities between EU and NAFTA. Thanks in advance for the help!

 Tags:

   Report

8 ANSWERS


  1. North American Free Trade Agreement: Just that, an agreement and nothing more.

    European Union: Like the United Nations, but a lot more powerful, i.e. think Euro as European Currency and no more country to country borders.


  2. As criticism mounts in the Americas over what many perceive to be an overly narrow approach to integration, there is growing interest among political leaders and citizen groups to learn more from the most advanced regional integration project in the world: the European Union. We list below a summary of what we judge to be the most important lessons in five issue areas from the European experience that may be relevant for the Americas.

    1. Development Funds

    From Europe there is strong evidence that regional economic arrangements can include mechanisms to reduce disparities among member nations. The EU invested  324 billion in development grants to reduce disparities between and within its member states between 1961 and 2001, most of it since the mid-1980s. Accordingly, poorer European countries have made progress in catching up with their neighbors, and there is widespread consensus that EU aid grants were an important factor in that region's trend towards reduced disparity. By contrast, the European funds were roughly ten times the amount of U.S. economic assistance grants to all of Latin America during the same period. And, NAFTA contained no mechanisms whatsoever to reduce inequalities. As Ireland and the other formerly poor European nations have surged forward, Mexico has fallen further behind its NAFTA partners.

    The general lesson for the Americas is that trade and investment liberalization alone do not guarantee a narrowing of the economic divide. This said, there are many questions that should be explored regarding the most appropriate approach to resource transfer in the Americas. It may be that debt reduction, or a combination of debt reduction and aid would be a more appropriate approach.

    The EU also offers lessons on how to develop and maintain support for development aid in the richer countries. This has been accomplished by "de-politicizing" aid by assigning responsibility for administration to a supra-national body (the European Commission) and by allowing a portion of aid to be channeled into the poorer regions of the richer countries.

    2. Migration

    EU citizens enjoy the right of freedom of movement from one member state to another. In response to fears of massive flows of migrants into the richer countries, the EU has focused aid and other assistance to lift up living standards in poorer countries to mitigate migration pressures. As a result, when the EU lifted borders with Portugal and Spain, out-migration was negligible. Even though the EU is confronting wider income gaps in the current round of enlargement, countries scheduled to join the EU in May 2004 are slated to enjoy full rights to freedom of movement within seven years. By contrast, NAFTA side-stepped the migration issue, aside from offering limited visas for professionals. There is a great deal the Western Hemisphere can learn from the EU approach in adopting a long-term plan for leveling the playing field among nations and working towards increased labor mobility.

    3. Agriculture

    The lessons of the EU on agriculture are mixed. For the first two decades or so, the EU approach centered on boosting yields and production levels. This exacerbated a problem of massive surpluses that drove down world market prices for many commodities. It also encouraged intensive farming practices that had substantial negative environmental impacts. And despite massive spending ( 672 billion between 1963 and 2001), the EU also experienced a rapid decline in small farms, since subsidies disproportionately benefited large producers.

    Even if the results had been more positive, it would be unrealistic to propose such an expensive approach to agricultural policy in the Americas. However, more recent attempts to reform the EU agricultural policy, while too early to judge, may prove more fruitful. These changes have focused on de-linking subsidies from production and conditioning them on respect for environmental and other standards. The EU is also planning to cut payments to large farmers. These reforms can inform the debate in the Americas region, where small-scale agriculture remains highly significant in terms of employment, as well as social, environmental, and cultural welfare. Like the EU, the Western Hemisphere should recognize that increased exports and other trade liberalization policies will not solve the serious problems facing rural residents.

    4. Social and Environmental Standards

    One overall lesson of the EU is that development aid, trade and foreign investment are most effective when accompanied by social and environmental protections. NAFTA lacks strong mechanisms on these issues and as a result, corporations, particularly in Mexico, continue to profit through severe labor repression and environmental degradation. Through EU-wide standards on labor rights, gender equity, racial discrimination, health and safety, environment and other issues, the EU has helped promote a high-road path to development.

    The EU model also offers lessons on how to handle enforcement of social and environmental standards in a way that promotes compliance, including through financial and technical assistance, rather than rushing to penalize violators. At the same time, there are those who have been frustrated by the slow pace of justice against violators of EU laws.

    5. Public Participation

    The EU offers several avenues for civil society input in policymaking. Two of the most significant are: 1) the European Economic and Social Committee, which is made up of representatives of employers, workers, and other civil society sectors from each member state and provides input to the European Commission, and 2) the social partnership process, in which trade unions and employer groups develop proposals for EU initiatives, including some that have led to legislation. EU employees of multinational companies also have rights to consultation at the company level.

    While all of these mechanisms have their shortcomings, the EU has made some progress towards creating an institutional framework for ensuring that policies reflect a measure of public consensus. By contrast, neither the NAFTA nor the proposed FTAA offer any opportunities for civil society participation in decision-making.

    The EU model is not without flaws. Moreover, there are historical, economic and cultural differences between Europe and the Americas that would make it both foolhardy and unrealistic to attempt to simply replace the NAFTA model with the EU approach. However, as talks on the FTAA as well as at the World Trade Organization flounder, our leaders would do well to broaden their discussions to consider alternative approaches, including that of the EU.

  3. the european trade union actually makes sure that europe has a good economy and they can keep their people working , nafta exists to let companies have cheap labor in central america and sell the junk back to america, the american people are without jobs-but hey,the corporation share holders just got a nice ( holiday bonus) and they save alot more because they have evaded u.s. taxes now because of moving to ( %&%$#^ ) south of the border

  4. No Mexicans

  5. EU does not mean open borders and the euro is not accepted national currency in all europeon countries.

    Nafta is a big mistake and hopefully can be corrected, it is free trade and basically the US gets screwed once again, The mexican truck drivers who deliver goods in the USA do not have to meet the same requirements as drivers or the same safety regulations on their big rigs that the US drivers have to meet, so where is the free trade, all I see is US citizens getting screwed out of jobs again.......

  6. Well one big difference - Nafta is primarily a trade agreement while the EU affects the member states government, business law, human rights and on and on.

  7. I don't have an answer, but I think the E.U. is working better...

  8. NAFTA SUCKS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Question Stats

Latest activity: earlier.
This question has 8 answers.

BECOME A GUIDE

Share your knowledge and help people by answering questions.