The late twentieth and early twenty-first century saw a proliferation of regional free-trade agreements, as neighboring countries sought to gain economic advantages by lowering trade barriers and facilitating the free flow of capital across national borders. Proponents of such agreements argued that they would stimulate economic growth, reduce economic disparities between member nations, and promote regional peace. Opponents painted a very different picture. In their view, while the free flow of capital across national borders might be good for the bottom lines of multinational corporations, it spelled disaster for local communities. Instead of producing economic growth for all, trade agreements simply encouraged businesses to migrate toward areas of lower labor costs, laxer regulations, and less stringent environmental laws. As part of a larger effort to sway public opinion, the signatories to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) host a Web site explaining what the agreement is and how it works. As you read the section titled “Myths vs. Reality,” think about the concerns and anxieties that are reflected in the “myths” the site attempts to debunk. Are such concerns justified? Why or why not?

Click here to see “North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA): ‘Myths vs. Reality.’”

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER