The overall effect of the agricultural agreement between Mexico and the United States is controversial. Mexico has not invested in the infrastructure needed for competition, such as efficient railways and highways. This has led to more difficult living conditions for the country`s poor. Mexico`s agricultural exports increased by 9.4% per year between 1994 and 2001, while imports increased by only 6.9% per year over the same period.  Fourth, NAFTA has defined procedures for resolving trade disputes. The parties would begin a formal discussion, followed by a discussion at a meeting of the Free Trade Committee, if necessary. If the disagreement has not been resolved, a panel has considered the dispute. The trial helped all parties avoid costly prosecutions in local courts and helped them interpret THE complex NAFTA rules and procedures. These commercial disputes also applied to investors. Little has happened in the labour market, which has significantly changed the outcome in each country participating in the treaty. Because of the immigration restrictions, the wage gap between Mexico, on the one hand, and the United States and Canada, on the other, has not decreased.
The lack of infrastructure in Mexico has led many U.S. and Canadian firms to choose not to invest directly in Mexico. As a result, there were no significant job losses in the United States and Canada and there were no environmental disasters due to industrialization in Mexico. A 2007 study showed that nafta had “a significant impact on the volume of international trade, but a modest impact on prices and prosperity.”  After the election of President Trump in 2016, support for NAFTA was highly polarized between Republicans and Democrats. Donald Trump has expressed a negative view of NAFTA, calling it “the worst trade deal ever adopted in this country.”  Republican support for NAFTA has grown from 43% in 2008 to 34% in 2017. Meanwhile, Democrats` support for NAFTA has grown from 41 percent in 2008 to 71 percent in 2017.  According to a 2013 article by Jeff Faux by the Economic Policy Institute, California, Texas, Michigan and other high-concentration manufacturing states were most affected by NAFTA job losses.  According to a 2011 article by EPI economist Robert Scott, the trade agreement has “lost or supplanted” some 682,900 U.S. jobs.  Recent studies have agreed with congressional Research Service reports that NAFTA has little influence on manufacturing employment and automation, accounting for 87% of manufacturing job losses. (99) Sixth, the agreement provided business travellers with easy access to all three countries.
A study published in the August 2008 edition of the American Journal of Agricultural Economics found that NAFTA increased U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico and Canada, although most of the increase occurred a decade after its ratification. The study focused on the impact of phase-in periods in regional trade agreements, including NAFTA, on trade flows. Most of the increase in membership agricultural trade, recently entered into the World Trade Organization, is due to very high trade barriers prior to NAFTA or other regional trade agreements.  According to a 2012 study on tariff reductions on NAFTA, trade with the United States and Mexico increased by only 11% in Canada, compared to a 41% increase in the United States.