, the prospect of environmental problems stemming from Mexico’s lax enforcement of environmental standards has led critics to disagree with the institution of the NAFTA. The move toward NAFTA by the United States Government can be attributed as a response to the decline in the U.S. productivity growth. Since the 1970, output per worker has slowed in its growth rate dramatically. Due to this decline, the United States had to look for ways to either stimulate growth in the service sector or rely on international trade to further American progress and growth. Prior to NAFTA’s enactment, conducting business and investing in Mexico was a difficult process. Investors needed the Mexican Government’s approval and were also required to meet specific investment guidelines. These requirements forced investor to export a set level of goods and services, utilize domestic goods and services, and transfer technology to competitors. Under NAFTA, investors and business professionals no longer need government approval to invest and are treated as domestic investors. NAFTA has increased intellectual property rights and allowed companies to obtain patents in Mexico and Canada. In the past, companies were hesitant to export research and development intensive goods because of the need of increased intellectual property protection; however, exports of these goods have showed a definite increase. None of that, however, significantly altered the course of economic policy or, much less so, of the country's trade policy. NAFTA began to prove it’s worth -and strategic relevance- much earlier than anyone had anticipated. There's no question that the foremost non-economic impact of NAFTA has been that the overall trading regime and economic policy framework were kept virtually intact, despite the political and economic circumstances of 1994 and 1995. All previous crises had led to a change in policy. NAFTA had become a straight jacke...
