Regional Integration and Transnational Politics: Popular Sector Strategies in the NAFTA Era

Abstract

Abstract[Excerpt] This chapter argues that although economic integration between the United States and Mexico had been taking place for some time, it was the formal recognition of this process as represented by the discussions surrounding the North American Free Trade Agreement that facilitated transnational political action by nonstate actors. Whereas the globalization of the economy and the prevalence of neoliberal economic policies may be considered by some to undermine popular sector organization and actions, formal recognition of regional economic integration in North America has produced a 'transnational political' arena that has expanded the resources available to non-governmental groups, increased their leverage in domestic political arenas, and broadened their strategic options. This chapter will examine the dimensions of this transnational political arena. What are its characteristics? How is it likely to evolve overtime? How is this arena similar to or different from other 'internationalized' phenomena that a number of analysts have begun to observe and describe? How might different kinds of actors take advantage of this new environment? In particular, how does the existence of a transnational political arena affect popular organizations and social movements (including labor movements) whose activities have traditionally taken place within national borders? Will a Mexico more tightly connected to the US market offer increased opportunities for the mobilization of Mexican social movements, or will it strengthen the barriers against popular organization and activism?

End Users: Actors in the Industrial Relations System?

“…Similarly, it is possible to identify developments analogous to what has been presented here, with respect to the end user of goods and services, with women's and human rights advocacy groups, particularly in this era of increasing global trade and the growth of transnational corporations, as has been shown by Robinson (1994) and Cook (1995) in the case of the NAFTA negotiations. 12 A similar argument could be made regarding the role of international actors, such as the World Bank, in the national IR systems of underdeveloped countries that have to follow their`recommendations' in labour relations matters, among others, in order to qualify for their loans (Bellemare and Acke yi 1999).…”

Legal Transnationalism: The Relationship between Transnational Social Movement Building and International Law

“…Indeed, despite the proliferation of research examining the effects of globalization on transnational social movements, a more general theory that explains the aspects of law that catalyze and limit transnational movement building does not exist. And, although scholars suggest that NAFTA's procedural rules facilitate transnationalism, they have not fully fleshed out the process by which this occurs (see Cook 1997; Compa 1999; Kidder 2002). 4 This study makes a significant contribution to research and theory on both international law and law and social movements by expanding our understanding of how the content and structure of international laws affect mobilization outcomes.…”

“…As has been well documented, the relationships among unions and federations that emerged in NAFTA's wake were new and unique in North America (see Cook 1997;Compa 1999;Kay 2005). They were more equitable and based on efforts to create and nurture long-term programs based on mutual interests.…”

The Evolution of United States–Mexico Labor Cooperation (1994‐2009): Achievements and Challenges

“…To build support for their position, groups opposed to NAFTA in all three countries organized tours and visits to legislators, and provided information to law makers about the content of the agreement and the likely impact free trade would have on the economy, society, and culture of each state (Cook 1997). Meanwhile, organizations from Mexico lobbied in the U.S. Congress as to the impacts of NAFTA on Mexico, and organized migrants in the United States to oppose the agreement (Cook 1997). By the time the negotiations began in earnest in 1991, a groundswell of opposition to the agreement had emerged in all three states.…”