CLOSING CASE
NAFT A and the U.S. T extile Industry
When the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect in 1994, many
expressed fears that large job losses in the U.S. textile industry would occur as companies
moved production from the United States to Mexico. NAFTA opponents argued passionately,
but unsuccessfully, that the treaty should not be adopted because of the negative impact it
would have on U.S. employment.
A quick glance at the data available 10 years after the passage of NAFTA suggests the
critics had a point. Between 1994 and 2004, production of apparel fell by 40 percent and
production of textiles by 20 percent—and this during a period when overall U.S. demand for
apparel grew by almost 60 percent. During the same time frame, employment in textile mills in
the United Stated dropped from 478,000 to 239,000 and employment in apparel plummeted
from 858,000 to 296,000, while exports of apparel from Mexico to the United States surged
from $1.26 billion to $3.84 billion. Such data seem to indicate that the job losses have been
due to apparel production migrating from the United States to Mexico.
There is anecdotal evidence to support this conclusion. For example, in 1995, Fruit of the
Loom Inc., the largest manufacturer of underwear in the United States, said it would close six of
its domestic plants and cut back operations at two others, laying off about 3,200 workers, or
12 percent of its U.S. workforce. The company announced the closures were part of its drive to
move its operations to cheaper plants abroad, particularly in Mexico. Before the closures, less
than 30 percent of its sewing was done outside the United States, but Fruit of the Loom
planned to move the majority of that work to Mexico. For textile manufacturers, the
advantages of locating in Mexico include cheap labor and inputs. Labor rates in Mexico
average between $10 and $20 a day, compared to $10 to $12 an hour for U.S. textile workers.
However, job losses in the U.S. textile industry do not mean that the overall effects of
NAFTA have been negative. Clothing prices in the United States have also fallen since 1994
as textile production shifted from high-cost U.S. producers to lower cost Mexican producers.
This benefits consumers, who now have more money to spend on other items. The cost of a
typical pair of designer jeans, for example, fell from $55 in 1994 to about $48 today. In 1994,
blank T-shirts wholesaled for $24 a dozen. Now they sell for $14 a dozen.
In addition to lower prices, the shift in textile production to Mexico also benefited the U.S.
economy in other ways. Despite the move of fabric and apparel production to Mexico, exports
have surged for U.S. yarn makers, many of which are in the chemical industry. Before the
passage of NAFTA, U.S. yarn producers, such as E. I. du Pont, supplied only small amounts of
product to Mexico. However, as apparel production moved to Mexico, exports of fabric and yarn
to that country have surged. U.S. producers supply 70 percent of the raw material going to
Mexican sewing shops. Between 1994 and 2004, U.S. cotton and yarn exports to Mexico grew
from $293 million to $1.21 billion. Moreover, although the U.S. textile industry has lost jobs,
advocates of NAFTA argue that the U.S. economy has benefited in the form of lower clothing
prices and an increase in exports from fabric and yarn producers. NAFTA supporters argue
that it has created trade, and U.S. consumers and producers in certain sectors are capturing
these gains from trade. As always, the establishment of a free trade area creates winners and
losers—and the losers have been employees in the textile industry—but advocates of free
trade argue that the gains outweigh the losses.46
Case Discussion Questions
1. Why did many textile jobs apparently migrate out of the United States in the years after
the establishment of NAFTA?
2. Who gained from the process of readjustment in the textile industry after NAFTA? Who
lost?
3. With hindsight, do you think it is better to protect vulnerable industries such as textiles,
or to let them adjust to the new situations that follow entering into free trade
agreements? What would the benefits of protection be? What would the costs be?
