Emphatic Agreement In Mexico

Although the emphasis on institutions is highlighted during the negotiation of several trade agreements by the Mexican government, the major importance of Mexico`s trade relations with the world is strongly focused on the North American Free Trade Agreement and, in particular, with the United States. For example, in 1990, 69 per cent of Mexican exports went to the United States, 85 per cent in 1994, when NAFTA entered into force, and increased to 89 per cent in 2000, representing a very high concentration. Similarly, most of the imported products come from the United States. They accounted for 62% of the total in 1990, 72% in 1994 and 74% in 2000. In parallel with these trends over the past decade, imports from Asian countries and the European Union have steadily increased (INEGI, 2002). 1. Mexico reaffirms its strong support for the Paris Agreement and will continue to implement the objectives of its National Contribution (INDC) and National Climate Change Strategy. One of the important concerns of the officials responsible for renegotiating the external debt was to guarantee the packages in the most comprehensive and flexible way possible. The pursuit of the objective of finding a solution to the external debt problem was a pragmatic criterion which considered it more appropriate to reach a satisfactory agreement rather than a good but spontaneous agreement (Aspe Armella, 1993). In the 1980s – a time called for most Latin American countries the “lost decade” of growth and development –neither the Baker nor Brady plans provided Mexico with the conditions to reactivate its economy and stimulate growth as needed.

The plans were relatively timely agreements, although insufficient and far from optimal from the debtor`s point of view, due to a negative transfer of private and public capital during most of the 1980s (Villarreal, 1990); Ramos de Villarreal and Villarreal, 2000). The strategy of using revenues from the sale of state-owned enterprises was an important complementary strategy to reduce the public debt problem. On the one hand, the divestiture of state-owned and semi-public enterprises was seen as a step towards a more efficient and effective government that would create the conditions for long-term macroeconomic stability. At the same time, criteria such as the sale of state-owned enterprises in cash and the use of creative financing have been used as additional guidelines for the use of privatization revenues to repay public debts (Aspe Armella, 1993). In order to make the external orientation of the economic model of globalization compatible with national legislation and to create a legal framework for such changes, important legislative amendments and adaptations have been made. . . .