Research Library

Mexico Center director Tony Payan weighs in on what President Trump calls "maybe the greatest trade deal ever" between the U.S. and Mexico.

By Peter Salisbury, Chatham House; Arab Gulf States Institute This brief provides an overview of the evolution of aid and development resources by the GCC states over the past several decades and discusses the political context for their emergence as donor nations. Peter Salisbury discusses the GCC in aid and development in both a short issue brief and longer research paper on pluralism and inclusion in the Middle East after the Arab Spring. The project is generously supported by a grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

The authors examine the impact of draconian immigration policies on business sectors that depend on immigrants, many times undocumented, for labor. 

Mexico's 18-to-35 year old demographic, the largest voting bloc in the country, could have a historic impact at the polls when voters select a new president on July 1.

Rising crime and violence in Mexico threaten to derail the economic reforms that are President Enrique Peña Nieto's legacy.

The most likely future for NAFTA is neither continuity — that is off the table as per U.S. goals — nor a “modernized” agreement that the U.S. does not appear to want.

The landscape is changing for foreign direct investment in Latin America. Investments flow not only from north to south, but also from south to south and south to north. What's more, relatively small firms in developing countries are becoming as likely as multinationals to invest abroad.

Most analysis of NAFTA begins by citing the huge increase in bilateral trade between the U.S., Canada and Mexico since 1993. U.S.-Mexico trade—exports plus imports—has grown three and a half times faster than U.S. GDP since NAFTA began in 1994. If NAFTA were solely responsible for that trade, renegotiating it on more favorable terms might have big payoffs. However, there are seven problems with thinking NAFTA has mattered or can matter very much.

A universally agreed-upon definition of the U.S.-Mexico border region is elusive, to say the least. The boundaries vary widely depending on the government entity or academic institution involved. This brief reviews the many officially sanctioned definitions of the region, and explains why a consensus is necessary for effective border management.

The authors of this brief assert that amid mounting allegations of abuse of power at the U.S.-Mexico border, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) needs to incorporate measures to improve transparency and accountability, particularly in the matter of redressing complaints.