A study published in the August 2008 edition of the American Journal of Agricultural Economics found that NAFTA increased U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico and Canada, although most of the increase occurred a decade after its ratification. The study focused on the impact of phase-in periods in regional trade agreements, including NAFTA, on trade flows. Most of the increase in membership agricultural trade, recently entered into the World Trade Organization, is due to very high trade barriers prior to NAFTA or other regional trade agreements.  Political scientist Daniel W. Drezner of Tufts University argued that NAFTA makes it easier to transform Mexico into a true democracy and become a country that considers itself a North American country. This has strengthened cooperation between the United States and Mexico.  The political divide was particularly large in terms of views on free trade with Mexico. Contrary to a positive view of free trade with Canada, which 79% of Americans called fair trade partners, only 47% of Americans thought that Mexico practiced fair trade. The gap between Democrats and Republicans has widened: 60% of Democrats thought Mexico was fair trade, while only 28% of Republicans did. That was the highest number of Democrats and the lowest figure ever recorded by Republicans in the Chicago Council survey. Republicans had more negative views on Canada than fair trade partners and Democrats.
 A 2007 study showed that NAFTA had “a significant impact on the volume of international trade, but a modest impact on prices and well-being.”  It is clear that NAFTA continues to improve political views on globalization and free trade in general. Opposition to NAFTA has intensified, making it much more politically difficult to adopt other similar free trade agreements. This became clear in the summer of 2005, when the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) stopped in Congress because of a lack of support. Two journalists, Dawn Gilbertson and Jonathan J. Higuera, who wrote in the Arizona Republic on the tenth anniversary of NAFTA, summed it up this way: “The reality of NAFTA at 10 years old is this: a story of winners and losers, divided largely by the workplace and what we do.” The same goes for the impact of NAFTA on small businesses. For some, it was an opportunity to grow and for others it was a challenge. Through NAFTA, the three signatories agreed to remove barriers to trade between them. By removing tariffs, NAFTA has increased investment opportunities.
The North American Free Trade Agreement Act made some changes to U.S. copyright and took issue with the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994 by restoring copyright (within NAFTA nations) to certain films that had been made public.   Canada experienced strong growth in cross-border investment in the NAFTA era: since 1993, investment in the United States and Mexico has tripled in Canada. U.S. investment, which accounts for more than half of Canada`s fleet, has grown from [PDF] $70 billion in 1993 to more than $368 billion in 2013. The first agreement was the North American Labour Cooperation Agreement (NAALC), which protected factory workers from possible job losses. The second agreement was the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC). The NAAEC was signed to address environmental concerns of environmentalists about the potential effects of rapid industrialization in Mexico due to their lack of experience in enforcing environmental legislation.