NGOs have often been lauded for their efforts in international development. It was long assumed that aid money given to an NGO would be more efficient, more accountable democratically to local civil organizations, and more likely to reach the intended people and not a foreign bank account. As many states democratized, the NGOs assisting them became increasingly dependent on funding from neoliberal donors. Critics, such as Zaidi, Petras, and Kamat, have begun to argue that the NGOs themselves have become unaccountable and undemocratic. They propose bringing the state back into the development process. Yet would this solution be truly effective in light of the massive debts, dependence, and global structural imbalances faced by many developing states?

This essay will begin with a detailed analysis of how NAFTA fits into the concept of regionalism and addressing the international political economy theories that inform it. It will then move on to a thorough critique of the economic and political motivations of the United States, Canada and Mexico and the theories that explain them, before bringing the NAFTA debate up to date with a brief summary of where we stand now. It will argue that NAFTA primarily serves an economic function, but was brought about by a ‘confluence of many factors’ which helped to shape NAFTA into the free-trade agreement that today appears irreversible.