Job Loss and Globalization: U.S. Manufacturing and Maquiladoras
This paper traces the relocation of a U.S. manufacturing job from New Jersey through Mississippi and ultimately to a maquiladora in Matamoros, Mexico, using Universal Manufacturing as a case study. It examines the role of tax incentives, cheap labor, and weak regulatory environments in driving capital mobility across borders. The paper argues that economic globalization, while promoted as universally beneficial, carries significant human costs for workers on both sides of the border. It critiques free trade orthodoxy and calls for interventionist policies to address regulatory imbalances, collective bargaining rights, and environmental standards, with reference to WTO National Treatment provisions and their limitations.
- Universal Manufacturing and the Move South: Founding and southward relocation of Universal Manufacturing
- Capital Mobility and the Maquiladora System: Tax incentives and cheap labor drive cross-border relocation
- Free Trade, Externalities, and the Limits of Orthodoxy: Human costs of globalization and regulatory imbalances
- Protectionism as a Policy Response: Protectionist policies to level competitive playing field
- Global Regulatory Frameworks and the WTO: WTO National Treatment rules and their limitations
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Uses a concrete, human-scale case study — the relocation of a single worker's job across three locations — to ground abstract economic arguments about globalization.
- Moves logically from empirical description to policy critique, giving the argument a clear narrative arc without losing analytical focus.
- Engages with counterarguments (e.g., free trade fostering innovation) before rebutting them, demonstrating balanced critical reasoning.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates the use of a micro-level narrative to illuminate macro-level economic forces. By anchoring the discussion in Universal Manufacturing's history and a named worker (Balbina Duque), the author makes the costs of capital mobility tangible before escalating to broader regulatory and policy arguments. This technique — moving from the particular to the general — is especially effective in social science writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a brief factual case study covering Universal Manufacturing's founding, expansion, and eventual relocation to Mexico. A discussion section follows, divided into distinct argumentative moves: critique of free trade orthodoxy, the problem of regulatory asymmetry, the case for protectionism, and the limitations of WTO frameworks. The paper closes by identifying future challenges in international labor and environmental regulation. The Works Cited section follows APA-adjacent formatting.
Universal Manufacturing and the Move South
In 1955, a worker began her three-decade stint on the assembly line at Universal Manufacturing. The firm was founded in 1947 by Archie Sergy, an entrepreneur with a questionable past. Universal eventually opened another plant in Simpson County, Mississippi, in the early 1960s. Building on a longstanding commitment to increase industrialization, the state lured Universal by offering to transfer the cost of building a new plant to the taxpayer. The move south was a preview of what was to happen in the 1980s, when a leveraged buyout put the firm in new, more cost-conscious hands.
Capital Mobility and the Maquiladora System
As locations continuously competed to attract new firms, the Mexican government made plant relocation attractive by offering tax-free zones, cheap labor, and a willingness to clamp down on union organizers. Mexican manufacturing paid workers so little that companies were sometimes forced to provide food to their employees, because workers could not feed themselves on their wages alone. The flow of capital had allowed companies to move across borders freely. Some factories were even being moved within Mexico, as companies followed the lowest wages and labor costs to their lowest possible point. The job ultimately moved from New Jersey to Mississippi and Arkansas, and eventually to a maquiladora in Matamoros, Mexico.
Free Trade, Externalities, and the Limits of Orthodoxy
This outcome was not inevitable — or at least would not have been inevitable — if proper rules of the game had been established. The move was probably harmful overall, because it only ended up destroying jobs in the United States while exploiting workers like Balbina Duque in Mexico. Economic orthodoxy would have us believe that economic globalization and free trade have no downside. Yet journalist and author Adler (Land of Opportunity) reminds us that these sweeping economic changes do carry a human cost; his book recounts the rise and fall of an electrical manufacturing company through the eyes of its founders, workers, and the politicians, union organizers, and corporate raiders who shape its fate (Stewart, N.d.).
There are obviously opposing views on such an issue; however, there must be some mechanisms that level the playing field with regard to the many factors of production, of which labor is only a portion of the total equation. For example, regulations dealing with issues such as collective bargaining may be present in one country but not in another. Therefore, although there may be financial advantages for an individual firm to produce in a country without meaningful regulations, doing so increases the externalities that the entire society must bear. Interventionist policies should therefore be implemented to reduce such externalities.
Works Cited
Horn, H. (2011). The burden of proof in trade disputes and the environment. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 15–29.
Stewart, D. (N.d.). A worker's job. Retrieved from Amazon.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.