The African Growth and Opportunity Act has generated many jobs in the clothing manufacturing sector, especially for women. Photo: Jenny Bussey Vaughan/Mercy Corps

Most Americans may have never heard of the African Growth and Opportunity Act, but their closets probably contain at least one article of clothing imported as part of it.

The act — AGOA, by its acronym — was passed by Congress in 2000. It’s a free-trade deal between the U.S. and a number of Sub-Saharan African nations that eliminates quotas and duties for certain goods. It allows African products to compete with those from other regions on a more level playing field on the U.S. market. 87 percent of these imports consist of petroleum and minerals, according to a report by the Council on Foreign Relations. That’s not all, though, as Florizelle Lizer, the assistant U.S. trade representative for Africa explained to the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of International Information Programs:

The main focus of our efforts and our capacity-building assistance related to AGOA has always been to promote new nontraditional and value-added exports from Africa like apparel, footwear, processed agricultural products and manufactured goods.

This is where you’ll find AGOA’s selling point for the average Joe or Joanna in one of its member states. It’s created tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs, and many of these new employees are women. Some of the largest gains are in clothing manufacturing. For a poor, landlocked country like Lesotho, clothing exports tripled and 50,000 new jobs appeared following its entrance into AGOA, according to a report by Lawrence Edwards and Robert Lawrence. It’s also helping to empower women by providing them access to a regular income, comments Zambia News Features.

There’s a catch, though: AGOA says the materials used to make products exported to the U.S. must be manufactured in the exporting country or, at the very least, in another AGOA state. But being able to manufacture fabrics on an industrial scale is a tall order for developing nations that don’t already have that kind of infrastructure. Luckily for them, another piece was added to AGOA a few years after it debuted. It’s called the Third Country Fabric Rule, and it allows African countries to import their fabric from other parts of the world, manufacture the finished product at home, and then export it to the U.S. under AGOA.

The Third Country Rule doesn’t quite sync up with AGOA, and must be renewed more frequently. AGOA itself isn’t up for revision until 2015, while the Third Country Rule is set to expire in 2012. In May, AllAfrica reported that the U.S. had said that "its market would no longer be accepting garments whose raw materials could have been sourced from outside the exporting country." Since then, a U.S. congressman submitted a bill to extend the Rule until 2015, though an article from Forbes argues that recent U.S. actions concerning AGOA constitute a kind of "benign neglect."

Not everyone is in favor of AGOA in its current state, though. Some call it a fig leaf for the oil industry or a cap on the growth of African manufacturing. U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, is a supporter, but in a recent speech at the AGOA forum in Zambia she pointed out some of its shortcomings, according to Procurement News. She said African governments need to work on providing greater support to manufacturers — citing the example of an American business that chose to import from Vietnam instead of an AGOA because Vietnamese government subsidies meant that the factory there could churn out products more quickly. Clinton also criticized the fact that countries "export only a handful of the 6,500 products," eligible under AGOA, while "the most common export is still a barrel of oil." Others see the Third Country Rule as actually stunting the growth of local textile industries. It might be cheaper to import from Asia in the short run, but local businesses could suffer the long-term.

But in the minds of many, allowing the rule to lapse — or even threatening to let it do so — makes investors nervous and hurts countries’ long-term prospects. Here’s hoping congressional inaction concerning your clothing’s origin won’t cost an African woman the shirt off her back.

Margo Conner is a senior at Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon, majoring in international affairs. Read her other contributions to Global Envision.

Rising gas prices are causing some Californians to head to the border. Photo: Thomas Hawk (flickr)

Rising gas prices are driving Californians to fill up in Mexico, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Gas is approaching $5 a gallon in San Diego — twice as much as it is in neighboring Tijuana. Many Californians not only filling up in Mexico, they're even installing extra-large fuel tanks in pickups and work vehicles for later use, often bringing back enough to sell in California for a large profit.

Suppliers of fuel tanks and San Diego auto shops are happy at the phenomenal business. For example, fuel tank company Transfer Flow made more than half a million dollars in May alone.

But many Mexicans are unhappy about the “gringo invasion," which has meant long lines at gas stations and diesel shortages. This week, the number of Tijuana stations offering diesel dropped significantly. Many stations are beginning to refuse to serve Americans.

Historically Pemex, the Mexican state oil monopoly, set gas prices along the border within a few cents of U.S. prices, deterring motorists from comparison shopping. But as gas prices have shot up in the U.S., Mexico has kept its prices down with massive government subsidies to keep gas affordable for Mexican citizens. But these subsidies are causing problems for the government's budget. In fact, an additional $20 billion dollar subsidy was added to the Mexican federal budget as an emergency measure in May, as part of an effort bolster the economy.

And because Mexico doesn’t have the refinery capacity to turn their own oil into gasoline, it imports a large percentage of its gas from the U.S.. So by subsidizing the fuel — and then reselling it to U.S. citizens at cheap rates — the Mexican government is losing money any way you look at it.

Today, Business Week takes a look at how Mexico is benefiting under Nafta -- but why the free trade agreement hasn't solved all of Mexico's economic woes.

There's no question that the country has benefited greatly from Nafta: Mexico has become the world's 15th-largest exporter, sending abroad $272 billion of merchandise in 2007 ($43 billion of which was oil). It transformed a $3 billion trade deficit with the U.S. in 1993 into a $75 billion surplus in 2007. Mexico went on to sign free-trade agreements with 41 other countries, attracting some $223 billion of foreign investment in 15 years.

So, why did tens of thousands of angry Mexican farmers take to the streets in late January, demanding that Nafta be renegotiated? Because after a decade and a half of free trade, Mexico's economic transformation is incomplete, and many Mexicans are blaming Nafta for a plethora of problems that have more to do with bad government policies than with free trade.