"Ultimately, government policies should aim to both maximize the development gains of migration—for the migrants, origin societies, and destination societies—and provide refugees with adequate international protection."

Annotation #3: This quote made me see migration not just as an economic or humanitarian issue but as a way to boost development. The author shows that when migration is well-managed, it benefits both the country migrants come from and the one they move to, which can help reduce inequality. This links to today’s question about whether migration increases inequality by suggesting that, with the right policies, migration can actually lower inequality.

Related Article: The article "Migration and Development" discusses how migration helps development through remittances and sharing ideas, supporting the view that policies can turn migration into a tool for reducing inequality. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/primers/migration-and-development/

"Climate change is compounding the economic drivers of migration. About 40 percent of the world’s population—3.5 billion people—live in places highly exposed to the impacts of climate change."

Annotation #2: This section makes me wonder how international rules will need to change to handle the growing number of people moving because of climate change. Will these climate migrants increase inequality in rich countries, or could this be a chance for better opportunities if it's managed well? This connects to the question about migration and trade, showing how things like climate change could affect inequality, depending on how countries set up their policies.

"Where migrants stand in the Match and Motive Matrix is determined in part by destination countries’ policies."

Annotation #1: This part shows the author’s point that migration results don’t just depend on the migrants themselves but also a lot on the rules of the countries they move to. The author explains that these rules decide how well the migrants’ skills fit the needs of the country they move to. If they fit well, migration can be more helpful for both the migrants and the country. This connects to today’s question about how migration and free trade can cause more inequality because these rules can either make inequality better or worse, depending on how they’re set up.

"The U.S. and European economies combined are more than 20 times as large as Russia’s economy. Even if sanctions imposed equivalent costs on them and on Russia—and usually, they hit Moscow far harder—Russia still would end up substantially worse off in relative terms."

Annotation #2: This part made me wonder, how are the U.S. and Europe going to handle the costs of these sanctions, especially if Russia decides to cut off its energy exports? Could that mean higher gas prices for everyone?

"Sanctions and export controls can limit Russia’s ability to produce and develop advanced military equipment."

Annotation #3: I never thought about how these sanctions can actually slow down Russia’s military development. It’s interesting because I always assumed sanctions just hurt the economy, but this could really change their ability to build weapons too. This gave me a new perspective on how economic moves like this can affect global military balance. It makes me think that over time, Russia’s military power could shrink, which ties back to our question about the long-term global effects.

Sanctions are now less a tool of behavioral change than one aimed at economic and technological attrition.

Article: https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/economy/global-economic-impact-of-sanctions-on-russia.html Annotation #1: I think the authors are saying that these sanctions aren’t really about stopping Russia from acting right now but more about hurting their economy and tech long term. This connects to our question because it shows how these economic measures are designed to wear Russia down over time, making it harder for them to be a global power in the future. The Deloitte article also highlights this, explaining how sanctions on commodities, technology, and financial institutions are causing disruptions that could lead to higher inflation, supply chain issues, and weakened growth in Russia. It confirms that this strategy is more of a long-term game plan to erode Russia’s global influence.

Annotation #3: China's liberalization and overall economic rise has given it a new role in global power, and this crisis definitely expanded its influence. My epiphany is that liberalization hasn't just brought benefits to China but shifted global geopolitics in favor of China. Because of how much China manufactures, their control over supply chains gives it leverage when responding to crises.

https://www.bruegel.org/blog-post/china-and-west-growing-apart-geopolitical-tensions-grow

This source mentions how China's strategy has caused a shift in these global power dynamics. It also talks about how the West copes with this change, mentioning their skepticism in China's responsibility.

Annotation #2: Why did China dominate the medical supply chain? Should we sacrifice efficiency to make us less dependent on one country?

While markets have definitely benefitted from China's manufacturing capacity and cost, this question asks if they have become too reliant.

Annotation 1: Although there are many advantages to globalization, there are drawbacks as well. This passage encapsulates the main idea of the article. This relates to the inquiry question by showing how China's liberalization has contributed to global interconnectedness, but also reveals the risks. China's participation in international supply chains has been essential to the expansion of the world economy, but the pandemic shows how this interdependence can backfire in the face of unanticipated crises like COVID-19.

https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/economics-climate-change

Annotation #3 (Epiphany): This prompts an important realization. Any change we make - mitigating or furthering damage - has compounding effects over time. This epiphany shows me that the cost of delaying action will have exponential effects. When weighing it against potential economic development, countries must consider future costs/benefits. The EPA article talks about specific policies (like emission taxes) that try to control these long-term impacts by holding those responsible to accountability.

Annotation #2 (Questions): Would slowing down economic growth be justified if we created a Pigovian tax to make up for environmental damage, or is there a better way to address these damages without hampering businesses and their activities? This connects to the inquiry as it directly talks about economic growth and whether it can be sustained if we use this tax to mitigate damages.

Annotation #1 (Thoughts): What is the author thinking, trying to say?

Murphy tells us that environmental damage from climate change is a market failure because businesses and individuals do not bear the cost of the damage they cause. This is directly relevant to the inquiry question, as it discusses the concept of market failure. The positives of economic growth do not account for the environmental damages; this is definitely critical in industrial expansion in developing countries, as the costs of damage would grow as the country develops.

"Cultural factors that emphasize how “Hispanic” or “Latin” culture molded the Spanish Empire can’t explain the differences within Latin America—for example, why Argentina and Chile are more prosperous than Peru and Bolivia. Other types of cultural arguments—for instance, those that stress contemporary indigenous culture—fare equally badly. Argentina and Chile have few indigenous people compared with Peru and Bolivia. Though this is true, indigenous culture as an explanation does not work, either. Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru have similar income levels, but Colombia has very few indigenous people today, while Ecuador and Peru have many. Finally, cultural attitudes, which are in general slow to change, are unlikely to account by themselves for the growth miracles in East Asia and China.."

This quote made me rethink the role of culture in economic growth and development. I had always believed that cultural factors drove economic success, as they had a huge impact on the way people in a country behaved. However, here the author argues that culture alone cannot account for differences between nations. It talks about how China has very rapidly grown, and it's unlikely for culture to change in this short amount of time. This has shifted my understanding of disparities in the world. I think I had an oversimplification in my head, that cultures were keeping certain countries from growing. While this still may be true I know its not the whole issue now.

Link to related Article: To understand the relationship between culture and economic development, I read this articles from the World Economic Forum: What role does culture play in development It highlights that while culture does have a role in outcomes, it is not the sole determinant. It points our that cultural traits are often shaped by economic incentives and political stability, suggesting the real issue might be rooted to governance, which aligns with this text as well.

Annotation #2 (Questions): What questions do you have about the text after having read it? In this second annotation you should use hypothes.is to highlight a section of the text in which the author expressed an idea that caused a question to arise in your mind. It could be a question relating to something you would like to research this semester or just something about which you are confused. Explain how the passage relates to today's inquiry question.

"As we will show, poor countries are poor because those who have power make choices that create poverty. They get it wrong not by mistake or ignorance but on purpose."

What factors promote the rise of leaders who perpetuate poverty through poor choices?

This passage gets to the crux of the issue, which is that a lack of economic growth and development in a country is due to leaders who make bad choices on purpose (rather than through ignorance).

Annotation #1 (Thoughts): What is the author thinking, trying to say? In this first annotation you should use hypothes.is to highlight a section of the text in which one of the main ideas (thoughts) expressed by the author is clearly stated. Explain how the passage relates to today's inquiry question.

"Most economists and policymakers have focused on “getting it right,” while what is really needed is an explanation for why poor nations “get it wrong.” Getting it wrong is mostly not about ignorance or culture. As we will show, poor countries are poor because those who have power make choices that create poverty. They get it wrong not by mistake or ignorance but on purpose."

The author has just discounted numerous commonly believed theories that poverty is caused by geography, culture, and ignorance. Instead, he tries to make the point that the reason these countries "get it wrong" is the reason there is a lack of economic growth/development is because of the specific choices that those in power choose to make. He wants to point out that politics, or who gets to make what choices, is a huge part of economics and development.

"In contrast, a recent effort in South Africa to teach financial literacy through an engaging television soap opera improved the financial choices that individuals made. Financial messages were embedded in a soap opera about a financially reckless character. Households that watched the soap opera for two months were less likely to gamble and less likely to purchase goods through an expensive installment plan."

This passage shows the powerful influence of something as simple as a soap opera on financial behavior. Simply putting the narrative of someone with poor financial management can help people improve theirs (as it is factored in their automatic thinking). Things like these don't have a very tangible output, so it may be hard to track, but it is a very interesting insight which has good potential for change in the future. This connects to the text as it shows how poor peoples decisions are easily influenced and that putting messages into their heads can influence their economic choices.

"Human sociality (the tendency of people to be concerned with and associate with each other) adds a layer of complexity and realism to the analysis of human decision making and behavior. Because many economic policies assume individuals are self-regarding, autonomous decision makers, these policies often focus on external material incentives, like prices."

Why does assuming people are self-regarding and autonomous overlook the social and psychological influences of poverty? How can policy makers even take into account social aspects given they are fairly intangible (compared to prices at least)?

This relates to our inquiry question as it talks about oversights of policy makers which influence the decisions people in poverty make.

"In Kenya, many households report a lack of cash as an impediment to investing in preventive health products, such as insecticide-treated mosquito nets. However, by providing people with a lockable metal box, a padlock, and a passbook that a household simply labels with the name of a preventive health product, researchers increased savings, and investment in these products rose by 66–75 percent"

Through this passage, the author shows how poverty shapes individual economic choices by highlighting barriers that prevent low-income individuals in Kenya to make good financial decisions. A lack of savings can make people not buy preventive products, despite the need. By just providing a box it can mentally help people allocate funds. This shows that even a minor non-physical adjustment in the environment can significantly influence behaviors. Poverty doesn't just reduce resources, it reduces the ability to manage resources, which shape different choices,