"Migration has proved to be a powerful force for development, improving the lives of hundreds of millions of migrants, their families, and the societies in which they live across the world." Thought: The author is emphasizing that migration is not just about movement—it’s a key driver of economic and human development. This connects directly to today’s inquiry question about the role of migration in shaping global societies. The author is trying to challenge the notion that migration is mainly a burden and instead reframe it as an opportunity for growth, both for individuals and countries. I think this sets up the framework for the rest of the report, which seems focused on showing how migration, if managed well, can benefit all parties involved.

"Migration is necessary for all countries... Yet moving has costs that most poor people cannot afford." Question: If poor people can't afford to migrate, how can migration still be considered a tool for reducing global inequality? If migration is mostly an option for the middle class, are we leaving out the poorest populations who might benefit the most? This complicates the idea that migration is an equalizing force. It also made me wonder what policies could lower these barriers for the very poor and make migration more accessible. This ties to the inquiry question by pushing us to ask: Who gets to migrate, and why? Are the people who migrate the ones who truly need to, or the ones who simply can?

"Migration is also just one of many forces transforming societies in an age of rapid change, alongside modernization, secularization, technological progress, shifts in gender roles and family structures, and the emergence of new norms and values." Epiphany: I’d never thought about migration as part of a broader set of global transformations. We usually hear about migration in isolation—as a “crisis” or a policy issue—but seeing it grouped with tech, gender norms, and modernization helped me realize it’s part of a much bigger social shift. That changes how I think about it—migration is not just reacting to change, it is one of the forces driving it. According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM), “migration has become a defining feature of our globalized world” and is increasingly interwoven with “climate change, economic restructuring, and demographic change.” This supports the epiphany by showing that migration is embedded in other global processes—not separate from them. That changes how we should approach it: not as a standalone challenge, but as part of broader transformation strategies. https://www.iom.int/global-compact-migration

"Fishman and Miller argue that the purpose of sanctions has shifted from deterrence to long-term economic weakening. This is significant because it highlights how economic policy is being used not just for immediate political consequences but as a tool for reshaping global power structures. This passage relates to today's inquiry question by illustrating how economic sanctions are now structured as a prolonged strategy rather than a short-term punishment." Thought: Fishman and Miller argue that the purpose of sanctions has shifted from deterrence to long-term economic weakening. This is significant because it highlights how economic policy is being used not just for immediate political consequences but as a tool for reshaping global power structures. This passage relates to today's inquiry question by illustrating how economic sanctions are now structured as a prolonged strategy rather than a short-term punishment.

"Thus far, U.S. and EU measures against Russia have focused on the country’s financial sector while largely sparing its energy industry. Tough sanctions on oil and gas sales, by far Russia’s most valuable exports, will be politically difficult because markets are tight and the Biden administration worries about the impact on domestic gasoline prices and inflation." Question: This raises a critical question: If energy exports are Russia’s main economic strength, why have Western nations hesitated to target them aggressively? Would targeting oil and gas have had a more immediate impact on Russia’s ability to sustain the war in Ukraine? Fishman and Miller suggest that political and economic concerns—especially domestic inflation—play a role, but does this indicate a limit to how far sanctions can be used as a weapon? This connects to today's inquiry by questioning the effectiveness and strategic trade-offs of economic sanctions.

"sanctions can limit Russia’s ability to project power is by complicating Putin’s domestic calculus. Escalating economic discontent at home could spur the Kremlin to shift resources away from its military and foreign policy priorities and toward supporting living standards." Epiphany: This made me realize that economic sanctions are not just about limiting financial resources but also about influencing internal political dynamics. Fishman and Miller suggest that economic distress could weaken Putin’s domestic support, forcing him to shift priorities. The Hidden Toll of Sanctions reinforces this idea, explaining that sanctions often weaken authoritarian regimes by increasing economic hardship for citizens, sometimes sparking unrest or elite fractures. If Russia’s economy suffers prolonged stagnation, internal pressure could make continued military aggression unsustainable. Link to article—https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2022-01-17/hidden-toll-sanctions

To what extent should countries prioritize their own citizens versus cooperating internationally during a crisis? The pandemic showed that national governments often resort to hoarding essential resources, but could this behavior actually make things worse for everyone in the long run? Should there be international agreements to prevent this type of competition for critical supplies This article https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7731425/ discusses similar questions about global cooperation during COVID-19 supply shortages.

This made me think about how global leadership shifts during crises. The authors suggest that China is using the pandemic to expand its influence by providing aid, while the U.S. is withdrawing from its role as a global leader. I hadn't thought about pandemics as geopolitical events, but this passage makes me realize how countries can use crises strategically to improve their standing on the world stage. If globalization continues, will we see China replacing the U.S. as the dominant economic power in the long term?

Farrell and Newman argue that the pandemic exposes the vulnerabilities of globalization, rather than proving it to be a complete failure. This connects to today's inquiry question because it suggests that while globalization has made supply chains more efficient, it has also made economies more dependent on one another, leading to greater risks in times of crisis. Instead of abandoning globalization altogether, should policymakers focus on creating more resilient supply chains rather than purely efficient ones?

Epiphany: This was an epiphany for me because it compares past technological transitions to current climate policies. Additionally this article by MIT (https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/05/05/1001142/ai-reinforcement-learning-simulate-economy-fairer-tax-policy-income-inequality-recession-pandemic/) made me realize how difficult it is to predict future innovations. Could aggressive climate regulations today limit the flexibility needed to adapt to future technological breakthroughs? This reframes the climate debate to include not just environmental risks but also the risks of misallocating resources based on assumptions about the future.

Question: Is it more effective to invest in combating climate change now, or should we focus on economic growth to give future generations the wealth to handle climate issues themselves? This challenges the assumption that immediate climate action is always the best approach. It connects to today’s inquiry because it questions the balance between economic growth and environmental sustainability. This debate is discussed in this article. https://impact.economist.com/perspectives/sustainability/cost-inaction/white-paper/cost-inaction

Thought: The author argues that climate change represents a "massive negative externality", meaning that the environmental costs of emissions aren’t reflected in market prices. This idea is central to the economics of climate change because it justifies government intervention through taxes or regulations to internalize these costs. This relates to today’s inquiry question by highlighting why climate change isn’t just an environmental issue but also an economic one. The argument is supported by this article from the World Bank explains the role of economic externalities in climate change policy. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/359251468746682533/toward-integrating-climate-change-externalities-in-bank-sector-work

Quote: "One might think that the fact that world inequality is so huge and consequential and has such sharply drawn patterns would mean that it would have a well-accepted explanation. Not so. Most hypotheses that social scientists have proposed for the origins of poverty and prosperity just don’t work and fail to convincingly explain the lay of the land." Thought: Acemoğlu and Robinson argue that traditional theories, geography, culture, and ignorance, fail to fully explain why some nations are rich and others remain poor. They emphasize that economic development is not simply a matter of physical environment, cultural values, or lack of knowledge but rather a deeper issue tied to political structures and institutions. This passage directly relates to the inquiry question, “What are the sources of economic development?” because it challenges conventional notions and suggests that a more institutional perspective is necessary to understand how nations develop economically.

Quote: "This reversal clearly had nothing to do with geography and, as we have already seen, something to do with the way these areas were colonized." Question: If geography didn't determine economic success, what specific colonial policies or decisions led to the long-term divergence between former colonies? How do these policies continue to impact economic development today? This passage raises an important question about how colonization shaped economic institutions. While the authors dismiss geography as a determining factor, they suggest that colonial strategies played a major role. However, the text does not go into detail about how colonization led to different outcomes in different places. This question is relevant to the inquiry question because it probes deeper into the institutional and historical factors that shape economic development.

Quote: "We will argue that achieving prosperity depends on solving some basic political problems. It is precisely because economics has assumed that political problems are solved that it has not been able to come up with a convincing explanation for world inequality." Epiphany: This passage provides a major shift in thinking. Rather than seeing economic growth as a technical or policy issue, Acemoğlu and Robinson frame it as a fundamentally political issue. This idea challenges the assumption that countries fail to develop simply because they lack good policies. Instead, it suggests that those in power choose policies that maintain poverty to protect their own interests. This might encourage one to think about economic development as a matter of finding the right economic model but as a matter of addressing political structures and power dynamics. This perspective aligns with the findings of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), which suggest that different patterns of economic development are causally related to differences in economic institutions. Countries that create inclusive and secure property rights and the rule of law grow, while those that do not stagnate or decline. Link https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/115611/1/MPRA_paper_115611.pdf