Annotation 3: "Origin countries benefit most from labor migration when they make it an explicit part of their poverty reduction strategy... These benefits could be amplified by lowering the costs of sending remittances."

This section presents an epiphany about the role of structured migration in poverty reduction. Understanding that migration, when managed properly, can contribute to economic stability through remittances and knowledge transfer offers a new perspective. This insight encourages a rethinking of migration as a strategic tool for poverty reduction rather than just a social issue. This thought connects with the inquiry question by reframing migration as a structured development strategy with tangible, targeted benefits.

https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2023

Annotation 2: "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: water shortages, drought, heat stresses, sea level rise, and extreme events."

This passage raises questions about the specific ways climate change contributes to migration patterns. It invites inquiry into potential policies that could mitigate climate-related migration. A question might be, "What strategies could both origin and destination countries employ to address climate-driven migration effectively?" This aligns with the inquiry question by prompting further exploration into how environmental factors intersect with migration policy.

Annotation 1: "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. But there are challenges as well—for migrants, their countries of origin, and their countries of destination."

This passage addresses one of the main ideas of the text: migration as both a beneficial and challenging force in global development. It connects to today's inquiry question by exploring the dual nature of migration’s impact—both as a driver of progress and a source of issues that require careful management. The author seems to convey the necessity of understanding both benefits and challenges to implement policies that maximize positive outcomes.

Political leaders, however, must be open about the fact that such a policy involves tradeoffs.

This passage highlights that sanctions are not without costs for those who impose them, not just for the target country. This thought changed my perspective on economic sanctions, as I previously viewed them as tools to only punish the offending country. Now I realize they can also impose significant sacrifices on the sanctioning nations themselves. Relating to today’s inquiry question, this passage underscores the complexity of international relations, where every decision carries tradeoffs, and there's no clear-cut solution in economic warfare.

Sanctions designed to choke off Russian oil exports, for instance, would increase energy prices, at least in the short term. Fearing domestic backlash, many U.S. and European leaders are therefore opposed to such measures.

How sustainable is it for Western economies to continue applying economic pressure on Russia without suffering severe domestic economic consequences? Is there a balance that can be struck, or will long-term sanctions lead to instability in other markets? This raises a question about how sanctions impact the global economy, particularly in terms of energy markets, which directly relates to today’s inquiry on the broader effects of sanctions as a geopolitical tool.

The report explains how sanctions, especially on Russia, have led to significant disruptions in global energy markets. It highlights that while the immediate effects include higher prices and self-sanctioning by companies, over time, markets tend to adapt by finding alternatives. However, long-term sanctions could force Russia to sell its energy resources at a discount, affecting both its revenues and the global energy supply. (https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/OilPricesSanctions_CGEP_Commentary_033122-4.pdf)

Their primary objective is no longer to deter Moscow from taking particular actions but to drastically alter the trade and investment links between Russia and the United States and its allies—to the latter’s geopolitical advantage.

This passage explains a key shift in the U.S. and EU's sanction strategy. The author is saying that sanctions have evolved from deterrence to economic attrition, aiming to weaken Russia's ability to operate on the global stage over the long term. This highlights the main idea of the new playbook on sanctions. Relating to today's inquiry question, this passage illustrates that economic actions are now tools of geopolitical competition rather than purely tools of behavior modification.

This insight offers an epiphany about the long-term implications of the pandemic on economic thinking. It suggests that the pandemic could lead to a fundamental reassessment of how economies operate, revealing that the global economy's existing structure may not be as resilient as previously believed. This shift in perspective is key to understanding the future of globalization, tying back to the inquiry question about whether the pandemic will permanently alter the dynamics of global interconnectedness.

This passage raises the question: Will countries and companies shift away from the specialization model of globalization that has driven economic growth for decades, given the fragility it exposed during the pandemic? It makes me wonder whether businesses will prioritize efficiency or resilience moving forward. Could we see a reversal of decades of global economic integration in favor of more self-sufficiency?

The inquiry question explores how globalization might evolve after the COVID-19 pandemic. This passage and question tie into that by asking whether companies will continue to rely on globalized supply chains or transition toward more localized, self-sustaining models that provide security in crises.

This passage highlights one of the main arguments of the article—that while globalization creates economic efficiencies through specialization, it also introduces significant vulnerabilities. The author is suggesting that the pandemic exposed weaknesses in the global economic system, particularly in supply chains that were too reliant on single sources. This idea is crucial to understanding the inquiry question, as it forces a rethinking of global economic practices to prevent future disruptions like those caused by COVID-19.

The World Economic Forum's article on supply chains explains how COVID-19 exposed these vulnerabilities, reinforcing the need for more resilient and diversified supply chains. (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/01/supply-chains-global-trade/)

Annotation #2: Inquiry Question: What are the sources of Singapore’s economic development?

"The other part of the geography hypothesis is that the tropics are poor because tropical agriculture is intrinsically unproductive."

What other geographical factors may contribute to the reason why countries are poor?

I feel like another point to address is that different geographical locations may possess different resources. Having easy access to important resources such as minerals and essentials may hold as a variable to the success of countries. I feel like this is a great point to address as this may also be a leading factor to the reason why countries may be experiencing more poverty compared to others.

Annotation #3: Inquiry Question: What are the sources of Singapore’s economic development?

"Although the ignorance hypothesis still rules supreme among most economists and in Western policymaking circles—which, almost to the exclusion of anything else, focus on how to engineer prosperity—it is just another hypothesis that doesn’t work. It explains neither the origins of prosperity around the world nor the lay of the land around us"

This rejection of the ignorance hypothesis made me realize that there are often much more complex and nuanced factors at play, beyond just the 'ignorance' of policymakers. Understanding this helps me appreciate the diverse paths that countries like Singapore have taken towards economic success, which include a combination of strategic government intervention, cultural factors, and geographical advantages.

Annotation #1: Inquiry Question: What are the sources of Singapore’s economic development?

"WE WILL ARGUE that to understand world inequality we have to understand why some societies are organized in very inefficient and socially undesirable ways. Nations sometimes do manage to adopt efficient institutions and achieve prosperity, but alas, these are the rare cases."

The author wants us to understand in this quote that throughout the article that they are trying to establish that although there are many factors that may contribute to the existing poverty in the world, other factors such as "those who have the power to make choices create poverty" are much more significant to understanding why countries are poorer than others. The author emphasizes that the main point they are trying to make logical points and acknowledging both sides of the arguement.

Murphy cites Freeman Dyson to illustrate a perspective that future technological advancements might provide more cost-effective solutions for climate change than current policies anticipate. This suggests that today's policies might become obsolete or less relevant as new technologies emerge.

This insight challenges the notion that current climate policies are the only or best solutions. It suggests the importance of considering technological progress and flexibility in policy design, which can affect how we think about long-term climate strategies.

https://sustainableearthreviews.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s42055-020-00029-y

This article shows that there are other alternative solutions to this problem and that not just the current climate policies are the best choices.

This passage indicates that while there is broad agreement among economists about the need for government intervention in climate change, the specifics of how to design and implement these policies are debateable. The "calibration" of policies refers to determining the appropriate levels of intervention.

This raises the question of: What specific factors contribute to disagreements among economists regarding the optimal level of intervention?

This passage highlights the complexities and debates in policy design, which are central to understanding the effectiveness of climate interventions.

Thoughts: The author explains the concept of climate change as a "massive negative externality," which is central to understanding the economic rationale for government intervention. The passage highlights that the costs of greenhouse gas emissions are not accounted for by the emitters but affect society as a whole, justifying interventions that the government imposes. This passage helps to understand why economic policies are proposed to correct the market failure caused by emissions being an externality.

Today's inquiry question: "How does poverty shape individual economic choices?"

"Mental models and social beliefs and practices often become deeply rooted in individuals. We tend to internalize aspects of society, taking them for granted as inevitable" social facts." This quote on page 12 had me wondering whether or not I was undergoing the same perspective. I feel that after reading more about this psychological viewpoint that we all are going through it currently. There are social norms that everyone believes to be true, and there are norms that just seem completely wrong when someone does it.

I believe that the author was trying to not only show how people who see the world through this view point may be flawed, but the author is also trying to show that these viewpoints are much more common than they seem.

Today's inquiry question: "How does poverty shape individual economic choices?"

"In many cases, a fuller understanding of human decision making can help societies achieve broadly shared goals like higher savings or better health and in this way improve individual well-being"

This quote was mentioned on page 13, but it made me question, what other factors play into achieving goals for poorer people such as "higher savings" or "better health" instead of automatic thinking, thinking socially, and thinking with mental models?

Could these other factors be the material resources that these individuals have? Living conditions? Amount of offspring? Education status? I believe that there are other ways that can be just as effective to achieving goals to improve individual well-being.

Today's inquiry question: "How does poverty shape individual economic choices?"

On page 4 of the overview, the authors provide us with a wonderful example of how disadvantaged individuals who live in low-income areas may view their choices differently from others who may not live under the same conditions. The example given involved an experiment regarding these individuals. In this experiment, some of them made comments such as "we have neither a dream nor an imagination." This shows that these individuals have a narrow perspective of life due to their perceived living conditions due to having low-income. Afterwards, the same individuals watched a couple documentaries that were meant to be hopeful and inspirational to motivate these people to push themselves out of their boundaries. These people felt more inspired after watching these videos and set goals for themselves.

This example provided by the author gave us a great insight as to how individuals who live under conditions that may not be favored in a more flawed viewpoint. It shows that they tend to have a more partial view of the world (automatic thinking) due to their circumstances.