Thoughts: "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" Here, it is emphasized that migration is not just a humanitarian issue but a major driver of development. This directly relates to today’s inquiry question by stating that migrants contribute economically and socially to both their origin and destination countries. It suggests that properly managed migration policies could enhance development globally—especially when matched with trade and labor demands.

Question: "Responsibility-sharing can also be part of broader bilateral negotiations, such as on trade access under the Jordan Compact or invesstment under the Ethiopia Job Compact." This raises an important question: How effective are trade agreements like the Jordan Compact in improving conditions for migrants and refugees? Do these deals prioritize development outcomes, or are they primarily political tools? This section connects to the inquiry by highlighting how free trade agreements can influence migration policies and potentially support better development strategies. related article: https://www.cgdev.org/blog/jordan-compact-three-years-on

Epiphanie: "Regardless of politics, wealthy countries will need foreign workers to sustain their economies and honor their social commitments to older citizens." This statement made me rethink migration not just as a social issue but as a demographic and economic necessity. With aging populations in many high-income countries, migration becomes essential for maintaining labor forces. It ties directly to how both migration and free trade (in labor) are vital for sustainable development, especially in countries facing workforce shortages.

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

Thought: This passage illustrates how international financial markets can be weaponized to influence global economies. The authors argue that rather than deterring Russia, sanctions are now used to weaken its economic and technological infrastructure. This is relevant to today's inquiry question because it shows how financial policies—such as cutting off access to international banking systems—can be used strategically to shape the global economic balance.

"Nevertheless, the horrifying images of Russian artillery striking Ukrainian cities provide an opportunity for Western leaders to clarify the stakes of the current crisis. Russia’s oil and gas export earnings feed Moscow’s military machine. If the United States and others managed to curtail the Kremlin’s ability to earn hard currency—which can be done most effectively by limiting oil exports—Russia’s position would be far weaker."

Question: This passage highlights the role of global financial markets in funding military conflicts. It raises a question about how limiting Russia’s oil exports could affect not only Russia but also Western economies, given the interconnected nature of global energy markets. This directly ties into the inquiry question by showing how financial restrictions can have broad economic consequences beyond the targeted country.

related article: https://www.csis.org/analysis/russian-oil-sanctions-demand-persistence

"Financial penalties will slow Russia’s economic growth. The country’s economy will probably shrink this year due to Washington’s and Brussels’s existing sanctions. By throwing a wrench into the Russian financial system and further cutting Moscow off from international capital markets, the sanctions will reduce overall investment, dragging down the country’s long-run growth rate."

Epiphany: This passage made me realize how deeply international financial markets influence national economies, especially in times of conflict. Before reading this, I thought that economies were resilient enough to withstand financial restrictions, but this shows how cutting off access to global investment can cripple a country’s long-term growth. This connects to today’s inquiry question by demonstrating how financial market restrictions can significantly impact an economy’s trajectory. Free financial markets can boost economic growth, but restrictions—such as sanctions—can severely limit a nation’s access to necessary capital, leading to economic decline.

Epiphany: This highlights an unexpected downside of globalization: a nation’s economic power in trade can directly impact the development of others. While China's early crisis response improved its own situation, it also created shortages elsewhere. This made me realize that trade isn’t always a win-win and sometimes, development in one country can come at the expense of others. Related article: https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/markets/article/how-supply-chain-shocks-have-changed-the-face-of-global-trade-0vl9vk3bl?region=global

Question: This passage raises an important question: Does economic nationalism weaken global development? If countries prioritize hoarding resources instead of cooperating, could this slow down development and increase inequality? The relationship between trade and development seems to depend on global stability; when cooperation breaks down, economic growth may become more unpredictable.

Thoughts: This passage suggests that trade and globalization have historically driven economic development through specialization, leading to efficiency and growth. However, this interdependence can also create vulnerabilities, as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic when supply chains broke down. This directly relates to our inquiry question—while trade can boost economic development, it can also expose economies to risks when crises disrupt global supply chains.

Epiphanie: This passage revealed the complexity of the trade-offs involved in environmental policy. I had not fully grasped before how aggressive measures could impose enormous economic costs that might hinder growth. It underscores that the relationship between economic growth and environmental protection isn’t simply about reducing emissions; it involves balancing immediate economic well-being against long-term ecological benefits. This insight has reshaped my understanding of the inquiry question by emphasizing that sustainable economic growth must integrate realistic measures of both environmental costs and the capacity of future technologies to mitigate those costs.

Question: This sentence raises a key question: How do we choose a discount rate that balances today’s economic costs with benefits that could only materialize far in the future? It makes me wonder about the empirical basis for these discount rates and how policy recommendations are to different assumptions. Since economic growth often comes with immediate benefits but also long-term environmental costs, determining the proper rate of discount is important to designing policies that benefit both our economy and the environment. This question is central to our inquiry question as it makes us think about the trade-offs between current economic performance and long-term environmental sustainability.

Thought: In this passage the author is stressing that economic activities, while driving growth, often impose costs on society that are not reflected in market prices. This “negative externality” is central to understanding why in some cases, economic growth can lead to environmental degradation. It highlights the need for interventions to make economic decision-making account for hidden costs. This idea directly relates to our inquiry question by demonstrating that the pursuit of economic growth without internalizing environmental costs can worsen climate change.

The Guardian article demonstrates that economic growth ignoring negative externalities, such as pollution, inevitably causes environmental damage, emphasizing the need for policy measures to internalize these hidden costs.

Article: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/09/promoting-green-growth-does-not-make-you-an-eco-nutter-its-the-only-way-forward

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."

Thoughts: This passage highlights the key argument of the chapter: most commonly accepted explanations for economic inequality are flawed. This connects directly to the inquiry question because it prompts us to look beyond simplistic explanations and consider more complex institutional and political factors as sources of economic development. The authors suggest that economic progress is not simply about having natural resources or a favorable climate, but about the structures and policies that govern societies.

QUOTE: "If the geography hypothesis cannot explain differences between the north and south of Nogales, or North and South Korea, or those between East and West Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall, could it still be a useful theory for explaining differences between North and South America? Between Europe and Africa? Simply, no."

Question: If geography does not determine economic outcomes, what factors do? What role do institutions, historical events, or political decisions play in shaping long-term prosperity?

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."

Epiphanies: This passage shifts my perspective on economic development. I had previously thought of development mainly in terms of economic policies, education, or technological advancement. However, this argument suggests that politics plays a fundamental role in determining whether a country develops or remains poor. This relates directly to the inquiry question because it implies that sustainable economic development requires not just good policies but strong institutions that prevent corruption and encourage long-term growth.

Related Article: https://www.shs-conferences.org/articles/shsconf/pdf/2023/21/shsconf_shcms2023_02005.pdf