https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=c180eb179972b6da3fea348a81c2556ce8b4fafa This paper talks about how shifts in public attitudes and policy surrounding immigration is due to the perceived effect that immigration displaces native workers, heightens wage inequality, dilutes important cultural aspects, allows for the abuse of public assistance, etc. Concern is mainly fuelled by unprecedented jumps in illegal immigration. However, statistics show that the relative immigration population, while there is a marked increase, is not unprecedented. In addition, recent studies suggest that immigration has no statistical significance on earnings inequality.

Highly educated immigrants make for substantial economic gains. Lower educated immigrants take on jobs that many locals are unwilling to. Whilst this raises questions about whether advancement should be built on foreign labour (e.g. Singapore), and whether inclusive prosperity is possible, there is little doubt about the fact that immigrants significantly boost the economy and consumption potential. The main reservations, then, are cultural. This comprises prejudice, assimilation, social, etc. which (historically) has been difficult to deal with. Europe and the US seem to have embraced legal immigration, recognising the economic gains, but the question of inequality persisted. Low skilled foreign workers—are they equal? Treatment of citizens vs. foreigners—is that equal? Opportunities, community, public goods, etc. Are they distributed properly? Why did Britain leave the EU?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60125659

In light of Navalny, tensions have heightened. Yet Russia still claims there's no harm done. Increased oil sales to China/China selling chips & tech also complicate US-China politics + China's support for Russia has strained the West's attempted isolation of Russia. Russia still has predicted economic growth, be it small, meaning the sanctions have not been costly enough. Is it time to rethink this tradeoff and the strategy?

So these sanctions on Russia following the Russo-Ukraine war have led to some pretty substantial supply shocks. If the recent COVID supply shocks are any indicator, governments will feed money into the economy to compensate...But this leads to undue inflation. On top of increasingly unaffordable energy prices the more vulnerable won't be able to hedge themselves against the inflation with real assets etc. This has global implications. I wonder what the trade off is, if it's a necessary evil or if there are other ways to essentially suffocate Russia (seeing as the US has a history of avoiding head-on military engagement with them and for good reason). At what point does it stop?

Trade disruptions, supply chain constraints, and decreased demand have hindered economic growth in many regions, particularly affecting developing countries reliant on export-oriented industries. Reduced trade flows have amplified existing inequalities, exacerbating poverty and widening the gap between developed and developing economies. However, the crisis has also spurred innovations in digital trade and e-commerce, offering opportunities for resilience and adaptation. Effective policy responses emphasizing inclusivity, sustainability, and digital connectivity are crucial for mitigating the adverse effects of the pandemic on trade and fostering equitable development outcomes globally.

During the pandemic, China faced disruptions in global trade and heightened scrutiny over its practices. Yet, its swift response and role in supplying medical resources showcased resilience. The crisis accelerated trends like digital trade, underscoring China's evolving role in globalization amidst challenges and opportunities. https://asiahouse.org/event/china-and-globalisation-after-covid-19/

"After independence, they followed much of the former colonial world by developing hierarchical, authoritarian political regimes with few of the political and economic institutions that, we will argue, are crucial for generating economic success." WNF theory of "inclusive and extractive" institutions, remnants from imperialism making for unstable governments and fragile states... corruption, poor fiscal management, etc. contribute to this. "inclusive institutions" protect civil liberties rights, provide social services, and encourage advancement. Extractive favour the enrichment of the elite over greater society, power is held in the hands of the few and managed poorly.

This geographical hypothesis is sort of reminiscent of JS Mill's imperialism—how he proposed that all noneuropeans were 'savages', 'barbarians', and needed to be ruled by despotic governments as they didn't know what was in their best interest. This was solidified by colonialism, and he justified these paternalistic values by propounding that these citizens of 'backward' nations were discounted as individuals and therefore not entitled to the liberty that his Utilitarian philosophy dictated. "For liberals like Mill, the wealth of civilized European states made feasible the projection of their power through colonial expansion." economic growth in 'underdeveloped' countries was achieved by their subjugation? https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1976870

"If policy makers revise their assumptions about the degree to which people deliberate when making decisions, they may be able to design policies that make it simpler and easier for individuals to choose behaviors consistent with their desired outcomes and best interests." Simplification of policy is a slippery slope? Adjusting to superficial thinking habits and making governing decisions based on a largely uneducated and irresolute populace can be dangerous for important policy... in accordance with Rousseau's idea of the 'general will', do people always know what's best for them? Will they vote in the common interest? Based on the level of democracy, to what extent is it incumbent on voters to inform themselves on issues at stake? https://academic.oup.com/policyandsociety/article/38/1/1/6403978 Though this paper is sort of tangential to my initial point, it explores how to enact effective policy and what expectations must be considered in order to maximise both public opinion and public interest. Now, in terms of political expediency it is surely more convenient to achieve objectives by tailoring to public mindset. However, if that includes diluting 'correctness' of any given legislation or governmental process I think it should be reconsidered.

"However, human sociality implies that behavior is also infl uenced by social expectations, social recognition, patterns of cooperation, care of in-group members, and social norms. Indeed, the design of institutions, and the ways in which they organize groups and use material incentives, can suppress or evoke motivation for cooperative tasks, such as community development and school monitoring." In relation to capitalism, the development of capital, private property, free markets and individual competition has both fuelled advancement and inequality. The question is how capitalism has 'revolutionised' our society. Well, perhaps 'revolutionised' isn't the right word but humans are social creatures and the added layers of contention, conflict, financial incentives have heightened the craving for self-affirmation. And this often comes in the form of seeking social capital. Recently, we've seen it in the forms of performative activism, utilising the media to project an image, etc. In this day and age, it can be a massive propellor for human behaviour—conformity, insecurity, ego inflation, perception of success. Arguably capitalism has exponentially amplified this aspect of human behaviour. Maybe revolutionised is the right word. 'To change something radically and fundamentally'. That, I think, it has.