Epiphany:

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."

Migration is more than just individual movement; it’s a significant driver of global development. Migrants contribute to their destination countries by filling labor gaps, bringing diverse skills, and adding cultural richness, which can enhance societal growth. Recognizing migration’s broader benefits highlights the importance of policies that support and maximize these developmental gains for both migrants and host countries. However, the real barrier isn’t the physical act of migration; it’s the legal and social constraints migrants face once they arrive. This lack of citizenship, and the rights it brings, reveals why so many migrants struggle despite reaching safer or more prosperous countries. Access to rights, rather than mere location, is key to improving the migrant experience and enabling them to truly thrive in their new environments.

This is connected to this article: https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/migration

Question:

"It is the lack of citizenship—and of the associated civil, political, and economic rights—that creates dis- tinct challenges for migrants and policy makers, not the fact that people moved at some point in their life."

How can international migration frameworks adapt to accommodate climate change as a driver of migration, given that current policies typically don’t recognize climate migrants in the same way they do economic migrants or refugees?

Thoughts:

"It is the lack of citizenship—and of the associated civil, political, and economic rights—that creates dis- tinct challenges for migrants and policy makers, not the fact that people moved at some point in their life."

This passage is significant to the inquiry into how migration policies affect migrant welfare. The lack of citizenship is emphasized as a primary factor that shapes the migrant experience. By focusing on citizenship status, we see how policies must address not just movement, but the rights and protections (or lack thereof) that migrants hold in destination countries. This connects to discussions on whether current migration frameworks adequately address issues like economic inclusion, social services access, and political representation for migrants.

“Finally, sanctions and export controls can limit Russia’s ability to produce and develop advanced military equipment. Moscow is immensely reliant on foreign technology—including machine tools, software, and semiconductors—and Russia already struggles to produce large quantities of certain military equipment such as precision munitions.”

Annotation #3 Epiphany:

This passage was an epiphany because it highlights how deeply interconnected military power is with technological and economic factors. I had not previously considered how much a nation like Russia depends on foreign technology for its military operations. This insight has reshaped my understanding of sanctions, not just as punitive measures but as strategic tools that can limit a country’s long-term military capabilities. It also deepens the inquiry into how nations like Russia can be gradually weakened through strategic economic constraints.

I also used this article, which is connected https://www.jstor.org/stable/44636920?seq=3

“These sanctions, coupled with similar measures from the European Union and other U.S. allies, will accelerate Russia’s isolation from the global economy. Such moves, however, are not a sign of policy success—despite the impressive transatlantic diplomacy. On the contrary, they represent a failure to deter Putin from invading Ukraine.”

Annotation #1 Thoughts:

In this passage, the author suggests that despite the strong sanctions imposed by the U.S. and its allies, these actions reflect a policy failure in deterring Russia's aggression against Ukraine. This also shows a broader theme of the article: sanctions may punish Russia economically but are not effective as preventive measures in stopping military actions. It ties into today's inquiry about the effectiveness of economic sanctions as a foreign policy tool—highlighting that while sanctions may cause long-term damage, they failed to prevent the immediate crisis of the invasion.

“It is possible that the threat of sanctions failed because Putin was determined to invade regardless of the cost. It is also possible that Putin underestimated the damage that Western sanctions would cause.”

Annotation #2 Question:

This passage raises an important question: What internal calculations or intelligence did Putin rely on that led him to believe the sanctions would either be manageable or irrelevant to his goals? Did Russian leadership believe they could circumvent the impact of sanctions, or were they overly optimistic about the global response? This line of questioning is crucial for further research into the psychology and decision-making processes of authoritarian regimes when facing external pressures like sanctions.

Annotation #3 (Epiphany)

This insight opened my eyes to the dual nature of globalization's impact on trade and development. While specialization can lead to significant economic efficiencies and growth, it simultaneously creates vulnerabilities that threaten long-term stability and development goals. This understanding will influence my perspective on how countries should approach trade policy, emphasizing the importance of balancing efficiency with resilience in the global economy.

Article: https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/effects-economic-globalization/

Connection:

This quote resonates strongly with my article's exploration of globalization's impact on development because both texts highlight how specialization through globalization can drive economic growth and increase efficiency by allowing countries and businesses to focus on what they do best. My article discusses the benefits of this system, noting that globalization enables companies to source raw materials and labor more efficiently, leading to lower costs and higher standards of living in some developing countries, which agrees with the findings of the assigned article.

Annotation #2 Questions:

This quote prompts questions about the strategic decisions companies make regarding inventory and how these choices impact their ability to navigate crises. Why do businesses favor minimal inventory despite potential risks? How does this philosophy affect their overall development and resilience in a globalized trade environment? These inquiries are crucial for exploring the interplay between trade practices and economic development, which is our inquiry question.

Annotation #1 Thoughts:

The author emphasizes that while globalization has played a critical role in fostering development through interconnected trade, it also exposes vulnerabilities that can be detrimental in crises. This relates to the inquiry question by highlighting the need for a nuanced understanding of how trade contributes to development, acknowledging that the benefits of globalization come with risks that must be managed for sustainable growth.

Epiphany: This made me realise how economics is not always just about specific numbers and graphs, but can also be a complex topic that changes over time. What makes sense now, may not make sense in the future, and because of this, the challenge of effectively combating climate change is not just about understanding the science or modeling economic impacts, but also about navigating the complexities of policy design, political realities, and uncertainty about the future.

Question: Why is there such a big difference in thinking between critics of cap and trade legislation, and the authors of the actual study? Why are these studies not posted in potentially less misleading ways, especially if this may make their point more impactful?

Thoughts:

Here, the author explains a current approach on how greenhouse gases are managed in societies and economies. I think this approach is very interesting and practical, as it gives the government more profit, which they can reinvest, and also fixes the externality, while still allowing some greenhouse gas production which may be necessary in the production of important goods.

Annotation #3 (Epiphanies): Is there something you read in the text that opened up a way of thinking about the world that you had never thought of before but will influence how you think about it now? In this third annotation you should use hypothes.is to highlight a section of the text (an insight) that is an epiphany for you. Explain how the passage relates to today's inquiry question.

"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. Explaining world inequality still needs economics to understand how different types of policies and social arrangements affect economic incentives and behavior. But it also needs politics." (Page 22)

This conclusion from the author gave me an Epiphany, because it made me realise just how closely economics is related to politics. The fact that economics had always assumed that political problems were solved was very interesting to me, as I had never really considered it before, but now that the author had mentioned it, I did realise it is quite strange to not have politics ever be mentioned in economics. This relates to the inquiry question as I have not looked at Singapore's economy from a political perspective much yet, and how the governmental structure might affect it.

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.

"Just like the geography hypothesis, the culture hypothesis is also unhelpful for explaining other aspects of the lay of the land around us today. There are of course differences in beliefs, cultural attitudes, and values between the United States and Latin America, but just like those that exist between Nogales, Arizona, and Nogales, Sonora, or those between South and North Korea, these differences are a consequence of the two places’ different institutions and institutional histories. 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. Though institutions are persistent, too, in certain circumstances they do change rapidly, as we’ll see." (page 17 to 18)

This passage brought a lot of questions and ideas to me. One question that I had, is why the author is trying to explain all differences between rich and poor countries with a singular hypothesis. Earlier in the paper, he argues that a monetary difference between countries is a complicated topic, and cannot be explained simply. However, here he argues that while a Cultural Hypothesis may be able to explain a difference between continents, it would not be able to explain a difference between similar countries. My question therefore is, why we don't combine multiple hypotheses? The author said that cultural can explain some differences, and so can geographic, so perhaps combining the two would be able to pain ta better picture.

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.

"What explains these major differences in poverty and prosperity and the patterns of growth? Why did Western European nations and their colonial offshoots filled with European settlers start growing in the nineteenth century, scarcely looking back? What explains the persistent ranking of inequality within the Americas? Why have sub-Saharan African and Middle Eastern nations failed to achieve the type of economic growth seen in Western Europe, while much of East Asia has experienced breakneck rates of economic growth? 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." (page 4 to 5)

In this passage, the author is discussing what the major factors that cause poverty are, and what the key differences in decisions between poor and rich countries are. This discussion can also be applied to our inquiry question, and be used to analyze Singapore. The author's opinion is that poverty cannot be explained simply, as "Most hypotheses that social scientists have proposed... just don't work." The author is suggesting that the difference between countries is not one dimensional, and there are a variety of factors that need to be considered, which he later addresses in this paper as geography, culture, and ignorance

Finally, one epiphany that I had due to this passage of the text was that due to how economics is very similar to psychology, a placebo effect can often drive people to make specific decisions. They may be more likely to make choices that others tell them would benefit them, even if the actual statistics and potential profit and risk of the choice haven't changed at all. This is due to factors such as peer pressure and placebo, and I find it really interesting how these turn up in economics.

One question that this made me think of was how governments could potentially use psychology in order to nudge people into making better economic decisions. Since this report shows how environment affects decisions, maybe there could be low-cost adjustments made to living standards that would have a much higher-value impact.

This author is showing how economics can often be very similar to psychology, and how economic decisions will often be heavily influenced by the environment they are in, which may lead to i.e. two people with the same amount of wealth making drastically different decisions due to living around different levels of wealth.