This paper was really thorough in analyzing the relationship between these two factors. In my economic social issues class, I learned about the effects of US aid on Afghanistan, the largest recipient of US Aid. Although there are some positive effects, there are consequential outcomes as well. The US had no oversight over how the aid was utilized, allowing corruption to become rampant and new criminals to take power. The US aid in some compacity continued the previous issues. Therefore, coming into this paper, I was expecting an outcome of limited effects of aid. The following paper concluded aid reduces MPI by a small margin and has no effect on income poverty. This makes sense because aid is not supposed to just give disposable income, but rather meet the necessities of food, health, and other crucial life components. My only confusion is earlier the paper noted there were hardly any effects on either form of poverty, so I was confused as to how controlling for more variables made aid effective against MPI. Lastly, this paper never mentioned Afghanistan, which I thought was interesting since it is one of the world's largest recipients of aid.

This article was interesting because the results were not as I expected. The benefits of the program are not universal and I find that a little concerning. However, this article reveals the importance of considering multiple components of a cash transfer program, especially on the importance of the region's opportunities. Some rural communities are subject to a low-skill trap, in which people are discouraged from investing in improving their skill levels due to the lack of jobs requiring higher skills. Progresa may not be enticing individuals into university because the community has a preconceived notion that a college degree would not be necessary for the available jobs near them. Also, in regards to the effects of Progresa being greater for women, this could be attributed to spending habits. Women may be more likely to invest in long-term programs that can help them achieve dreams that others may deem unrealistic. Men, however, could be utilized CTC programs to target more practical means or direct means of survival. I wonder after families become enrolled in a CTC program, are they given guidance as to how to spend the funds? Also, the system at hand needs to make sure that money is the issue that is affecting people from receiving social benefits. Otherwise, money alone will not be able to help people overcome hurdles deeply enrooted in the system at hand.

The findings of this article were interesting but some of them were confusing and I wish the author expanded on them for clarification. First, the social rate of returns for education is higher in high-development countries in comparison to low-development countries. My confusion may be from a misunderstanding, but I was expecting the opposite, in which the returns are higher in low-income countries. Since the basis of the country is behind in qualities that are evident in high-income nations, such as higher productivity, I imagined any form of education to yield higher returns in low-income countries. Education overall would promote innovation in the country, leading to economic development. Another example of a limitation in the article is how the author states that higher costs of education lead to lower returns, but this example seems more aligned with the situation in the US. Therefore, this explanation does not capture the depth of the limitations of the returns. Lastly, for clarification, is the author stating technology in the workplace results in a high return or technology in educational settings? The article could have gone more in-depth into the models evident and the quality of schools is included. I do not think it is fair to assume a low-income school automatically alludes to a poor quality of education because some countries have stronger STEM or other fields of study in primary and secondary education than the US. Tying back to my technology question, I was confused if the presence of utilizing technology in education would lead to greater returns (but this also increases the costs), or if the author is saying the emphasis should be more on the technology of the country. However, if we just focus on technology, this brings up the question of the proportion of the population who have access to technology and benefit from it.

The article at hand was interesting because it balanced a variety of different findings on the effects of improving women’s lives across the world, whether it be the discrepancies in the treatment of female infants, adults, and even, elderly women. First, this article makes an important note that the US is no exception to the unequal treatment of male and female babies, as there is evidence of some form of sex-selective abortions in this country. However, still India is the case study focused on due to the stark discrepancy between the treatment of women and men. The author mentioned an interesting component that society will fight to keep girls alive just as hard as they would for boys who are at health facilities, but the decision comes down to the effort of parents making the difficult journey to the health facility. I think we forget that in some areas, even in the rural US, when there are limited road access and transportation services, the decision to go to the hospital is a heavy decision. I wonder therefore if a case study solely focused on transportation and health outcomes would shift policies to invest in infrastructure more. However, in contrast to this, I found it interesting that when women are more policyholders, they are less inclined to spend on roads. I understand the focus on water due to survival, but this discrepancy between the need to get girls to facilities for survival versus this lower inclination to invest in roads. The paper did make a strong argument on women making better and more effective decisions regarding money than men, but this brings up the limitations due to the barriers of women entering politics stemming from the mindset of constituents. This would be the perfect time to study Rwanda or other countries that do have high participation of women in politics. Although this paper brought up interesting findings, I wish it included countries that were more women-centric. For example, Rwanda’s policies on education would have been interesting due to the higher involvement of women in politics. I am confused about why women are sometimes less likely to invest in education and the reasons behind children are more likely to attend education if a male parental figure decides over income instead of a female. I wonder if there are more variables to include in that study. This article incorporates Sen’s emphasis on agency, in this regard for women to be able to make their own decisions. With the existence of female agency, investments improve, job efficiency improves, and there are other positive economic benefits. In regards to the shortcomings of investing in women, I wish Duflo expanded further on these to provide clarity or reassurance, rather than stating the costs just need to be incurred because naïve men in power will just focus on these cons rather than the long-term benefits of improving equality for women.

South Korea really was able to accomplish an array of economic achievements in a span of 30 years: education, health, capital, and more factors all increased. Whenever there seemed to be an obstacle such as a financial decline, South Korea’s economy was able to bounce back. I never realized or was taught about the role in which the U.S. influenced South Korea’s growth with consistent positioning as their top trade partner for decades and providing economic advice. I found this interesting considering the nation was under an authoritarian power at the beginning. Although this next point is more historical, this discrepancy in supporting a dictatorship in South Korea versus sending hundreds of thousands of soldiers to Vietnam during the Vietnam War. However, even though America supported South Korea financially for decades, this should not undermine the ROK's ability to grow. After all, there is this repeated call in questioning whether sending financial capital alone is enough to support a nation. South Korea valued education immediately and this allowed the government to have academic resources to understand how to effectively utilize the foreign capital entering the country. Therefore, this brings up the concern about the ability of countries with a heavy brain drain and other limitations on the government’s ability to promote growth. In contrast to the growth of South Korea, it is important to note the extensive costs that came as a result. I felt the author could have built further at the end of the paper on the consequences. The younger generation of South Korea is tremendously overwhelmed, to the point there is a demand for the young generation to move abroad. With Squid Game and Parasite, the issue of insane housing costs and immense difficulty of social mobility also have been recently acknowledged. South Korea has a high suicide rate among its students, and the uncertainty of employment still leaves even college graduates weary about the ability to be happy. This brings in the final question, development focuses on resources, to what extent should it also focus on happiness and well-being? How successful is a wealthy country if everyone is miserable?

This reading was really interesting as went on a case-by-case basis on the history of the development of certain countries. However, I still had some confusion with a few of the countries selected. First, Ghana was painted as a country that is lagging behind, but in recent years and even before 2019, Ghana has been seen as this almost model-like state for West African countries. In fact, after the murder of George Floyd murders of 2020, Ghana received a jump in African Americans moving full-time to the country, as it was seen as a safe and hopeful country for them. The country has been seen as a country to start new businesses, but the case study in this article made it seem like it was a country solely stuck in low-service industries. Also, Botswana is another country I had challenges with the case study. Although it is painted as a miracle, the industry is built on diamonds, a highly monopolized good. Therefore, I wonder if the government is under tight pressure from diamond corporations in their legislature, bringing up another array of concerns. Lastly, this article brought up some history of the different countries but excluded some, such as Ghana and Botswana having to endure brutal, suppressive colonialism. Even in Taiwan, the individual who instituted the economic policies, Chiang Ching Kuo, also instituted martial law in the island nation, bringing into question freedom and the actual happiness of the people during these times of economic prosperity. This paper did an effective job to discuss economic development on paper, but it still missed the concepts of Amartya Sen about combining personal freedom/well-being with economic development.

This article was very interesting in revealing an almost secret theory of economics that was overlooked because the theorist, Hirschman, did not make a model or equation. I was stumped in two ways, at first I wondered if it was justified to disregard Hirschman's theory because of his lack of models, but then also, I questioned why he did not come up with them. After all, Hirschman was a gifted individual and I would imagine he could have had other economists or students work with him to create a model or mathematical representation of his theory. Models are useful to break down a theory, but this article poses the question of whether their existence is necessary for a theory’s existence to be justified. Even a model itself can be utilized in multiple ways to fit the agenda of the user. For example, in Social Issues with Professor Goldsmith, Professor Goldsmith noted the Federal Reserve’s push to reduce inflation through interest rates and his personal opinion feeling this is not the best route. Both the head of the Federal Reserve and Professor Goldsmith are experts in the field of economics and although there are graphs about inflation and interest rates, they have two opposing views. When this article states the impact Hirschman’s high development theory could have on economics, it makes me question the requirement for economic theory to always have a theory, at that exact moment. The theory could still have been brought up in discussions and then over time a model and equation could have been naturally formulated. This article just brings up the question again as to who gets to decide the theories and rules being played out in a field of study. Is it anyone passionate in the field or those who want to remain in power? Are there other theories that had the potential to contribute to the field but were overlooked due to a graph?

An immediate thing about the beginning of this article is the apparent notion of low-income nations having to take action to reverse the destruction of the environment. For example, a notable quote that caught my attention as the author stated, “high-fertility settings should be empowered to adopt rapid and voluntary reductions of fertility to benefit themselves, their children, and the local and global economy and environment.” (2207) The issue with this quote is the “high fertility settings,” are lower-income nations, especially amongst African nations which are experiencing a younger generation being larger than the older generation. Although China and the US are consuming resources as if they are surplus goods, Sachs recommends that other nations consider halting their population growth. Another recommendation I was confused with was having “Middle- Income emerging economies, such as Brazil, India […] being the crucial leaders of the SDGs.” (2208). This quote is a little perplexing because all three of these countries are contributing substantially to the environmental issues of today. Although I know this article was written before the current Bolsonaro regime of Brazil, China, and India for years have been continuing to emit a large amount of pollution every year, whether in the air or water. Therefore, I question the effectiveness of countries continuing the problems by being the ones to resolve them in some form. I understand some countries have emitted pollution to provide manufacturing and jobs to their people, but these are small nations that have not received enough to create other forms of employment. In no way am I stating the US or other higher income nations deserve to manage SDGs, as these nations also played a huge role in creating the problems we currently have today. However, I still have hesitation as to whether Sachs truly provides an impactful plan, as low-income nations still seem to be vulnerable to being manipulated by strong powers who promoted the decline of the environment, and the low-income nations are still expected to endure a lot of the sacrifices for the mistakes of other foreign powers.

The most important thing I learned this semester is that economics is a lot more complicated than it is presented. The graphs utilized are overly simplified to accommodate for the situation at hand. I feel this realization is more important than one individual topic because it has impacted me for the future. Now, when I read articles or watch the news about the economy, I am more aware of the misconceptions that I would have previously fallen for. For example, the common criticism of our debt raising is not the problem, but rather how it compares to the growth of the nation. Also, the articles provided throughout the semester have allowed me to further comprehend the deep, underlying connection between economic well-being and society’s structure. Racism truly influences the lives of people, as I was impacted by the graph showing the drastic difference between a white and black individual retaining their economic class. Both individuals work equally hard, and yet society has been structured to hinder minorities rather than promote them. This semester has allowed me to learn new graphs and economic terms, but I am more grateful for realizing the unacknowledged and sometimes unfair relationship between economics and every individual's life.

The article by Bouie made me recall a recent message Trevor Noah had on a study found that African Americans are not less likely to get the disease and that "even in times of crisis, racism is still prevalent." However, I think he may have misunderstood and presented the information not in the best manner. The second article made evident that African Americans are more likely to die from the virus, but rather since society is so stacked against them that nothing else could transpire. It pertains nothing to their genes but rather the abandonment of them in our society. The transition to the first article is interesting because debt accumulated would easily hang over the individuals head. This is why when more Conservative politicians talk about overspending on impacting debt, average citizens believe them because debt to us is substantially different to national debt. The article by Krugman was interesting because it is evident in other countries beyond the US. China invested heavily into building mega cities throughout their country, all with metro systems, apartments, and public accommodations. The nation's debt spiked tremendously but the country's GDP is still growing faster. In contrast, it makes me wonder about Japan. Japan has a lot of debt and unfortunately due to their population crisis, the GDP cannot be expected to continually grow about the debt. In this case, what would happen when the rate of debt grows beyond the GDP? Would the country's economy technically collapse?

If all of the members of the Board of Governors are appointed by the President, then would it not assumed they may have some bias towards the Presidents wants for the policies?

This article expands the worry over the economic stimulus package being implemented. If businesses alone are receiving most of the economic relief, then the higher business owners are going to be benefiting substantially more than the workers. There is already a sense of disconnect between CEOs and workers, so I cannot imagine them making decisions solely for the purpose of their employees. I am confused on our health situation. We are technologically advance and yet our life span is no longer rising. Is it truly based on economic factors or possibly political regulation with our processed foods and other outside factors? The one thing I would have liked was for the article to give a quantitative value on who the wealthy are, as in an actually income provided rather than a percentage. This would just provide some further clarity on who is benefiting and who is not.

Why is the slope of planned expenditures less than 1? Does a smaller slope allude to an inelastic relationship between aggregate income and expenditures?

The article says the government does not have to pay back the money it borrows, but I am confused why? The article says the private sector would benefit, but how would they if the government does not pay back what they borrowed? The article makes the solution seem clear with little opportunity cost, but is this actually the case? If the government just needs to borrow money, then why are they not? Is it just political or are there more barriers?

How would the field of private security be graphed, considering the extent of Marginal Social Benefit is questionable? With the rising issue of governments invading people's privacy, it makes me wonder if a new job field will open. The government would have to invest in security companies and therefore their would be a greater demand for high skilled employees. However, the opportunity cost is high with the evidence of government screening being abused, such as China's social point system critizing every action of it's citizens. Economic investement into a nation's healthcare is also essential. After SARS, China's government conducted few actions for the risk of a future health problem while the US just depleted the budget of the CDC. However, Nigeria has been investing tremendously in their health care since 2014 with the ebola outbreak and has not stopped. Now they have facilities planned to take in patients. The Prime Minister of Israel is being trialed on corruption charges while elections were occuring,alluding to possible bias intentions in pushing for the screening. Although Adam Smith never came up with the invisible hand, having governmental screening would truly create an invisible hand on the people.