What Is Briefly Summarize Rodrik's Argument?
Part I: Rodrik (80 points)
A. Briefly summarize a key argument in the book (49):
In The Globalization Paradox Rodrik contends that countries should retain the right to their preferences over the needs of the global economy. He argues that cultural and societal preferences should outweigh economic preferences. He describes this as one of the major challenges moving forward in an increasingly interlinked economy.
B. Analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the argument (198):
Rodrik bases his arguments off of contemporary data, and this lends strength to his argument. For, instance Rodrik uses the contrasting examples of the Chinese and Indian governments and Latin American governments. He notes that the Chinese and Indian government are more …show more content…
protective of national interests while Latin American governments have not and that as China and India have become larger global players, Latin American countries have struggled economically in a more globalized world. However weaknesses in Rodrik’s argument stem from his analysis of external forces, but less on internal forces. He fails to mention the role of the “elite” in societies and the role of money in subverting national interests. While looking at the external pressures he fails to account for the internal pressures and it fails to consider those situations. Another weakness is that Rodrik is forced to make conclusions on current information, as such it is hard to appreciate long-term repercussions for decisions made today, and economic situations in countries may change drastically. Rodrik’s argument draws its strength for contemporary information and analysis of external and governmental decisions and the role in globalizing an economy but fails to account for internal forces and general uncertainty.
C. Briefly summarize a second argument in the book (37):
Another argument that is made by Rodrik in The Globalization Paradox is the need for regulation, and the role of individual governments to monitor and regulate their own economies is necessary to create a stable global economy.
D. Analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the argument (187):
Rodrik bases his argument on the events of the recent recession. Rodrik provides an analysis of the events that helped lead to and compound the global crisis, specifically the absence of appropriate regulation that led to systemic risk and the bubble that overwhelmed that financial market. The strength of this argument is due to the fact Rodrik draws upon the recent memory of the financial crisis and recession, and offers useful analysis of the causes behind it. The insights Rodrik gives as a professor of political economy at Harvard lend credence to his opinions on the matter. However, weaknesses of his argument are present, primarily the fact that he offers no real solutions, and fails to draw any meaningful conclusions. He is able to point to the lack of regulation as a cause of the systemic risk that led to the recession, but while mentioning that a global set of regulations would prove ineffective, offers few other options. Rodrik is able to point out and describe the causes of the financial crisis but fails to provide any real solution and as such his argument is relatively weak. Part II: Longworth (80 points)
E. Briefly summarize a key argument in the book (38):
One of Longworth’s main arguments he makes in Caught in the Middle is the United States Midwest is a region in decline and in economic distress which has been facilitated by low immigration and education and decreasing manufacturing.
F. Analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the argument (197):
Longworth’s argument is drawn from data on the economic situation of the Midwest. Longworth pulls data on the relatively low amount of higher education and percentage of foreign born to thriving East and West Coast cities as a metric. Longworth describes the harmful effects of globalization on the Midwestern economy, looking at employment in the Midwest in certain sectors. Longworth’s argument draws strength from its use of data and reputable sources to back up his claims. However, weaknesses in Longworth’s arguments come from his cherry picking of data. In one instance Longworth mentions the percentage of educated population, noting that it is lower in Midwestern cities than other cities such as San Francisco. However, he ignores Madison, Twin Cities, and Des Moines which all have highly educated populations on par with San Francisco. Longworth continues this, focusing on cases that best fit his theories. Another issue with the book is its time period, written around the beginning of the recession, it is of little surprise he witnessed an economy on the decline. Weaknesses in Longworth’s work are primarily a result of his confirmation bias, selecting certain cases that best represent his theories and ignoring others that didn’t. http://www.ohe.state.mn.us/fc/2108/pg.cfm G.
Briefly summarize a second argument in the book (48):
Longworth also argues in Caught in the Middle that the solutions to the economic woes of the Midwest lie in increased immigration, increased technology development, a unified Midwestern think tank and regional voices. Longworth also argues that water, more than biofuels is a solution to the Midwest’s problems.
H. Analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the argument (199):
One of the primary strengths of Longworth’s argument is accomplished with comparison. Longworth compares Midwestern cities with cities on the East and West Coast. Longworth looks at trends existing in cities with strong economies, and uses this comparison to outline areas for improvement. Longworth is able to convincingly make points about his solutions by comparing the situation to other cities, noting areas that they excel which could be improved in the Midwest, showing strong correlations with which to draw conclusions. Weaknesses of this argument however are major, for one Longworth compares Midwestern cities to other successful cities but has no clear reason for the city selection, they do not necessarily share many traits, and similar economic strategies would not necessarily be successful. In addition, Longworth makes an argument against biofuel and for water, but with the abundance of biomass from harvest and availability of water does not explain why only one is a viable avenue and not both. Longworth creates several comparisons to strengthen his position, but offers little to no justifications for reasons to compare his choices. The cities he compares share few similarities and makes it unclear why economic choices in one city would be successful
elsewhere.
A. Briefly summarize a key argument in the book (49):
In The Globalization Paradox Rodrik contends that countries should retain the right to their preferences over the needs of the global economy. He argues that cultural and societal preferences should outweigh economic preferences. He describes this as one of the major challenges moving forward in an increasingly interlinked economy.
B. Analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the argument (198):
Rodrik bases his arguments off of contemporary data, and this lends strength to his argument. For, instance Rodrik uses the contrasting examples of the Chinese and Indian governments and Latin American governments. He notes that the Chinese and Indian government are more …show more content…
protective of national interests while Latin American governments have not and that as China and India have become larger global players, Latin American countries have struggled economically in a more globalized world. However weaknesses in Rodrik’s argument stem from his analysis of external forces, but less on internal forces. He fails to mention the role of the “elite” in societies and the role of money in subverting national interests. While looking at the external pressures he fails to account for the internal pressures and it fails to consider those situations. Another weakness is that Rodrik is forced to make conclusions on current information, as such it is hard to appreciate long-term repercussions for decisions made today, and economic situations in countries may change drastically. Rodrik’s argument draws its strength for contemporary information and analysis of external and governmental decisions and the role in globalizing an economy but fails to account for internal forces and general uncertainty.
C. Briefly summarize a second argument in the book (37):
Another argument that is made by Rodrik in The Globalization Paradox is the need for regulation, and the role of individual governments to monitor and regulate their own economies is necessary to create a stable global economy.
D. Analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the argument (187):
Rodrik bases his argument on the events of the recent recession. Rodrik provides an analysis of the events that helped lead to and compound the global crisis, specifically the absence of appropriate regulation that led to systemic risk and the bubble that overwhelmed that financial market. The strength of this argument is due to the fact Rodrik draws upon the recent memory of the financial crisis and recession, and offers useful analysis of the causes behind it. The insights Rodrik gives as a professor of political economy at Harvard lend credence to his opinions on the matter. However, weaknesses of his argument are present, primarily the fact that he offers no real solutions, and fails to draw any meaningful conclusions. He is able to point to the lack of regulation as a cause of the systemic risk that led to the recession, but while mentioning that a global set of regulations would prove ineffective, offers few other options. Rodrik is able to point out and describe the causes of the financial crisis but fails to provide any real solution and as such his argument is relatively weak. Part II: Longworth (80 points)
E. Briefly summarize a key argument in the book (38):
One of Longworth’s main arguments he makes in Caught in the Middle is the United States Midwest is a region in decline and in economic distress which has been facilitated by low immigration and education and decreasing manufacturing.
F. Analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the argument (197):
Longworth’s argument is drawn from data on the economic situation of the Midwest. Longworth pulls data on the relatively low amount of higher education and percentage of foreign born to thriving East and West Coast cities as a metric. Longworth describes the harmful effects of globalization on the Midwestern economy, looking at employment in the Midwest in certain sectors. Longworth’s argument draws strength from its use of data and reputable sources to back up his claims. However, weaknesses in Longworth’s arguments come from his cherry picking of data. In one instance Longworth mentions the percentage of educated population, noting that it is lower in Midwestern cities than other cities such as San Francisco. However, he ignores Madison, Twin Cities, and Des Moines which all have highly educated populations on par with San Francisco. Longworth continues this, focusing on cases that best fit his theories. Another issue with the book is its time period, written around the beginning of the recession, it is of little surprise he witnessed an economy on the decline. Weaknesses in Longworth’s work are primarily a result of his confirmation bias, selecting certain cases that best represent his theories and ignoring others that didn’t. http://www.ohe.state.mn.us/fc/2108/pg.cfm G.
Briefly summarize a second argument in the book (48):
Longworth also argues in Caught in the Middle that the solutions to the economic woes of the Midwest lie in increased immigration, increased technology development, a unified Midwestern think tank and regional voices. Longworth also argues that water, more than biofuels is a solution to the Midwest’s problems.
H. Analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the argument (199):
One of the primary strengths of Longworth’s argument is accomplished with comparison. Longworth compares Midwestern cities with cities on the East and West Coast. Longworth looks at trends existing in cities with strong economies, and uses this comparison to outline areas for improvement. Longworth is able to convincingly make points about his solutions by comparing the situation to other cities, noting areas that they excel which could be improved in the Midwest, showing strong correlations with which to draw conclusions. Weaknesses of this argument however are major, for one Longworth compares Midwestern cities to other successful cities but has no clear reason for the city selection, they do not necessarily share many traits, and similar economic strategies would not necessarily be successful. In addition, Longworth makes an argument against biofuel and for water, but with the abundance of biomass from harvest and availability of water does not explain why only one is a viable avenue and not both. Longworth creates several comparisons to strengthen his position, but offers little to no justifications for reasons to compare his choices. The cities he compares share few similarities and makes it unclear why economic choices in one city would be successful
elsewhere.