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…
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
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…
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