This article’s relevance lies in its themes of Neoliberalism and the rules of free trade, including limited government interference and letting the market regulate itself. Tariffs, elimination of the trade deficit, and revitalization of a dying industry are all examples of government interference and not Neoliberal policies.

It’s relevant because of its discussion of a reversal of the thinking behind SAPs as the best ways to increase development in LDCs. Now the WB encourages state-sponsored welfare policies as a tool for economic growth. This agrees with the Post-Washington Consensus and the understanding that investment in human capital is economically beneficial.

It’s relevant in multiple respects, including discussion of the institutions created by the Bretton Woods Conference that are guided by values of liberalism and the need for international regulatory bodies regarding shared economic and social relationships.

It’s relevant because it discusses the effects of Keynesian v. Hayekian thinking on the structure of Capitalist economies. Demand-side practices, strong labor unions, and liberal monetary policies temporarily resulted in economic equality, efficiency, and near full employment, yet Hayekian thinking has resulted in increased profitability and massive economic inequality.

This is relevant to our discussion of Foreign Direct Investment that we know can be beneficial for growth in the short-term, yet detrimental to economic growth in the long-run. Also, a majority of inflows to Morocco come from the US which is in line with overall trends of outflows and inflows across the globe which was discussed in class.

This relates to the topic of global trade and the interrelatedness of national markets. Especially Porter’s article regarding Trump’s tendency to diverge from the “Postwar order”. By unilaterally changing terms of trade with a country who is central to the global market, he could potentially upset the entire balance and wreak havoc on economies worldwide.

Tying this to class is the discussion on international trade, regional alliances, and the ability of wealthier nations to dictate trade terms. It also has bearing on our Case Study exercise in terms of comprise and the fact that no single participant should be entirely satisfied with the outcome.

The main tie-in to class is trade and the consequences of the decisions by core nations influencing the economies of other nations without the need to use military might, but through economic means alone.

This relates to our discussion on remittances as a replacement to international aid funds, especially as they’re now better situated to facilitate production, rather than just sustenance. It also relates to international governance as countries must ensure crowdfunded remittances aren’t used as money laundering fronts or to aid terrorism to avoid the ire of core countries.

This relates directly to our discussion of transnational governance and intergovernmental organizations, and their ability to enforce the conformity of its members. The EU has extensive enforcement mechanisms at its disposal to ensure compliance including fines, sanctions and expulsion from trade zone membership.