read the article and answer the following questions:

Question

So why is extreme poverty falling?
The answer to this is really complicated.
A bunch of factors like better access to education,
humanitarian aid, and the policies
of international organizations like the UN
have made a difference.
But the greatest contributor is globalization and trade.
The world's economies and cultures
have become more interconnected and free trade
has driven the growth of many developing economies.
Let's go to the thought bubble.
World trade has been growing since the end of World War II.
Free trade agreements and technological advances
in transportation and communication
mean goods and services move around the world
more easily than ever, and we're talking everything
from shoes and bananas to innovations and ideas.
Take mobile phones.
Mobile phones are pretty much good for everything,
including reducing poverty.
According to economist Jeffrey Sachs,
mobile phones are the single most transformative technology
when it comes to the developing world.
Phones give people access to banking and payment
systems, better access to education and information.
In some places, mobile phones help
farmers get information and get the best price for the stuff
they're producing.
Installing cell phone towers is also
a lot cheaper than running thousands of kilometers
of telephone lines.
Economists call this leapfrogging;
the idea that countries can skip straight
to more efficient and cost-effective technologies
that weren't available in the past.
International trade has also created new opportunities
for people to sell their products and labor
in a global marketplace.
There are some significant downsides to globalized trade.
But the statistician Hans Rosling
made this point, the 1 to 2 billion poorest
in the world, who don't have food for the day,
suffer from the worst disease, globalization deficiency.
The way globalization is occurring could be much better,
but the worst thing is not being part of it.
Thanks thought bubble.
So globalization is the result of companies
trying to outmaneuver their competitors.
While you search for the cheapest place to buy shoes,
companies search for the cheapest place
to make those shoes.
They find the cheapest sources of leather, dye, rubber,
and of course labor.
The end result is that labor intensive products like shoes
are often produced in countries with the lowest wages
and the weakest regulations.
This process creates winners and losers.
The winners include corporations and their stockholders who
earn more profit, but also consumers who get products
at a cheaper price.
The losers are high wage workers who
used to make those shoes their jobs moved overseas. But what about the low wage foreign workers?
Are they winning or losing?
Well, a lot of workers are thrown into hazardous working
conditions, but it's also true that many workers in developing
countries are at least making more money.
These jobs pay above average wages; people want these jobs.
And although the pay would be unacceptable in developed
countries, they're often the best alternative.
And the multiplier effect means that more money is being
spent on local businesses.
So these jobs create jobs.
According to the economist Paul Krugman,
the Bangladeshi apparel industry is
going to consist of what we would consider sweatshops,
or it won't exist at all.
And Bangladesh, in particular, really,
really needs its apparel industry;
it's pretty much the only thing keeping its economy afloat.
But not everyone agrees.
Opponents of globalization called the outsourcing
of jobs exploitation and oppression;
a form of economic colonialism that
puts profits before people.
A few call for protectionist policies
like higher tariffs and limitations on outsourcing.
But others focus on the foreign workers themselves
by demanding they receive higher wages and more protections.
The root of many arguments against globalization
is that companies don't have to follow the same rules they
do in developed countries.
Some developing countries have no minimum wage laws.
They don't have regulations that provide safe working conditions
or protect the environment.

What do you think this article is an example of? why do you think that?

Answer 1

This article is an example of an analysis of globalization and its complex effects on extreme poverty and labor markets. It discusses both the positive and negative aspects of globalization, emphasizing how interconnected economies have contributed to a decline in extreme poverty while also highlighting the challenges and inequities that arise from global trade practices.

The reasons why this article can be considered a nuanced analysis of globalization include:

1. Multiple Perspectives: The article presents various viewpoints on globalization, including both its benefits (such as increased access to markets, better job opportunities, and technological advancements) and its drawbacks (such as hazardous working conditions, exploitation of workers, and economic inequality).

2. Connection to Economic Trends: It situates the discussion of poverty reduction within the broader context of historical economic trends, particularly the role of international trade and technological advancements since World War II.

3. Inclusion of Expert Opinions: The article references the perspectives of economists like Jeffrey Sachs and Paul Krugman, which lends credibility to the arguments presented and shows that there is substantial academic discourse around these issues.

4. Critical Examination of Effects: It delves into the consequences of globalization for different stakeholders, such as multinational corporations, consumers, and low-wage workers in developing countries, thereby illustrating the complex and often contradictory nature of global economic interactions.

Overall, the article serves as a thought-provoking examination of how globalization has both alleviated some aspects of poverty while also raising critical questions about labor rights and ethical economic practices.