As the first or four Discussion Group Topics, students will be responsible for two submissions related to Alston/Pardey – Agriculture in the Global Economy. After the team submissions on Saturday evening, I will seed the four Discussion Groups Topics.
Each student will be required to add to any of the four Discussion Topics (including their own) with a minimumof two posts, in a paragraph of 4-6 sentences. How can you expand or elaborate on the responses? Make an argument. Build upon what’s written already, and challenge your peers.
Teams 01-03 – Q#1
Alston/Pardey (2014) discusses the shifting locus of global agriculture production. The data tells us that, as incomes rises in a country, agriculture as a share of GDP falls, employment in the agriculture sectors falls, and agricultural goods as a share of consumer expenditure falls. What are the implications for farmers, and the agriculture sector, in high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries?
Team 01 Wrote
The evolution of agriculture’s role in the global economy brings about distinct challenges and opportunities for farmers and the sector as a whole, depending on a country’s income level. Alston and Pardey’s 2014 study points out that “in today’s middle- and low-income countries, where most of the world’s farmers are to be found, agriculture accounts for a much greater share of national income and employment.” This divergence between high-income and lower-income countries paints a multi-faceted picture of global agriculture.
In high-income countries like the United States, agriculture’s dwindling role in the national economy often leads to a lack of focus in policy discussions. Large-scale agribusinesses come to dominate, often pushing out smaller, family-run farms. This “reflects country-specific differences in the broader economic context,” as Alston and Pardey note. The growing detachment between agricultural practices and economic policy can lead to underinvestment in a sector that, while shrinking, is crucial for food security and ecological balance.
For middle-income countries such as China, India, Brazil, and Indonesia, Alston and Pardey point out that they “represent a rising share of global agricultural output.” These nations are investing more in agricultural research, making them increasingly relevant in global food production. While this research and productivity might bring down domestic food prices, they could also reduce labor demand in the sector. The newfound prominence in global markets is a double-edged sword, offering economic opportunities but also exposing these countries to global economic risks.
Low-income countries experience distinct hurdles and prospects; shifts in farming efficiency or yield can profoundly influence their economic landscapes. However, they often lack the resources for extensive agricultural innovation, making it difficult to catalyze broader economic development. With “three-quarters of the estimated 1.2 billion people with incomes of less than $1.08 per day” living in rural areas, policies must focus on how agriculture can serve as a launchpad for economic growth.
In conclusion, the changing role of agriculture in the global economy necessitates tailored policy approaches for countries at different income levels. High-income countries need to recenter the role of small farms and sustainable practices, middle-income countries must balance agricultural growth with global trade and employment, and low-income countries require innovative solutions to leverage agriculture for broader economic development.
Team 02 Wrote
Implications for High-income countries:
In high-income countries, as income increases and the dominant industrial sector in those countries often shifts away from the primary sector, it is inevitable for agriculture as the share of GDP falls. There is a heightened focus on efficiency and technology. Farmers in those countries tend to adopt a more capital-intensive approach by using modern machinery, biotechnology, and advanced farming techniques to optimize yields while minimizing labor inputs. With employment in the agriculture sector failing, fewer people are directly involved in farming, leading to larger, more consolidated farming operations. From a consumer perspective, the decrease in agricultural expenditure reflects both a diversified diet and a relatively smaller proportion of income allocated towards food expenses. This scenario also implies a greater potential for export-oriented agricultural production since domestic consumption might not absorb the high level of production.
Implications for middle-income countries:
The findings from Alston and Pardey (2014) on the shifting locus of global agriculture production hold important implications for middle-income countries. With increasing incomes, a trend emerges which shows a reduction in agricultural employment alongside a decrease in the proportion of consumer expenditure on agricultural goods. This brings both opportunities and challenges for farmers, as on one side it may lead to increased incomes and increased efficiency for some individuals, while others face unemployment and increased pressure to compete in a changing market. Middle-income nations now find themselves at a point in which they must navigate the complexities of global agricultural trade.
Implications for low-income countries:
In low-income countries, agriculture is the main source of income for most of the population. For example, in India, 48.4 percent of the population is agricultural, and 68.7 percent make less than $2 a day. In the case of other low-income countries such as Mali, 70 percent of the population live on farms and 80 percent make less than $2 a day. In these countries, agriculture accounts for a huge part of GDP. In 2010, agriculture contributed 29.3 percent of total GDP on average. Many of them are subsistence farmers. They usually operate small farms using mainly the land and own family labour instead of marketable inputs. Therefore, despite the shifting locus of global agriculture production over time, farmers and the agriculture sector in low-income countries have not made a big difference.
Team 03 Wrote
In high-income countries such as the United States and Canada, the primary implication for farmers or labourers in the agriculture sector would be a threat to their job security. As their sector is slowly shrinking, this would cause increased competition among the farmers themselves; some may even have to leave the sector entirely as public funding prioritizes investments in technology. However, from another perspective, it could be argued that farmers in high-income countries have higher job mobility. There are various support services and programs that can effectively reskill farmers into related professions such as agricultural research and
development teams. The remaining farmers may receive subsidies from the government to sustain their production and keep foreign competitors out. One example is U.S. sugar subsidies through tariffs and quotas to limit the domestic supply of sugar.
Middle-income countries such as Indonesia, Brazil and China have been steadily increasing their share in agricultural production globally over these past fifty years. There are a lot of implications for farmers and the agricultural sector that go hand in hand with this change. Firstly, as the agricultural sector brings in more income, employment on farms may increase or decrease to sustain and increase agricultural outputs. However, this factor would depend on the farm owners themselves because owners may want to invest in more physical capital (i.e., tractors) as their income share has grown rather than relying on human capital and the opposite can be true if labour costs remain relatively low. In addition, as middle-income governments have seen large increases in their GDP through investments in agriculture, they may become reluctant to invest in other industries which can diversify their source of economic growth. As a result, they become more reliant on agricultural production, and we might see the agricultural sector increase in size. Ultimately, the implications are hard to gauge as there are various factors, such as the overarching governmental policies and resistance from interest groups, which differ from country to country.
The impact of a rise in income on low-income countries would be small, given that limited access to agricultural technologies and low human capital pose barriers to the development of secondary industries such as manufacturing. Additionally, these countries tend to have higher population growth, increasing the need for food security given uncertain global commodity prices and trade frictions. Given that labour intensity has continued to increase over the past fifty years and the need to sustain a growing population, they would aim to grow productivity by investing in capital such as tractors, reducing the amount of manual labour required. This would
lead to an expansion of the sector given the rise in efficiency. However, the continued reliance on agriculture exposes farmers to climate risks such as rising sea levels as infrastructure is less developed and governmental support might be low due to competing priorities such as healthcare and social services. Overall, governments will need to balance a reliable food supply with the need for continued investment to diversify the economy.
————————————————————————————————————————–
Add to this Discussion thread in a short paragraph (4-6 sentences). How can you expand or elaborate on these points? Make an argument. Build upon what’s written already, and challenge your peers.
Teams 04-06 – Q#2
Alston/Pardey (2014) relate that a high share of the poor depends on agriculture for their incomes. Therefore, an increase in farm incomes would be poverty reducing. Similarly, lower food prices would have implications for food security and poverty reduction. Good agricultural performance operates to reduce measured poverty through both the income and the price Explain.
Team 04 Wrote
Strong agricultural performance would mean that the workers would have to worry less and take less time caring for food production. This then allows workers to have more time for other tasks and allows for them to sell food at a lower cost due to workers being able to work more efficiently.
When farmers can produce more efficiently, they are able to sell more meaning that they can also earn more from their agriculture work. This additional income helps them improve their standard of living and meet basic needs. They can now invest in things that used to be unthinkable when most of their income was going towards food, such as education, healthcare, and housing. Subsequently, this can allow the farmers to grow a larger variety of crops as there will be an emerging market for these new varieties. Furthermore, allowing more varieties of crops can also allow for new substitute crops to enter the market. A market that is diversified and increased in the volume of crops harvested would lead to increased food security. Increased farm incomes allow for increased efficiency as farmers can upgrade potentially outdated technology, introduce more efficient practices, and create more efficient irrigation systems. An increased focus on increasing efficiency through technological innovations would potentially lead to less land use to be allocated towards agriculture which may introduce options for pursuing other industries (such as manufacturing). This can be seen within the Alston/Pardey paper where, as countries transition from lower to higher incomes, the land use decreases but yield is steadily increasing. Moreover, increased farm incomes can stimulate economic activity in rural areas, creating job opportunities and further aiding poverty reduction.
The initial lowering of food prices could be heavily attributed to increased production by either increased land use, increased technological efficiency, or both. Lower food prices directly benefit consumers, especially those with limited financial means, mainly through food security and poverty reduction. Since lower food prices create larger purchasing power for consumers, it allows them to move out of exclusively staple foods. A decrease in the cost of essential food items, more than making them more accessible, means households can spend less on food, freeing up resources for other necessities. This is particularly significant for low-income families, for whom a significant portion of their income is allocated to purchasing food. Also, reduced food prices contribute to an overall decrease in the cost of living. When people spend less on food, they can allocate more of their budget to other critical areas, such as education, healthcare, or savings. This can help break the cycle of poverty by allowing families to invest in long-term improvements and opportunities. Finally, lower food prices enhance food security by making nutritious food more accessible and affordable, and enabling people to not depend on cheaper processed food. Lowering food prices is equivalent to increasing the purchasing power of consumers, which is essentially income, this allows farm incomes to increase indirectly as consumers increase their consumption overall.
In summary, the text underscores that historical advancements in agricultural productivity have the potential to contribute significantly to poverty reduction through the dual channels of increased farm incomes and decreased food prices, ultimately improving the well-being of impoverished individuals.
Team 05 Wrote
Alston and Pardey (2014) draw attention to an important link between agriculture and poverty alleviation. They argue that agriculture is the primary source of income for a large proportion of impoverished people. As a result, any increase in farm income has the potential to alleviate poverty by increasing these individuals’ earnings. In light of the information provided to our group regarding an Agricultural productivity slowdown, the connection between good agricultural performance, income, and poverty reduction becomes even more evident. According to Alston and Pardey (2014), agriculture provides a significant portion of the income for the poor. The data presented here, however, show a troubling trend of slowing agricultural productivity growth, particularly in terms of crop yields and partial productivity measures. This productivity slowdown may have negative consequences for poverty reduction.
When agricultural productivity falls, it has a direct impact on the incomes of farmers. Farmers earn less from their agricultural activities as crop yields and productivity decline, potentially pushing them further into poverty. Farm income declines can have a domino effect on rural communities, where agriculture is often the primary economic driver. Furthermore, the data emphasizes the significance of total factor productivity (TFP) in understanding the bigger picture of agricultural performance. While there is some disagreement about the accuracy of TFP measures, they do provide a more comprehensive view of agricultural productivity, including input efficiency. If TFP growth is indeed slowing, as some analyses suggest, it adds to the concern that agricultural performance is deteriorating.
Aside from income, lower agricultural productivity can result in higher food prices, which has serious implications for food security and poverty reduction. When crop yields are stagnant or declining, food supply may fall short of meeting rising demand caused by population growth and rising incomes. This supply-demand imbalance may lead to higher food prices, disproportionately affecting the poor, who spend a substantial portion of their income on food.
In conclusion, the evidence presented emphasizes the critical relationship between agriculture, income, and poverty reduction. The slowing of agricultural productivity growth, as measured by various indicators, endangers farmers’ livelihoods and has broader implications for food security. To effectively combat poverty and ensure food security, the agricultural sector must address challenges such as increasing productivity, improving resource efficiency, and investing in agricultural research and development. These efforts can not only increase farm income but also help to lower food prices, thereby advancing the goal of poverty reduction.
Team 06 Wrote
Despite agricultural revenue representing a small slice of the global economic pie, much of the world’s population depends on food production. The world’s poorest nations rely heavily on sustenance farming for survival. Between nations, agricultural economic disparity is rampant; while some nations rely wholly on sustenance farming, farmers in higher-income countries generate high income.
Advancements in agricultural technology that increase farm incomes have poverty-reducing effects. As increases in income, individuals normally dependent on farm labour for sustenance have a higher disposable income that allows them to attain higher levels of education and therefore more lucrative employment. With more efficient agricultural practices, farmers can optimize a more suitable way to meet the global supply chain for food. Incorporating the advancement of agricultural technology and better practices, shortages or surpluses would be controlled in a systematic order to meet the demand and supply of consumers. Additionally, maximizing the land farmers have to grow crops would bring down the overall cost of produce and, at the same time, increase the yield of crops. Therefore, farmers and consumers would benefit because income will increase and the price of goods will decrease. As a result, food security will outcompete food insecurity with the help of efficient agricultural practices and the advancement of agricultural technology.
However, agricultural policies should be implemented with caution, as they can have both positive and negative implications. For example, lowering food costs can increase food supply and reduce dependence on food imports, thus enhancing food security. But depending on the situation and policy itself, it can also lead to food shortages and market distortions that harm the farmers. Other negative implications include unequal income distribution, hindered economic growth, environmental issues, and many more.
Understanding the relationship between agricultural technology and poverty also has positive policy implications. Technology can improve agricultural performance. As agriculture has widespread effects on food security and poverty, prioritizing the advancement of agricultural technology in policy can improve the livelihoods of many. To conclude, advancements in agricultural technology can help increase income and productivity to lower the price of food. This has positive effects on farmers and incorporating technology into agricultural policy can reduce the economic strain within the agricultural field.
————————————————————————————————————————–
Add to this Discussion thread in a short paragraph (4-6 sentences). How can you expand or elaborate on these points? Make an argument. Build upon what’s written already, and challenge your peers.
Teams 07-09 – Q#3
Alston/Pardey (2014) comment on the attenuated incentives (p.136) that small-holder farmers would have to invest in innovation, therefore, in developing countries, the government’s role in agriculture research becomes paramount. Discuss why small-holder farmers in developing countries may be averse to investment in innovation, and what the appropriate role for government may be in promoting innovation.
Team 07 Wrote
The attenuated incentives that Alston and Pardey refer to describe the lack of motivation of small-holder farmers to invest in agricultural innovation. This issue arises from the fact that agriculture is an “atomistic sector” (p. 136), characterized by an enormous number of firms, making the market essentially perfectly competitive. Under these market conditions, any innovation that a small farm invests in would yield very little economic benefit, as it would be costly and farmers would still need to sell their goods for the same price. Therefore, government involvement in agricultural research becomes crucial to create incentives for increasing innovation. Without government action, technologies on small-scale farms will eventually become obsolete and inefficient. Yet, without a stimulus for modernization, technologies will not change, resulting on an overall inefficient market. Hence, the role of the government is to invest in the agricultural sector and create incentives for farmers to increase innovation.
Government incentives may involve providing education at rural sites where smaller farms are located. By bringing education to the farmers instead of requiring them to travel to educational centers, research and implementation can take place at the same site, while farmers can receive training and information about new agricultural innovations. Furthermore, economic subsidies can be issued to cover the financial costs that farmers incur when investing in innovation, thereby alleviating the financial burden associated with expensive innovative technologies. Additionally, offering affordable interest rates for accessing credit can enable farmers to finance their investments.
Due to the lack of investment in innovation from smallholder farmers, the government “with the contributing factor of general scientific developments” (p.136) plays a vital role in developing efficient technologies that meet farmers’ needs. Through the provision of incentives, amongst other factors like cost-efficient innovations and quality control, the government can induce a range of positive externalities. Government spending on research will, in turn, generate spillovers that extend beyond agricultural “varieties and national borders” (p.138).
Finally, it is important to note that the governments’ budget plays a critical role in sustaining these developments. Countries with higher budgets for agricultural research spending have greater access to abundant and affordable food. Agricultural investment is more prominently carried by high-income countries, while developing countries contribute only a small percentage of investments. In contrast, middle-income countries are increasing their investments in agricultural, gradually addressing the issue of ‘food poor’(p.139) and enhancing the quality of life. Meanwhile, countries with the lowest incomes account for only a mere percentage of the global public investment, resulting in polarization of agricultural technologies and infrastructure.
Team 08 Wrote
In “Agriculture in the Global Economy”, Alston and Pardey reflect on the variable ways that agricultural research has developed globally both in the public and private sectors. The authors note that small-holder farmers in developing countries have “attenuated incentives” to invest in agricultural innovation, rendering the government’s role in these situations critical in kickstarting agricultural research efforts in these regions.
Small-holder farmers have a number of reasons not to prioritize agricultural research investment. For one, small-holder farmers lack access to the capital necessary to invest in innovation. Oftentimes, small-scale farmers do not have established credit histories or sufficient financial resources, hindering one’s ability to invest in technology that might increase production or quality of agricultural output. Insufficient capital possessed by farmers may be compounded by a lack of available information regarding new agricultural instruments and practices; if small-holder farmers don’t have access to information of the production enhancing benefits of new technologies and practices, investment will be minimal. Additionally, small-holder farmers in rural communities may be isolated by a lack of infrastructure, limiting farmer’s access to markets and potential ability to reap the benefits of investment. Geographic isolation and a lack of resources can also limit small-holder farmer’s ability to access proper training with new technologies and practices. This lack of educational support exacerbates the difficulties that small-holder farmers confront in adopting novel agricultural practices, and disincentivizes investment towards new innovative practices.
Given these challenges, in these circumstances the government has a key responsibility in encouraging agricultural innovation and development. Firstly, governments can provide financial support to small-holder farmers to encourage investment in new technologies through subsidies and low-interest loans; these incentives can dramatically reduce the initial expenses of adopting novel farming methods and technology, making them more affordable to farmers with limited resources. Additionally, small-holder farmers require advances in technology that are highly adapted to their local environment and growing conditions, governments can provide support by investing in research that is localized and seeks to adapt to a changing climatic conditions. Governments can help physically connect small-holder farmer communities to markets through investment in infrastructure. Improving roads, storage facilities and transport networks would not only allow farmers to be better connected with markets, increasing potential return on investment in new innovative technologies, but also make training and education for new technologies more accessible. Finally, governments should enact regulations and programs that make markets more accessible through reduced trade obstacles, streamlined distribution routes, and fair pricing methods. Farmers can better benefit from their inventive efforts when markets are transparent.
Team 09 Wrote
Countries of sub-Saharan Africa have decreased their spending in the public sector of agricultural research, from accounting for 10% of the world’s total in 1960, to only 6% in 2009. This possibly implies that the governments of this region have not been promoting innovation to its fullest. Yet, adopting innovative practices and technologies, particularly in the agricultural sector, is highly desirable. With a large number of farmers and “food-poor” living in this region and in developing countries more generally, innovation in the agricultural sector has a central role to play in substantially improving the lives of these individuals. By contributing to agricultural growth through increasing production and productivity, innovation would lead to more abundant crops, which in turn would decrease the price of food in regions where an important part of the population suffers from food security. In addition, in order to mitigate the impacts of climate change in the agriculture sector, innovation can help develop climate-resilient crops as well as farming practices.
We believe that there are many reasons why small-holder farmers in developing countries are reluctant to invest in innovation. One of the main reasons is that they are uncertain as to whether these new innovative technologies will result in the anticipated return. These farmers are aware of the risk of taking new approaches and how it would detrimentally affect their livelihoods if it does not succeed. In other words, for them, there is about a fifty-fifty chance of increasing their agricultural output or failing to get a good return on their investment. Therefore, rationally thinking, they stick to their traditional practices. Lack of digital literacy and trust in the government could also be a reason for their unwillingness towards investment in innovation as they are not equipped with accurate knowledge of the new technology and how it could improve their lives.
We believe there are a number of things governments in developing countries can do to promote agricultural innovation. The first is to have less of a “top-down approach” to policy making. This means investing in research to understand the reasons behind the distrust small agricultural developers have with the government, and why they are weary of ttechnological innovation. This also involves working to understand any cultural ties small agricultural developers have to their current way of farming to ensure that the way forward doesn’t erase those ties. Working directly with farmers can also help farmers understand the technologies better and understand why agricultural innovation can also be a great way to build resilience in an ever changing climate. Finally, it is crucial for governments to offer incentives for farmers who adopt the technologies, such as offering compensation for yields lost to new technologies should they fail.
————————————————————————————————————————–
Add to this Discussion thread in a short paragraph (4-6 sentences). How can you expand or elaborate on these points? Make an argument. Build upon what’s written already, and challenge your peers.
Teams 10-11 – Q#4
Alston/Pardey (2014) mention the causal mechanisms by which countries transform their economies from away from agriculture (p.143). Discuss some of the challenges that governments may face in setting sound policy to ensure a smooth transition, and economic prosperity.
Team #10 Wrote:
When a country is transitioning away from an agriculture-based economy, governments may encounter a few challenges as the market adjusts to push and pull pressures on inputs. Unfortunately, identifying these push and pull factors is challenging. Thus, developing a policy that will equitably support this transition and promote economic prosperity is complex.
One of the main difficulties of the transition is known as the “farm problem.” Specifically, as economies transition away from agriculture, they often face the issue of the reduction of farm labour lagging behind the reduction of farm income. Growing sectors of the economy may be able to absorb some of the excess farm labour resulting from the reduction in farm income; however, the required skills may be different from the experience of rural workers. Therefore, governments must invest in educational and training programs to retrain the workforce, supporting them to transition into non-farming-related careers. Further, farmers and rural communities may resist change because agriculture may be an integral part of their way of life, so governments must mitigate this resistance.
Governments also need to recognize that some geographical displacement may be necessary if jobs in the new industries are not available close to the agricultural sites. Targeted programs may help to support those who need to move in search of work and investment in infrastructure needs to account for and plan ahead on the changing needs of communities.
Another challenge is that reduced agricultural production can impact food security. As a result, governments must develop policies to ensure the transition does not compromise people’s access to adequate food. In this context, countries may become dependent on food imports, but governments must develop policies to ensure a stable food supply.
Governments may opt for programs which slow or offset the economic causes of transition by implementing price supports, subsidies, or tariffs on imports to help stabilize the position of agriculture. However, this form of public policy should account for the long-term budget spending as farm incomes will continue to decline.
Ultimately, effective policies may vary considerably according to each country’s economic, political and social context. However, to ensure a smooth transition and economic prosperity, policies must be designed to minimize socioeconomic inequalities and ensure that societies equitably distribute the benefits of the transition.
Team #11 Wrote:
The Challenges Faced for Sound Policy to Create Economic Prosperity
One of the most significant challenges nations face as they move away from agriculture, evident historically in the United States of America as well as other countries, is the “farm problem”. Alston and Pardey note that this issue manifests when there is a persistent excess of farm labour and low income farms. This challenge may arise as generational farmers who have specialized in agriculture lack transferable skills to a new modern workforce characterized by technology and industrialization. The “farm problem” negatively affects a nation’s development by first reducing the amount of work hours available in an economic system as there is excess labour in the farming industry that could be more efficiently used elsewhere. Additionally, a large amount of low- income farms would hinder economic development as funds that could be allocated towards investment in growing industries are rather being used in social benefits for impoverished farmers.
It is also crucial to understand the complexity and importance of education as well as individuals’ specialization within the agricultural sector. The Alston/Pardey article mentions how the empirical challenges with a push from agriculture versus a growing economy is in conjunction with varying challenges, one of which lies in educational status. When discussing the creation of sound policy and smooth transitions for economic prosperity, governments need to take into account that individuals and families who may have specialized in the agricultural sector for past generations, will have a challenging time transitioning to another prosperous sector that contributes to the economy. Policies would need to take into account the years of education required to specialize in other non-agricultural sectors as well as how these funds would be obtained to support such additional education.
Another challenge governments may face when establishing a sound policy to ensure a smooth economic transition away from agriculture is managing the consequences of labour migration from rural to urban areas. The Alston/Pardey article indicates that upper-middle-income countries like China are transitioning from the agriculture sector, resulting in labour migration from rural to urban areas. However, this labour migration may stimulate a negative impact on rural development, and infrastructure investment in the rural areas as the human capital is attracted by the higher-income non farm sectors in the central, urban area. Therefore, it is important for governments to recognize the potential effects behind labour migration tendency and set a sound policy that protects the development and investment of rural areas while ensuring the economic growth center shifts away from agriculture.
In addition, governments may face corruption as a barrier in the transformation of their economies towards economic prosperity. When corruption is prevalent in various levels of government itself, it distorts the effectiveness of government policies implemented, such as government investments in emerging industries that are foreseen to play a key role in the country’s economic growth. In this case, corruption leads to a misallocation of resources as government investments may be redirected towards benefitting corrupt government officials and other individuals as opposed to strengthening emerging industries’ capacities in contributing to economic growth. Furthermore, corruption may also lead to a decrease in investor confidence. Investment is key in driving economic growth as it has the capacity to increase capital and thereby, improving the productivity of those industries and helping them become more competitive domestically and internationally. However, if investors anticipate loss in profits through channels such as corruption, they may be less incentivised to invest in those emerging industries that are crucial in transforming the country’s economy away from agriculture.
————————————————————————————————————————–
Add to this Discussion thread in a short paragraph (4-6 sentences). How can you expand or elaborate on these points? Make an argument. Build upon what’s written already, and challenge your peers.