Personally I think my group and I represented a country that was not particularly developed however was rich in natural resources and that was their main source of trade , this could have included countries like India with coal, Iraq with oil etc. To start of the game, my group received a package that had 6 sheets of paper, 1 sheet of grid paper and $300. As a result of what we got in our package this leads me to believe our country was one of which is developing as we were rich in resources (having an abundance of paper)however did not have the machinery to process these resources into something that was worth money (such as scissors, pencil etc). Of Course being at an obvious disadvantage compared to other groups made our group feel that it was impossible to win the game, this reflects how LEDC often are trapped inside the poverty cycle because of the same mindset. Adding on having no way to process our paper into the shapes we found ourselves offering a lot of our paper in order to get one pencil and one pair of scissors, this reflects how more often than not MEDC take advantage of LEDCS and don’t pay a lot of money for unprocessed natural resources. The game itself is not fair as teams have an obvious advantage over others and all the team has the same objective, however, of course, this is a portrayal of how the world works. In terms of being ‘fairer’ to less economically developed countries ie to improve their lot, a policy you could put impose would be to require any acquisition of natural resources to be coupled with a further investment in refining capability, this would result in the developing country moving its economy further up the value chain.
The question that now remains is : Is it possible to create an equally fair global trade market?
Latest posts by email@example.com (see all)Latest posts by firstname.lastname@example.org (see all)
- Pre-season touch rugby - January 13, 2020
- LO1- Culturama - January 13, 2020
- RC3 - December 2, 2019