Answer:
- Gains from trade
- Consumer Satisfaction
- Greater Efficiency
- Growth Opportunities
Explanation:
According to Investopedia, specialization is a method of production where an entity focuses on the production of a limited scope of goods to gain a greater degree of efficiency.
A country can specialize on the production of a particular commodity or service that is peculiar to their part of the world giving them the opportunity to become very efficient and have more opportunities for growth. Some of the benefits of specialization in a country include;
- Economies of scale/ greater efficiency: A country that is involved in specialized production will have very efficient production because the more focus they have on one task, the more efficient they become at this task which reduces the time and money involved in producing a good.
- Gains from trade: Two countries that both have comparative advantages on different products will benefits greatly if they continue in their specialized products and trade. For example country X produces fabric at a very cheap rate and country Y produces rice at a very cheap rate. It will cost country X a greater amount to start rice production than to just trade and get rice from country Y and vice versa. So both countries benefit from specializing and trading.
- Growth Opportunities: A country can gain access to the world market which allows them to grow bigger and in turn increase their efficiency.
- Consumer Satisfaction: Specialization means that cost of production is lower which makes the cost of goods relatively cheaper.
The question asks, "What is YOUR philosophy?" I can't really tell you what YOU should think ... but I can present for you the ideas of a couple different political philosophers who took opposing stands on the issue.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were both English philosophers who wrote during the 17th century.
Hobbes published a famous work called <em>Leviathan </em>in 1651. The title "Leviathan" comes from a biblical word for a great and mighty beast. Hobbes believed government is formed by people for the sake of their personal security and stability in society. In Hobbes view, once the people put a king (or other leader in power), then that leader needs to have supreme power (like a great and mighty beast). The people are too divided and too volatile as individuals -- everyone looking out for his own interests. So for security and stability, authority and the power of the law needs to be in the hands of a powerful ruler like a king or queen. That was Hobbes' view.
John Locke famously published <em>Two Treatises on Civil Government </em>in 1690. According to Locke's view, a government's power to govern comes from the consent of the people themselves -- those who are to be governed. This was a change from the previous ideas of "divine right monarchy" -- that a king ruled because God appointed him to be the ruler. Locke repudiated the views of divine right monarchy in his <em>First Treatise on Civil Government. </em> In his <em>Second Treatise on Civil Government, </em> Locke argued for the rights of the people to create their own governments according to their own desires and for the sake of protecting their own life, liberty, and property. Locke always favored the people remaining in charge, and asserted that the people have the power to change their government and remove government leaders if the government is not properly serving the needs and well-being of the people.
As you write your own answer to this question for your class, you will want to decide, perhaps, if you agree more with Hobbes, that security and stability are most important ... or with Locke, that the authority and liberty of the people are always paramount.
He applied his skill in engineering to toughen up the defence
Disease which caused the populations of the native americans to decrease dramatically
