The introduction of the FDI will help with alleviating the above raised concern and improve the livelihoods of the farmers, influencing the economic development (The Hitchers Beat, n.p). Contrarily, the opponents of the FDI involvement suggest that the strategy would make the US to control the foreign investment through their raised quota requirements.
I think the article was meant to misinform the public because of the middlemen who benefit at the expense of the farmers. Encouraging foreign investment is an appropriate way of increasing job opportunities, capital outlay and innovation in a country. The critics of this move do not give genuine reasons why FDI will affect their economy (The Hitchers Beat, n.p). This is because they are only concern with the benefits that Wall Mart will attain from the FDI without focusing on the costs associated with the move.
1. My question would be why the political perspectives do not consider economic value of the strategy? It is evident that the bill was shot down as a political statement to the ruling party concerning its foreign policy and relations with the West.
The article is interesting because it highlights the benefits of FDI in the South American countries. This is essential in showing the Chinese political class that FDI is productive and beneficial to the common citizens (The Hitchers Beat, n.p). The relation of this article to the current events is the formation of the Economic blocs to support member countries in the region. This is to boost economic activities with the neighboring countries in a bid to attract foreign