i wrote that health care would improve the labour productivity and economic growth would take place. i pursued this point further to show benefits. for the state benefits i wrote that the people would get lazy and supply of labour would decrease. i pushed this point a bit. to conclude i wrote that improvement of health care was more imp as it will cause economic growth.
The specialisation was at a national level, so it was diff regions of the same country specialising. i gave the advantage that full use can be made of resources, and labour productivity can increase in general beacuse certain skills are concentrated in a certain area, adn the gdp would increase. but the areas would become too interdependant and calamities in one area might affect the whole country. i gave the example of the 2010 flood washing away the crops in pakistani provinces of punjab and sindh, causing food shortages throughout the country. if the areas had produced their own food they would not have had to face these shortages. i extended these points to give out the eventual outcome.
The specialisation was at a national level, so it was diff regions of the same country specialising. i gave the advantage that full use can be made of resources, and labour productivity can increase in general beacuse certain skills are concentrated in a certain area, adn the gdp would increase. but the areas would become too interdependant and calamities in one area might affect the whole country. i gave the example of the 2010 flood washing away the crops in pakistani provinces of punjab and sindh, causing food shortages throughout the country. if the areas had produced their own food they would not have had to face these shortages. i extended these points to give out the eventual outcome.
