Read the passage (49-50)
Economists agree that foreign trade has afforded big benefits to Britain overall. More recently, as countries like Vietnam and China have become manufacturing giants, consumers have enjoyed cheap imported goods. However, a body of Research on the American company shows that import competition from poor countries can depress the incomes of the low skilled, at least in the short run. Britain's economy is twice as exposed to foreign trade as America's. For the period 2000-07, British workers in industries that suffered from high levels of import exposure to Chinese products earned less. They also spent more time out of employment than those in other industries. Studies also show that a one standard-deviation increase in import competition worsened rates of mental illness by 1.2 percentage points. Unfortunately, the pain tends to be concentrated geographically. In the past decade, the number of over-25s unemployed for more than one year has increased much faster in manufacturing hubs- areas where manufacturing makes up more than 20% of the local economy than in areas where it makes up less. On the ground, the result is clear to see these manufacturing centres are fading- left out of Britain's generally healthy economic growth. It does not have to be this way. The large overall gains from free trade mean it should be possible to compensate its losers. That means "trade adjustment assistance" should work. In Germany, the upgrading the skill of the workforce is the norm and is accomplished through a sophisticated system of apprenticeships. But Amercia's trade adjustment assistance programme which funds training and support for workers displaced by foreign competition and Britain's preferred programme, are feeble. In Britain it is supposed to provide training and support when there are mass redundancies. But it is a murky operation, there are almost no data on what it does. In 2008, its budget was a pitiful £6m ($8m). Data from the OECD, a club mostly of rich countries, suggest that even after accounting for Britain's' low unemployment rate, for years it has been a stingy spender on "active" labour-market policies (i.e. those that seek to improve the skills of the (low-skilled) unemployed, not just let them languish). Until this failure to share the proceeds is corrected, don't expect opposition to globalisation to go away any time soon.
According to the passage, which of the following is/are (an) outcome(s) of the present "trade adjustment assistance"?
(A) A large number of low skill individuals in Britain are still unable to find employment.
(B) The resistance to globalisation of trade will continue in countries like America and Britain.
(C) Rise in incomes of highly skilled individuals.
