I've seen similar questions, and answers typically say I only need to do three things: (i) remove begin and end table, (ii) replace begin and end tabular with begin and end longtable, (iii) load the longtable package.
When I apply these 3 steps to the code below, it still does not work? Is there any other adjustment I need to make?
%%% 01. LOADING PACKAGES
\documentclass[a4paper, 8pt]{article}
\usepackage{geometry}
\usepackage{array}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{amsmath, amsthm, amssymb}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage{indentfirst}
\usepackage{pdflscape}
\usepackage{rotating}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage{enumitem}
%\usepackage{euler}
\usepackage{bm}
\usepackage{econometrics}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{amsfonts, empheq, mathrsfs}
\usepackage[dvipsnames]{xcolor}
\usepackage{extsizes}
%%% 02. CUSTOMISING FORMAT
\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.3}
\setlength{\parskip}{1em}
\setlength{\skip\footins}{2cm}
\setlength{\footnotesep}{0.5cm}
%%% 03. POPULATING TEXT FIELDS
\title{S140 Behavioural Economics}
\author{}
\date{}
%%% 04. PRODUCING PERSONALIZED COMMANDS
\newcommand{\xb}[1]{\pmb{#1}}
\newcommand{\xbh}[1]{\pmb{\hat{#1}}}
\newcommand{\xbi}[1]{\pmb{{#1}^{-1}}}
\newcommand{\xbt}[1]{\pmb{{#1}^{'}}}
\newcommand{\tabitem}{~~\llap{\textbullet}~~}
\newcommand{\fconcepts}[1]{\textcolor{blue}{#1}}
\newcommand{\fquestions}[1]{\textcolor{red}{#1}}
%%% 05. TYPESETTING DOCUMENT
\begin{document}
\newgeometry{top=0.5cm, bottom=0.5cm, left=0.5cm, right=0.5cm, asymmetric}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}[h!]
\section{Overview of papers}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{|m{3.5cm}|m{9cm}|m{9cm}|m{17cm}|m{7cm}|}
\hline
\textbf{Paper}&\textbf{Objective}&\textbf{Methodology}&\textbf{Findings}&\textbf{Caveats}\\
\hline
\textbf{01. Roth et al. (1991):}
Bargaining and Market Behavior, An Experimental Study
%OBJECTIVE
&
\begin{itemize}
\item The three main goals were (i) to compare behaviour in related bargaining and market environments, (ii) to compare behavior in very different subject pools, and (iii) to use such differences to study out-of-equilibrium behaviour.
\item Another important methodological goal was to learn how to deal with experimental design problems associated with multinational experiments, such that factors like language or currency could be controlled for, and cultural differences can be analyzed.
\end{itemize}
%METHODOLOGY
&
\begin{itemize}
\item Bargaining: Ultimatum game, two players, one makes a proposed division of the sum, the other can accept (and earn the proposed share) or reject (and both get zero). Ten sessions.
\item Market: Buyers submit offer to single seller, for object worth same amount to every buyer, and nothing to seller. Seller can either accept the highest price offered (receiving that amount, with buyer receiving the object’s value minus that amount, and others receiving zero) or reject it (all get zero). Ten markets.
\item Authors controlled for experimenter (ran experiences in Pittsburgh), language (translator national of relevant country), and currency (tokens as currency) effects.
\end{itemize}
%FINDINGS
&
\begin{enumerate}
\item Theoretical equilibrium: one player receives all the wealth (in the bargaining, the player who proposes the division; in the market, the seller).
\item Market environment: the observed market outcomes converge quickly to the perfect equilibrium, and do not deviate once reached, with no payoff-relevant differences observed between countries.
\item Bargaining environment: the observed bargaining outcomes are significantly different from the equilibrium predictions, with substantial differences between countries.
\item Offer and probability of acceptance: within every country these two variables were inversely related (low offers rejected more frequently than high offers), but the same does not hold across countries (higher disagreement not observed in countries with lower offers).
\item Role of experience in between-country differences: as subjects gained experience, between-country differences in market outcomes became smaller, while in bargaining outcomes they grew larger. This supports the view that differences in bargaining behaviour are not due to differences in languages, currencies, or experimenters, but other causes.
\item Role of culture: culture is offered as a source of observed subject-pool differences, and authors suggest laboratory experimentation as a path for future research.
\end{enumerate}
\fconcepts{\underline{Key concepts:}
\begin{itemize}
\item -
\end{itemize}}
%CAVEATS
&
\begin{enumerate}
\item Much higher percentage of army veterans in Israel and Yugoslavia than US or Japan.
\item Subjects were economics/business/psychology students, so sample is arguably contaminated.
\item Relatively small sample sizes.
\end{enumerate}
\fquestions{\underline{Questions:}
\begin{itemize}
\item What are the implications of changing the experiment from $10 to $30? Why would this change how subjects behave?
\end{itemize}}
\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\end{document}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{
scaling tables always makes bad output and does not work at all for longtable\begin{table}[h!]
(having a\section
in a floating table is very unusual, did you intend that?)