Using named examples, assess the advantages and disadvantages of top down and bottom up development strategies (15 marks) Development is the ways in which a country seeks to develop economically and to improve the standards of living for its inhabitants. Numerous development strategies both top down and bottom up can be used by countries to help them progress. However, while these may be advantageous in certain areas, not all strategies are as effective everywhere and thus problems can arise with top down and bottom up development schemes. Top down strategies are generally capital-intensive and often conducted by the government. The main criticism of these schemes is the fact that the money which is supposedly meant to aid the poorest people in the country who are most in need is actually diverted to those who are richer instead.
He argued that capital society and social order are all link to a capital system to human beings. Durkheim on the other hand, argued that sociology should be look at social facts as objects. Roles and institutions act like bodily organs, each depending on other. The world should be divided into subjective and objective, regarding society as a reality in itself. Durkheim sees anomie as responsible for the world’s disorder of economics- the lack of morality and regulation resulted in overpowering the weak; thus, he feels that only norms can prevent the abuse of power and calls for regulation and equal opportunity from birth- the greater the equal opportunity the less need for restraint.
Do you agree with the view that the Chartist Movement was a Failure? The three sources all provide evidence for and against the view that the Chartist movement was a failure. Source 4 claims that the working-class conditions are the reason for the “symptom of this discontent” however it is not specifically arguing of or against the view. Source 5 presents the weakness of the movement and how it was destined for failure, whereas Source 6 presents a contrasting view of the long term successes of the movement despite it being a failure. The movement was based around the six-point charter, which though was classed by many liberals as fair and democratic it can be argued that it was too radical for the time period 1836-58 thus being the reason as why Chartism failed.
While the invisible hand cannot guarantee efficiency, it is better at guaranteeing equity. ANSWER: F TYPE: T KEY1: D SECTION: 2 OBJECTIVE: 7 RANDOM: Y [cxx]. The two broad reasons for a government to intervene in the economy are to promote efficiency and to promote equity. ANSWER: T TYPE: T KEY1: D SECTION: 2 OBJECTIVE: 7 RANDOM: Y [cxxi]. Market failure refers to a situation in which the market does not allocate resources efficiently.
Fundamentally, Rousseau and Marx refuted the theories of their predecessors; namely Hobbe’s insistence that man’s original state of nature was terrifying and disadvantageous to individuals and Locke’s championing of the protection of an individual’s right to private property. Rousseau precisely writes, “[A]ll the subsequent progress has been in appearance so many steps toward the perfection of the individual, and in fact toward the decay of the [human]species” (Rousseau 65). Both argued for what they considered to be best for the community of humanity, not the specific interests of a minority collective of wealthy individuals (Marx 168). Both find the establishment and exploitation of private property, as well as labor, to be the origins of social inequality (Marx 162-163) (Rousseau 65). In his Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, Rousseau states that the origin of inequality was the foundation of a political system that gave “new forces to the rich,” and thus, “destroyed natural liberty, [and] established forever the law of property and of inequality” (Rousseau 70).
Jin 1 Dian Jin Professor Keane GPS Writing Workshop 29 November 2014 Needs at Present and the Welfare of Futurity In his work Famine, Affluence and Morality, Singer proposes a moral principle that is rather revolutionary to the contemporary Western philosophy. In Singer’s interpretation, the affluent aiding the poor is no longer a charitable act but is in fact obligated by morality. He argues “if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything else morally significant, we ought morally, to do it” (Singer, 235). Despite its agreeable intention, such a moral dictation is deficient not only because it requires a revolution in moral ideology, but also it is within itself illogical. Why should more affluent people reach their hands out in the first place?
The continued power grab will destroy the capitalist system shackling the limbs of the free market. The regulation imposed creates factions limiting the ease of market entry. The environment that our American business calls home must remain competitive assuring quality goods to consumers while encouraging technological advancements. The path our federal government is currently on is a path of non-democratic regulation that is a threat to the growth and prosperity of our country. It is simply a matter of the true meaning of the Constitution, specifically the commerce clause that must be addressed.
In the first chapter of his book, The Landscape of History, John Lewis Gaddis says, “But consider the power of metaphor, on the one hand, and the particular combination of economy and intensity with which visual images can express metaphor, on the other,” (2). This is one of the more intricate quotes pulled from Gaddis, where he is basically saying that not only do metaphors represent stories that are used to describe history, but also that metaphors can be images that are being used to represent something much larger. For example, historians tell a story like what actually happened, and maps show features that are like the territory that it is representing. Another thing Gaddis states in chapter one is, “The best you can do, whether with a prince or a landscape or the past, is to represent reality: to smooth over the details, to look for larger patterns, to consider how you can use what you see for your own purposes,” (7). Which supports the point being made that history may only be represented by a story as land may only be represented by a map.
By looking at the wedding celebration at the beginning of the novel, one may see how the immigrant identity invites exploitation through its reliance on an unspoken code of conduct. The American identity is shown to be similarly problematic, because it encourages self-interest that ultimately only serves to further disempower the poor. The novel presents the socialist identity as the only sustainable identity out of these three, because it is the only one with the ability to directly and explicitly confront the ways in which capitalism is inherently stacked against the interests of the
The essence of this statement is denying the possibility that free trade could bring positive effect to world’s poorest countries. So free trade is really a fair trade to poor countries?Actually, the main argument does not come from whether rich countries should open market to support the development of poor countries, instead, the focus is whether the liberalization is the burden of poor countries. The essay will critically discuss the statement pro and con by listing theory support and example support separately. From the pro angle, free trade is unfair to poor countries because poor countries has no competitive advantages in almost every sector and no absolute advantage means no trade according to related theory; From the con angle, free trade still could be in the interests of poor countries even though they have no absolute advantage because free trade offer more choices and lower price, in addition, poor countries could still develop comparative advantage according to supportive theory. The conclusion will be driven from the analysis below, which will finally regard free trade as a double-edged sword.