The reason for why governments in developing countries sometimes are unable or unwilling to implement polices that create favorable conditions for economic growth boils down to two main reasons: social issues and political issues. Political issues are just as multifaceted as the social issues. Due to corrupt governments and regimes the lawlessness spreads throughout the developing nation like wildfire. Political issues revolve around the basic needs of a nation such as simple, yet, necessary infrastructure of schools, hospitals, septic tanks, etc. The necessity of public goods is vital for a developing country to survive, maintain, and become what we consider today, a developed country.
In Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Singer offers two simple claims to which objections are hard to come by. He then formulates a conclusion based on the two claims, which is controversial in nature. First, death and suffering due to starvation and malnutrition are very bad; a true, uncontroversial statement. Second, if we can prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing something of equal importance then we ought to do it; again a legitimate uncontroversial statement. Finally, we ought to give a lot of our money to famine relief; here lies the issue.
Whatever they argue or use to explain obesity, functionalists would say that it is valid and important to society and is better for society as a whole. Conflict theory is based entirely in power and how those in power do all they can to hold the majority of the population down and to keep them from gaining power, so as to secure their own position. Conflict theorists would say that obesity is a product of the living conditions, stress and poor quality of food and health education that those in power choose and enforce for those that aren't in power. Conflict theorists might say that those that are in power (those that make laws, those that own companies, etc) willingly set up society so that the cheaper the good is, the more unhealthy it is, and so the poor might only be able to afford cheap, unhealthy bulk food and become susceptible to obesity. Conflict theorists might say that food education might be controlled by larger government forces (like the Food and Drug Administration, United States Department of Agriculture, American Diatetics Association, etc), who look out for their own bottom line and corporate interests from sponsors and lobbyists.
The major Fair Trade failures are associated with the lack of laws and regulatory entities with authority to complete a market chain that permits that the final profit could be redistributed to producing countries. This paper also uses the Fair Trade coffee as a variable that explains the real situation of Fair Trade products. Fair Trade is a valuable system that plays an important role in the battle against poverty, but if it is not well regulated then it can become a double-edged sword, facilitator of events of corruption and poverty strengthening. Keywords: Fair Trade, Poverty, Path-Goal Theory, Fair Trade Poverty FAIR TRADE, A RESOURCE AGAINST
That is why it doesn’t surprise me that people feel the need to blame the government for them being fat. Taking responsibility for your own actions is also a foreign concept apparently. If we want the government to control everything that goes on in our lives then we will not be able to be considered a free nation. In my experience, all you can eat buffets are quite a turn-off. Who wants to sit and stuff their face until they get sick?
And so it is criticized for serving the interests of donors, because when accepting food aid, “recipients commit to pay for imports of commercial food along with food aid The CSSD is based in Washington D.C. rather than at the FAO Headquarters in Rome. Its location, its name and its focus on surplus disposal clearly reflect the concerns of competing food exporting countries around the use of food aid in an open economy rather than on hunger in recipient countries. Its main function is to avoid the displacement of commercial imports by food aid and it does not constitute an instrument favoring an adequate use of food aid to fight hunger. FAC’s commercial interests are exemplified by
The central flaw is that Singer uses a bad analogy of how the global economy actually is, it assumes that the child has somehow appeared there of his own devices and that a simple act will save him. Many of Singer’s key principals, such as the importance of impartiality and the irrelevance of distance are very strong and I find it hard to disagree with them. Whilst I do not agree that to adopt Singer’s solution will cause actual harm to me it is not convincing as the most effective way to solve the problems of poverty. To follow Singer’s principal will amount to everyone else jumping in the water and drowning to some small degree. I believe that while Singer develops his argument by claiming that while people in rich states can survive without luxuries; those in poorer ones where most are manufactured could not survive, as their economic base would fall apart.
According to the article, Legislative Solutions to Unhealthy Eating and Obesity i Australia, there are health advocates that have been active and pushed their government to do something about the obesity epidemic. The government has funded social marketing campaigns, recreation infrastructure, such as parks, and healthy eating programs but at the same time, the food industry continues to throw out their advertisements with no regulations by the government. Health experts, however believe that though this may be a very important step to recognizing the seriousness of obesity in Australia, it will not be effective in reducing obesity. They feel that legislation must put into law in addressing obesity and place campaigns of public health problems such as road accidents and smoking habits (MacKay 2011). Many people believe that it is not the responsibility of the food industry that obesity is becoming a serious issue because it is based on sole responsibility of what they choose to eat, whether they choose to exercise or not, and in the case of child obesity, the lack of responsibility the parents maintain; and the food industry concurs when addressed by the government.
In other words, economically and technologically speaking, does the world today possess a certain powers that would allow man to circumvent the hardships inflicted by Mother Nature? One scholar laments that “Once we begin to see beyond the rather seductive and ironic depictions of the famine encounter, we will be in a position to recapture a glimpse of the real causes of famine and cautiously avoid the conflation of natural calamities with ‘man made’ famines. Yet, other experts cling to environmental attributions, stating that natural disasters still lie at the root of all widespread hunger. While Mother Nature may initiate hunger, man bears the onus for creating or at least not averting widespread famine. Famine may be referred to as ‘the regional failure of food production or distribution systems, leading to sharply increased mortality due to starvation and associated diseases.Historically speaking, in a majority of the situations where this definition comes into play, natural disasters are the initial cause.
How can someone be called fat? Can fat be a good thing rather than a bad, as the media and governments tells us. With David Zinczenko’s controversial article on suing fast foods is wrong to Paul Campos’s argumentative essay criticizing the BMI scale we’ll get professional responses on this controversial topic. Sometimes “fat” can be blamed on fast food. According to “Don’t Blame the Eater”, by David Zinczenko, he argues that suing a fast food place is wrong and should be your responsibility on what he eats.