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.
No matter how many flyers would be sent out to residences, nor how many commercials announced that pesticide would be sprayed on a particular day there are still citizens that would have been uninformed to what was taking place. The poor citizens that do have television and the uneducated citizens that would not understand what they were reading and the harmful effects that the pesticide would have on them would be the ones typically to be outdoors when the spraying is taking place. The agricultural workers in the fields would be sprayed or would handle fruit or vegetables with the residue from the pesticide and get very ill. Killing the mosquitoes is a short term fix, when in all actuality the city needs to take the money donated and educate the citizens and tourist on how to avoid contracting the West Niles Virus. Educating people how to take care of themselves is a long term solution that will not cause irreparable damage to the
How to tackle the addiction, prevent it and allow people to recover is an ongoing problem. We must look at it symbolically and take responsibility of our social networks and media influence. By breaking it down to the subgroups of a drug culture, changing the unnecessary glamorization by film and music industry. Educational opportunities for lower socioeconomic groups may decrease the need for a dependency on drug dealing. The answers are not easy, the task seems unobtainable, but without an attempt “The Unnecessary Epidemic” continues at a great cost to human beings and our existence.
Overall I think the sources suggest that the biggest obstacle from public health was actually the fear of centralisation, as the sources provide evidence to suggest that, although cost may have been used as an excuse for a lack of progress, enough funds were available to introduce public health boards and create water systems- meaning there must have been a different reason other than cost stopping progress happening in each area, and centralisation is the reason the sources use most. A source which suggests that cost was the biggest obstacle is source 10, which is a speech from a tory mp who states that “I object to the establishment of a commission which would impose taxation”. This is a man from the government, who would have made the decision over whether bills like the public health act were passed, and he has given clear evidence that expenses were a big reason behind lack of progress, so it is very strong evidence for this argument. However, later in the source he reveals other obstacles for public health. Also, this man is a conservative mp, a traditionally wealthy party
There were six main reasons that led to the old Poor Law Reform to easily pass which were: a willing government, Tories were a minority, Climate change, objectors were not listened to, and a Report based on evidence collected by the commission of enquiry. However, out of the six reasons, we will discuss only two of the reasons which were; a willing Government and the fact that the Tories were a minority. The Government wanted to reduce what it was paying out to the poor hence set up a Commission of Enquiry which produced a report. The results of the report had detrimental effects to the poor. As the results of this report were very significant, three important changes to the law were made; ‘centralisation, less eligibility, and the ‘workhouse test’ which required everyone in receipt of poor relief to enter the workhouse, regardless of individual circumstances’.
| | My ethical position for the world hunger is the moral relativism because it offers no moral guidance. It merely tells us that any particular action would be approved by one group, but denounced by another.The world hunger is a very broad and controversial issue but let's start with some questions:What should those of us in affluent nations do to help impoverished countries and individuals, especially those facing episodic or endemic hunger? It just slightly changes it. We should now ask: “Are we obliged to insure that they have adequate food entitlements?” That requires us to ask several derivative questions: do we have obligations to encourage (or coerce) their governments to enhance their entitlements? Are we obligated to establish ongoing trade relations with these countries to enhance their citizens’ entitlements?Do we have obligations to send food or to help distribute food when the country cannot do so on its own?
Running on Empty In his book, Running on Empty, Peterson recognizes that the hope for modifying the political incentives normally hinges on the changing and the selfish attitudes of voters who have self-interest on political process, hence engendering in vitriolic partnership (Peterson pg. 218). His proposal for the reformation of the budget processes, on the other hand, seems to be myopic, since the pork-barrel politics are disgraceful despite the fact that the reform for the budget processes was proved to be impossible. Peterson has placed a great weight concerning the present generation that is supposed by various obligations to posterity; he says that he is worried whether the social promises of today are binding on the future generation, and if it would be possible to
A decision needs to be made on what is morally correct, not just on what is preferred by the person making the decision. An example of a moral dilemma is the current issue of deforestation, which is causing the destruction of the environment. Steve Greenberg’s cartoon, “On A Clearcut Day, You Can See Forever”, portrays these growing effects
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.
Brazilian Pepper and other invasive, non-native plants have permeated our landscape to the extent that they are displacing native plant species and changing the structure and function of our natural communities. The health, safety, economic well-being and general welfare of the present and future residents of this community are adversely influenced by degradation of natural ecological systems. Recognizing this problem, the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan, Conservation Element, Policy 8.10, states: Brevard County shall develop a county-wide program for invasive exotic removal on public lands and shall educate private property owners on reasons to remove invasive exotics from private lands. This program should emphasize replacement of invasive exotics with native vegetation where feasible. To help fulfill the above policy; to respond to citizen complaints of encroaching non-native, invasive plants; promote the conservation of wildlife species; encourage preservation of native vegetation to reduce visual, air, and noise pollution; and enhance the aesthetic quality of life in Brevard County, the Board of County Commissioners adopted a non-native, noxious, invasive plant ordinance on May 21, 2002, to control a targeted list of species at the time of new