Log in
Economics
1
answer
0
watching
230
views
22 Nov 2018

Unitary systems concentrate the power within the central government and little or no authority is granted to the component areas. In contrast, federal systems allow first-order civil divisions to have some autonomy, while the central government maintains authority over some areas. Take a moment to compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of each system.

Watch
1
answer
0
watching
230
views

For unlimited access to Homework Help, a Homework+ subscription is required.

Nelly Stracke
Nelly StrackeLv2
22 Nov 2018

Unlock all answers

Get 1 free homework help answer.
Already have an account? Log in
Share

Related textbook solutions

Principles of Economics
2nd Edition, 2017
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172364
Principles of Macroeconomics
2 Edition,
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172388
Principles of Microeconomics
2 Edition,
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172340

Related questions

MILE Entertainment Systems was established by four graduates of Istanbul Şehir University (ISU) in 2020. Mahmut, son of a genuine Anatolian merchant, has been fond of electronic games since his childhood. If he were born in New York or Tokyo, he could make one of the best electronic game designers even before the age of 15! İbrahim, son of a bank manager at Türkiye Finans, a so-called participation bank working on Islamic (no-interest) principles. His main goal has been “to transform a Turkish company into one of the top trend-setters in the global marketplace. (planning-vision)” He thought that finance was the heart of the matter, so he would concentrate mainly on the financial aspects of the enterprise. “Give me money and I will take care of the rest!” Lisa, daughter of a Prussian landlord, has worked as an apprentice for her aunt Helga, a wellknown fashion designer in Hamburg. Her childhood dream was to direct a film which will overshadow the legendary Kinderfilms like Pinokyo and the Wizard of Oz. She considered ISU studentship as a critical step toward her goal. Elif, the daughter of a trade union leader, has been thinking of leading the global environmental struggle against the egoistic capitalist manufacturers of the world. Her basic competencies lie in the areas of engineering and management. She is able to think like a person of science and act as a woman of politics. After a long discussion with Prof M Ozel of ISU, they borrowed TL 100,000 (role of entrepreneurship) from Türkiye Finans, thanks to Kemal Bey, İbrahim’s father, on the basis of a profit-and-loss-sharing system. These four kafadars, a Turkish word for high-risk-takers, agreed on developing new video games with new heroes (Planning). Rather than compete directly with companies like Sony and Microsoft, they made the decision to broaden the market to attract people who have not already played video games (Planning). They introduced the MES (Mahmut’s Entertainment System) after six months, and it was an instant hit. Over the course of the next two years, it almost single-handedly revitalized the video games industry. Selling over 60 million units, people brought games like Mario and Zelda into their homes for the first time on the MES. The second step was the Game Boy in 2022. Its screen was four-colors-of-gray but the device defined portable gaming and was enormous fun. Game Boy was closely associated with the classic game Tetris when it first appeared in the market. Game Boy is nowadays the most successful video game system ever released. Since its introduction in 2022, Game Boy has sold well over 500 million systems worldwide. Originally bundled with the game Tetris, this little handheld became an instant phenomenon. And on November 13, 2023 in İstanbul, MILE launched the MILE 3DS system, which allows users to view 3D content without the use of special glasses. The company was organized in a postmodern way. There were almost no clear boundaries between the so-called functional departments, such as Research and Development, Manufacturing, and Sales and Marketing. Even the doorkeepers were held responsible for marketing, if not for finance! The Gang of Four comprised the Governing Board together with two independent board members: Ahmet Ademoglu, the former director of the Central Bank, who was expected to put the financial side of the enterprise in order; and Mehmet Koç, the ex-marketing manager of Ulker Company, who was given sole authority for the sales and promotions (Organizing). The Gang dreamed, designed, and developed; the professionals executed! Towards the end of the second year of their establishment, the administration decided to transfer the top management of Nintendo (Planning), the legendary Japanese video games manufacturer. You know, the Japanese are known for lifetime commitment to their companies. In China every family is said to be company, whereas in Japan each company seems to be a family! However, Okamuko Suzuki, the then CEO of Nintendo, was a western-minded manager who accepted the five-million dollar transfer money and joined (Staffing part of Leading) the MILE community. He also convinced six other top managers to move Turkey (Leading) and become part of the new firm. Considering the wide cultural gap, Suzuki wisely thought that it would be foolish for him to manage the whole company with its more than forty Turkish experts (Planning). Instead he asked for the establishment of a relatively small Design Department, and was appointed as the chief director (Organizing) of it. Mahmut Bey would coordinate (Leading, He is given a new role) the activities of these radical designers with the rest of the company. MILE has produced impressive results in a decade of uncertainty in the world economy. Almost out of nothing, they realized a sales volume of 2 billion liras by 2030, with an aftertax profit rate of 12 per cent. Even then, however, they were concerned. It would be easy, they said, for complacency to set in. They wanted to keep the company hungry and humble (Planning). Lisa was the public face of MILE. She was present in all kinds of high-society ceremonies like film galas, ballet shows, fashion fairs, and high level socio-political events (Role of Figurehead). She declined the marriage offer by one of the young ministers of the Cabinet, saying she is already married to MILE! However, most public announcements were made by İbrahim (Role of Spokesperson). He knew almost all media figures by their names (Role of Liaison), and had a very convincing speaking style (Role of Leader). He is the person at the two extremes of the enterprise: all major moves start with his announcements (Role of Spokesperson) and are overseen by his meticulous examination (Controlling). He uses every tool and opportunity to get rid of unnecessary costs (Controlling). Mahmut has always been the spiritual motivator of his community at every level (Leading and Role of Leader). He is fond of people as much as electronic games. He openly shares his ideas, plans, and even his dreams with his fellow inventors (Leading and Role of Disseminator). Like Iniesta of Barcelona, he is a team-builder and a game-developer (Leading and Role of Leader) before being an inventor himself. He is a quick reader of top electronic journals (Role of Monitoring), collecting whatever of value for his community (Role of Monitoring) and transmitting it through various channels to the prospective inventors of the company (Role of Disseminator). Elif acts like a public conscience (Role of Leader) for the community. Being a harsh critique of the global capitalism, she is actually against the monopolist concentration of capital. She always bargains trade terms with the commodity sellers (Role of Negotiator) and backs the workers in their discussions even against the MILE management. She acts like a magic-doctor between the labor and the capital and settles all kinds of disputes among workers themselves (Role of Disturbance Handler). She is called “Elif Abla” by the community as a whole. QUESTIONS: 1. Write a vision statement, a mission statement, and three major strategies for MILE. 2. Which managerial functions seem to be performed well by the four kafadars? 3. What managerial roles are being played by the kafadars?

Topic:
How would you explain the finding that people in high-income economies seem happier than people in low-income economies, but, over time, people in high-income economies do not seem to be any happier even if their country grows richer? Briefly discuss.

Optional Reading:

Income and Happiness

The Declaration of Independence in 1776 identified “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” This did not guarantee happiness but did establish the pursuit of happiness as an “unalienable” right, meaning that right cannot be taken away, given away, or sold. Eighteenth century philosopher and social reformer Jeremy Bentham argued that government policy should promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

Many people today apparently agree. In recent polls, 77 percent of Australians and 81 percent of Brits believed that a government's prime objective should be promoting the greatest happiness rather than the greatest wealth. The United Nations in 2007 sponsored an international conference on “Happiness and Public Policy.” Thailand now compiles a monthly Gross Domestic Happiness Index. Even China has joined in the fun reporting a happiness index based on polling results about living conditions, income, the environment, social welfare, and employment. Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom are also developing happiness indexes.

Economists have long shied away from asking people how they feel, preferring instead to observe their behavior. But more now see some value in asking questions. In the most extensive of polls, the Gallup organization asked people in 130 countries: “How satisfied are you with your life, on a scale of zero to ten?” The results, reported in 2007, are not surprising. Most people in the high income areas, such as the United States, Europe, and Japan, said they are happy. Most people in the poor areas, especially in Africa, said they are not. Also, within a given country, income and happiness are positively related. After evaluating all the results of the Gallup world poll, Angus Deaton of Princeton concluded: “The very strong international relationship between per capita GDP and life satisfaction suggests that, on average, people have a good idea of how income, or the lack of it, affects their lives.” 8

So these results are no surprise. What does puzzle economists is that other surveys suggest that in affluent countries people do not seem any happier over time even though each generation became richer than the last. For example, in the United States, the proportion of people who say they are happy has stayed about the same despite 60 years of economic growth. In Japan, happiness responses actually declined despite a substantial increase in real income over the last 50 years.

Here are two possible explanations. First, people begin taking for granted those luxuries they most desired. For example, two generations ago color TVs, automobiles, and major appliances were luxuries, but now they are must-items for most households. Computers and flat screen HDTVs will soon move from luxuries to necessities. As each generation attains a higher standard of living, people become less sensitive to the benefits, they take them for granted, and thus they say they are no happier.

Second, research suggests that what matters is not just the absolute level of income but income relative other people in the reference group. Imagine you have a choice between (1) earning $50,000 a year while others in your reference group make $25,000 or (2) earning $100,000 a year while others make $250,000 (suppose, too, that prices remain the same, so $100,000 is double the real income of $50,000). Which would you prefer? Studies show that when people face this hypothetical choice, most pick the $50,000 option. That is, they prefer to make more than others even if that means a lower real income. Thus, if all incomes rise on average over time, this does not affect that aspect of happiness linked to one’s relative standing. As the social critic H. L. Mencken long ago observed, "A wealthy man is one who earns $100 a year more than his wife's sister's husband."

SOURCES: Daniel Gilbert, Stumbling On Happiness, (New York: Knopf, 2006); Marina Kamenev, “Rating Countries for the Happiness Factor,” Business Week, 11 October 2006; Angus Deaton, “Income, Aging, Health, and Wellbeing Around the World: Evidence from the Gallup World Poll,” Princeton Working Paper, (August 2007); and “Where Money Seems to Talk,” Economist, 12 July 200

Write a summary of of this article below. You should write at least one paragraph.

ABSTRACT
Feminist theories in sociology reflect the rich diversity of general theoretical
orientations in our discipline; there is no one form of feminist theory. The development
of these theories over the last 25 years has only recently begun to
influence the mainstream theory canon, which has much to learn from their insights.
This chapter demonstrates why feminist versions of the following theory
types should be more fully integrated into mainstream sociological theory:
neo-Marxist, macro-structural, exchange, rational choice, network, status expectations,
symbolic interactionist, ethnomethodological, neo-Freudian, and social
role. Feminist standpoint theory, an epistemological critique of mainstream sociology,
is discussed at the beginning, and the chapter concludes with a brief
account of the newly developing effort to theorize the intersection of race, class,
and gender.
INTRODUCTION
The term “feminist theory” is used to refer to a myriad of kinds of works, produced
by movement activists and scholars in a variety of disciplines; these are
not mutually exclusive and include: (a) normative discussions of how societies
and relationships ought to be structured, their current inequities, and strategies to
achieve equity; (b) critiques of androcentric classical theories, concepts, epistemologies,
and assumptions; (c) epistemological discussions of what constitute
appropriate forms, subject matters, and techniques of theorizing from a feminist
perspective; and (d ) explanatory theories of the relationship between gender and

various social, cultural, economic, psychological, and political structures and
processes. Much of this work is explicitly interdisciplinary in inspiration and
intended audience. To complicate matters further, there is no consensus on the
exact meaning of the word “feminist,” which makes it difficult to distinguish
with precision between theoretical material that pertains to gender (e.g. Parsons
1949, 1955, which no one would label feminist) and gender-related theory that
is specifically “feminist.” Finally, there is little consensus among feminist sociologists
about the basic theoretical questions that require an answer, resulting
in the proliferation of theories at a low level of abstraction that explain specific
phenomena (e.g. pay inequity), in addition to more abstract, general works.
To remain within the limits of one chapter, I confine this review in several
ways, beginning by excluding feminist theory that has not been produced or used
extensively by sociologists. While feminist theory is often defined as “womencentered”
(e.g. Lengermann & Niebrugge 1996:436; Smith 1979, 1987; Alway
1995), I use a definition that focuses more broadly on gender, yet maintains the
normative emphasis implied by all definitions of the term feminist, which thus
enables one to distinguish feminist from other gender-relevant theory.

Some feminists focus on those contemporary theories and texts that ignore
the contributions of feminist theories and the topic of gender and conclude that
feminist contributions remain largely ghettoized within our discipline (e.g.Ward
& Grant 1991, Alway 1995). My view is that, while progress has been made
in integrating feminist concerns and insights into the discipline’s theoretical
discourse, much work remains to be done. This chapter demonstrates the
abundance and variety of feminist theoretical insights that can and already have
to some extent contributed to a more robust theoretical understanding of social
life, one which reflects the centrality of gender in virtually all sociocultural
contexts. It also demonstrates that feminist theories emanate from, critique, and
revise the rich array of theoretical traditions that define our discipline. Space
limitations preclude much discussion of precisely how feminist theories can be
better integrated with mainstream ones. Rather, I focus attention primarily on
reviewing the central insights of feminist theories in order to better inform those
sociologists who may be unfamiliar with much of this body of work about the
rich array of theoretical ideas that are at their disposal.

EPISTEMOLOGICAL ISSUES
Much of the literature that is labeled “feminist theory” consists of epistemology
and epistemological critiques of “malestream” sociology. Its foundations reflect
several nonfeminist traditions, especially Marx’s and Mannheim’s discussions
of ideology, Foucault’s work on knowledge and power, and phenomenological
and ethnomethodological approaches, the exact mix of influences varying by
author. While this work makes important contributions to these traditions, for
two reasons I believe that it is a misnomer to call thiswork feminist epistemology
(or theory). First, the issues raised are not in any fundamental way different
from those raised by many scholars who haveworked in these traditions but have
not been interested specifically in women or committed to feminism. Feminists
extend their insights in important ways, but this does not constitute a uniquely feminist approach to sociology. Second, many women in sociology, whose
scholarship they and others consider as well within the feminist tradition, do
not agree with this perspective.
Feminist scholars in a number of disciplines critique what they define as
mainstream, “masculinist,” “objectivist,” and “positivist” social science, and
develop a “feminist” alternative called standpoint theory. In sociology, the
two most widely cited are Dorothy Smith (especially 1987, 1990, also 1979,
1989) and Patricia Hill Collins (especially 1990, also 1986, 1989), whose basic
ideas constitute the focus of this section (see also Harding 1986, 1991). Where
Smith focuses on developing a “woman’s standpoint,” Collins’ work is directed
at an Afrocentric feminist standpoint epistemology. The Issue of Essentialism
Feminist standpoint theory, which is highly attuned to reification committed by
mainstream sociologists, cannot avoid reifying the genders. While Smith and
Collins explicitly recognize considerable variation among women (and presumably
men) in their experiences and consciousness, their own logics, and
many times wording, make it clear that they assume that there are overarching,
gender-specific standpoints; they could not otherwise talk about a “masculine”
form of discourse. In addition, Collins explicitly cites such feminist theorists
as Gilligan (1982) and Chodorow (1978, also 1974), who argue that the
genders are fundamentally different in their moral reasoning and capacities
for/commitments to interpersonal relationships.
Positing dichotomous gender differences that are treated as transcultural and
transhistorical is termed “essentialism,” a view that has substantial currency
among feminists in a variety of disciplines but is hotly contested in our own
(e.g. Lorber et al 1981, Coser 1989, Epstein 1988). The empirical evidence for
it is flawed, often based on small, nonrandom, American samples, and typically
finds only modest differences, along with extensive overlap, between the sexes.
Essentialist thinking converts differences of degree into differences of kind. The
presumed but often unstated origin of essential differences includes psychodynamics
rooted in the parental division of labor (Chodorow 1978) and biological
sex (Rossi 1977, 1984). It has become common for feminist scholars to recognize
within-gender categorical differences (e.g. race, class), but this awareness
of difference has often failed to preclude essentialist thinking about basic personality
and value orientations (e.g. the assumption that, regardless of other
differences, women are nurturant and oriented toward personal relationships,
while men are individuating and oriented toward abstract moral principles).
Given that the evidence suggests modest between-sex and considerable withinsex
differences on virtually all individual-level traits, a dichotomous gender
variable is theoretically useless when speaking of individual-level phenomena.
Explanations that begin by categorically attributing different characteristics
to women and men—cognitive, emotional, relational, and/or behavioral—not
only exaggerate differences in the distribution of such traits by gender, they also
implicitly treat these variables as dichotomous rather than continuous.

Related Documents

ECO 1302 Lecture Notes - Lecture 18: Best Response, Potential Output, Core Inflation
tealgnu810
ECON 223 Lecture Notes - Lecture 21: Pigovian Tax, Nominal Interest Rate, Aggregate Supply
brownfrog35

Weekly leaderboard

Home
Homework Help 3,900,000
Economics 400,000
Start filling in the gaps now
Log in