Third Set of Figures Essay Example for Free

Third Set of Figures Essay Participant Ds errors are the following: The first is with regard to the use of has or have: Mr. Browns have two sons. Second error pertains to the use of verb tenses wherein difference between past and present tenses are appears to be unknown to the participant: They’re call Tom and John; and Tom like reads in the holiday. Participant E has problems in terms of using conjunctions such as: Tom and John they are the twin brothers . In addition with this, there is also an error in terms of using articles: Tom he is a good student, he is a first in his class . Also, there is a problem in terms of the participants spelling: but he dent play ball. Finally, there is also a problem in terms of using punctuations such as the apostrophe: but he dont study, they are special. Participant Fs first problem is with regard to the use of the singular or plural use of auxilliary verbs: Tom and John is brother. Second, is the problem with regard to the use of prepositions such as: They are different have surface; and . Elder brother like study, but younger brother like play basketball†. The third set of figures is a phone conversation among two boys depicting a planned trip to a restaurant and a KTV bar (see Appendix 3 to view the instrument). Participant G: â€Å"At eight oclock , Sams friend calling him up to inviting him out . According to their plan . On the first ,they are going to sing at a KTV . then they going to eat a dinner at a fast food restaurant . They eat fast food ,such as hamburgers ,cola and fries. † Participant H: â€Å"Today morning, Sam’s friend call he go to play. Sam and his friend talk on the phone at a. m. 8:00. Sam said he want go to KTV sing and we can eat dinner in night. But his friend said not eat breakfast. So Sam propose to meet in BigMaclndex Then go to play†. Participant Gs first error could be seen on the proper use of verb tenses: friend calling him up to inviting him out; and They eat fast food . There are also problems in terms of their use of articles: then they going to eat a dinner . On the other hand hand, Participant H also have problems in terms of prepositions: Today morning and Sam and his friend talk on the phone . There are also problems in terms of using articles: Sam said he want go to KTV. There are also problems in terms of using proper verb tenses: So Sam propose to meet in BigMaclndex The fourth set of figures depicts a family composed of a mother, a father and a little boy who went out to eat in a pastry shop. After which, the boy went to a store called W. C. and his mother and father went to the supermarket. The final figure on the set depicts of how well the boy enjoyed his stay on a store called W. C. while his parents listen appears to be listening to his stories while carrying a bag of groceries. Participant I: â€Å"Last Friday, I with my parents want to the big shopping mall to go shopping . First , we bought some milk and read in the basement . then we took the elevator to the second floor . I went to w. c , my parents were wait outside . Finally we bought some fruit and vegetables and we were go home. â€Å" Participant J: â€Å"I went to supermarket with my Dad and Mom last Friday. Maybe was holiday supermarket crowd campany. I with my Dad and Mom choose my breakfast last Saturday. Mom bought two baker and one milk for me. I went to W. C. before away. Aftermost we bought a lot article then get home. † Participant Is errors are with regard to spelling: I with my parents want to the big shopping mall There are also problems in terms of capitalizations: First , we bought some milk and read in the basement   then we took the elevator to the second floor. Errors in terms of the use of linking verbs are seen: I went to w. c , my parents were wait outside. Finally, there are still errors in terms of the verb tenses: Finally we bought some fruit and vegetables and we were go home. Participant Js errors are on the lack of use of pronouns: Maybe was holiday supermarket crowd campany. Also there is a perceived problem in terms of using appropriate nouns for a sentence: Mom bought two baker and one milk for me.

The Influence of Economic, Political, and Social Factors on Firms Essay

The Influence of Economic, Political, and Social Factors on Firms The long controversy exist over the influence of economic , political and social factors on the success of the firms. With many economist believing that economic factors such as management structure contribute to the success of the firm. Karl Marx (1976)[1] and other economist argued that economic factors are not the sole determiner of firm’s success. Marx believes that political, social and economics plays a part in making the firm to be effective. So the following paper will address the question of whether political, economic or social factors contribute to success of the firms. The discussion of economic, political and social factors will be based on the argument between Marglin and Landers. Competition creates a spur for companies to innovate, improve efficiency and drive down prices. Competition is a model of industrial structure in which many firms compete in the supply of a single product in a competitive environment where only the fittest or most affective firm succeeds. Before going further I will like to emphasise the competition I’m referring to is perfect competition where new firms can enter the market if it appears profitable[2]. Because of insignificant barrier to entry firms are faced with challenge to innovate and to improve efficiency. As stated by the neo-classical theory of the firm it is in the interest of the firm to keep the marginal cost as low as possible. The need to lower the average total cost persuaded firms to look for efficient form of production. Competition from rivals forced firms to adopt management systems that will allow them to outperform their rivals .I clearly agree with Landers that the new management system emerged because its effectiveness[3]. Firms adopted the putting out system because it allows them to have edge over other firms The creation of the factories overcome the control that workers had over their work in the early phase of capitalist through the cottage system. Under the cottage system workers were working from home and the domestic craftsmen was master of his time. The lack supervision under the cottage industry meant that workers had no control over how much worker produced per day. Firms were not benefiting because it was easy for workers to steal raw materials. As stated by Karl Marx and the o... ... as mentioned by Marglin both social and economic factors play a part , but they depend on competition .For example in the factory system firms exploited workers because of competition if I wasn’t because of competitions firms wouldn’t have exploited workers. [1] Landers ,†what do bosses really do ?p.591 [2] Landers ,†what do bosses really do ?p.591 [3] Marglin â€Å"What do bosses do ?p.18 [4]Marglin â€Å"what do bosses do ?p.16-17 [5] Marglin what do bosses do? [6] Chandler (1992)managerial enterprise and competitive capabilities, business history .p16 [7] Elger ,T & Fairbrother , P (1992)fordism and flexibility .p.40 REFERENECE LISTS Chandler , A .(1992),†managerial enterprise and competitive capabilities; Business history review , vol.58,no .4. Elger, T & Fairbrother ,P.(1992),’inflexible flexibility ‘ in N. Gilbert et al (eds) Fordism and flexibility :Division and Change(London , Macmillan) Lazonick,w.(1991), Business organization and the myth the economy. Landers, D.(1986), â€Å"What do bosses really do† The journal of economic history Marglin.S.(1976)’What do bosses do ‘ .In A .Gorz (ed),The division of Labour (Brighton , Harvester) The Influence of Economic, Political, and Social Factors on Firms Essay The Influence of Economic, Political, and Social Factors on Firms The long controversy exist over the influence of economic , political and social factors on the success of the firms. With many economist believing that economic factors such as management structure contribute to the success of the firm. Karl Marx (1976)[1] and other economist argued that economic factors are not the sole determiner of firm’s success. Marx believes that political, social and economics plays a part in making the firm to be effective. So the following paper will address the question of whether political, economic or social factors contribute to success of the firms. The discussion of economic, political and social factors will be based on the argument between Marglin and Landers. Competition creates a spur for companies to innovate, improve efficiency and drive down prices. Competition is a model of industrial structure in which many firms compete in the supply of a single product in a competitive environment where only the fittest or most affective firm succeeds. Before going further I will like to emphasise the competition I’m referring to is perfect competition where new firms can enter the market if it appears profitable[2]. Because of insignificant barrier to entry firms are faced with challenge to innovate and to improve efficiency. As stated by the neo-classical theory of the firm it is in the interest of the firm to keep the marginal cost as low as possible. The need to lower the average total cost persuaded firms to look for efficient form of production. Competition from rivals forced firms to adopt management systems that will allow them to outperform their rivals .I clearly agree with Landers that the new management system emerged because its effectiveness[3]. Firms adopted the putting out system because it allows them to have edge over other firms The creation of the factories overcome the control that workers had over their work in the early phase of capitalist through the cottage system. Under the cottage system workers were working from home and the domestic craftsmen was master of his time. The lack supervision under the cottage industry meant that workers had no control over how much worker produced per day. Firms were not benefiting because it was easy for workers to steal raw materials. As stated by Karl Marx and the o... ... as mentioned by Marglin both social and economic factors play a part , but they depend on competition .For example in the factory system firms exploited workers because of competition if I wasn’t because of competitions firms wouldn’t have exploited workers. [1] Landers ,†what do bosses really do ?p.591 [2] Landers ,†what do bosses really do ?p.591 [3] Marglin â€Å"What do bosses do ?p.18 [4]Marglin â€Å"what do bosses do ?p.16-17 [5] Marglin what do bosses do? [6] Chandler (1992)managerial enterprise and competitive capabilities, business history .p16 [7] Elger ,T & Fairbrother , P (1992)fordism and flexibility .p.40 REFERENECE LISTS Chandler , A .(1992),†managerial enterprise and competitive capabilities; Business history review , vol.58,no .4. Elger, T & Fairbrother ,P.(1992),’inflexible flexibility ‘ in N. Gilbert et al (eds) Fordism and flexibility :Division and Change(London , Macmillan) Lazonick,w.(1991), Business organization and the myth the economy. Landers, D.(1986), â€Å"What do bosses really do† The journal of economic history Marglin.S.(1976)’What do bosses do ‘ .In A .Gorz (ed),The division of Labour (Brighton , Harvester)

Lewis and Rostow

Outline the theories of Lewis and Rostow and discuss their relevance in analysing the problems of development in LDC’s In the 1950’s, the two most prominent economists of the Western school were Arthur Lewis and Walt W. Rostow. Their theories had a significant impact on the policies of Western governments regarding development in LDC’s. Arthur Lewis claimed he was a classical economist because he disagreed with the neo-classical school. He argued that the neo-classical assumption of full employment is incorrect in the long-run, and that they therefore had no long-term perspective on development.However, Lewis has been categorised by other economists such as Hollis B. Chenery, as a Structuralist. This is because his famous ‘two-sector model’ focuses in the mechanisms through which LDC’s can change their economic infrastructure from an agricultural to a more modern industrial one. 1 The emphasise on internal modes of production and reform of dom estic infrastructure is a distinguishing feature of the Structuralists. In the mid 1950’s Lewis, in his essay ‘Economic Development with unlimited supply of Labour’ put forward his theory of underdevelopment.He begins with the assumption that the economy of the LDC’s could be split into two sectors; the traditional sector, which is agrarian, and characterised by subsistence wages and a surplus of labour. Lewis referred to this as ‘disguised unemployment’. Because of the large labour force in the traditional sector, much of it unused, this results in zero marginal labour productivity. Wages are therefore kept at subsistence levels, which causes wages in the modern sector to be set at subsistence level. The modern sector is characterised as a highly productive, urban, industrial sector.Lewis argues that surplus labour in the traditional sector can be gradually transferred to the modern sector with no loss to productivity because of the zero marg inal productivity of labour in agriculture. To encourage the flow of labour from the traditional to the modern sector Lewis allows for a 30% differential in income. Once the modern sector reaches full employment output is increased. The increase is determined by the rate of investment and capital accumulation (this is assuming that excess profits are re-invested).Thus the demand for labour will once again increase and with the 30% premium over traditional sector wages, supply curve of labour from the traditional to modern sector is perfectly elastic. The ‘two-sector’ model of development demonstrates the process of labour transfer and the growth of employment and production in the modern sector. The top right diagram represents production in the traditional sector. Total product (TPA) is the function of variable labour (LA), fixed capital (KA) and traditional technology (tA): TPA = f (LA, KA, tA).In the bottom right diagram we have the average and marginal product of la bour curves, which are derived from the total product curve in the diagram directly above it. There are two assumptions made; firstly, the marginal product of labour is zero (MpLA at LA), hence there is surplus labour. Secondly, wages are divided equally in the traditional sector so it is the average, and not the marginal product of labour determines the real wage. 2 ? The diagram on the top left represents production in the modern sector.Again, the total product (TPM) in this sector is a function of the variable input labour (LM), a given capital input (KM), and modern technology (tM): TPM = f (LM, KM, tM). The model demonstrates that at if labour is at L1, and capital stock at KM1, then output will be TPM1. Lewis allows for the re-investment of excess profits in the modern sector, which will increase capital stock from KM1 to KM2 and then to KM3. This results in an increase in the demand for labour (from L1, to L2, then L3), and an increase in output for the sector (from TPM1, to TPM2, and then TPM3).We can see also that the total product curves rise in accordance to the increase in capital stock and labour. The process by which capital stock and total product will increase is demonstrated in the bottom left diagram. WA is the subsistence wage level offered by the traditional sector. With a 30% premium over the traditional wage rate, wages for the modern sector is at WM. Lewis assumes that the supply of labour is perfectly elastic and will remain so throughout the development process, hence the horizontal labour supply curve.Employers will hire at this wage rate without the possibility of wages rising. Because capital stock (KM1) is fixed in the initial stage of growth, demand curve for labour is determined by labours declining marginal product3, the negatively sloped curve D1 (KM1). Employers in the modern sector are assumed to hire to where the marginal physical product of labour is equal to the real wage, so employment will be at L1. Area OWMFL1 represent s wages for this sector, and profits are shown by area WMD1F. Lewis assumes that these profits will be re-invested, so the capital stock now increases from KM1 to KM2.This will increase total product in the modern sector, inducing higher demand for labour. The new equilibrium is now at point G with L2 workers in the bottom left diagram. The same process will once again occur, increasing capital stock to KM3, total product of labour to TPM(KM3), and employment in the modern sector to L3. According to the Lewis hypothesis, this process will continue until all surplus labour is absorbed into the new modern sector. The declining labour to land ratio will increase the marginal productivity of labour above zero, causing the labour supply curves to become positively sloped.So wages and employment will continue to grow, and the domestic structure of the economy is changed, allowing for the growth of a modern, urban, industrial sector. The Lewis two-sector model draws on the experience of ec onomic development in the West, but he makes a number of key assumptions that are not plausible to developing countries in this day and age. Firstly, Lewis assumes that the increase in employment in the modern sector is proportional to its rate of profit. (This is on a further assumption that all profits are infact re-invested).In reality it is a common trend for Trans-National Companies (TNC’s) to employ increasing levels of capital and technology, while keeping labour at the same level. Lewis also assumes that there is surplus labour in agriculture and full employment in the modern sector. This is infact untrue, and the opposite is more common in most LDC’s. Also, research suggests that unemployment is not as high as Lewis estimated (around 50%) but is more accurately around the 5% mark. The assumption of an infinitely elastic labour has also been subject to criticism.Empirically labour will experience some rise in wages, so the labour supply curve will not remain fl at. Lewis makes some politically incorrect assumptions. He argues that farmers will get richer during the development process due to an increasing demand for food from a growing urban population. He suggests that farmers should be taxed and the money should be invested in urban areas. So he advocated the taxing of people on subsistence wage levels, to help the capitalist class! He also advocated the curbing of trade union power during evelopment, and to protect the growth of the capitalists using tariffs (this was undoubtedly very unpopular with the Marxists). The two-sector model emphasises the need to increase money supply in order to kick-start the development process. We know that in the real world this could lead to inflation, speculation and balance of payment problems. Lewis does acknowledge these possibilities in his article, but he does not explain how the loans themselves can be bad. He places a high degree of importance on a capitalist class who would bring about an outfl ow of profits, but does not explain from where the new class will emerge.Despite all of these flaws in the two-sector model, Lewis was nonetheless awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics for his endeavours. In 1960, the US economist and historian Walt Whitman Rostow published his paper ‘The Stages of Economic Development’. He claimed he was providing an alternative to the Marxist view of history, and thus gave his paper the subtitle; ‘a non-communist manifesto’. Rostow analysed the process of development in the West and concludes that it is possible to distinguish development into stages; and all societies can be categorised into one of the five stages he distinguishes.In order to develop LDC’s are required to progress through these stages. The five stages are as follows: The traditional society, transitional (or preconditions to take-off), take-off, maturity and high-mass consumption. 4 A traditional society is the most basic form of society. It does little more than economically survive. Production is used for self-consumption and there is no trade. It would usually have a ceiling on production due to limitations of science and backward production practices. There is generally a high proportion of the workforce in agriculture (>75%), little social change, and large divisions of wealth. In the transition stage agriculture will begin to prevail, mainly due to foreign interests. Rostow argues that the level of investment must be raised to at least 10% of national income, ensuring self-sustaining growth. The bulk of investment should be spent on infrastructure, like transport and communication if society is to progress to the next stage. He states that society must also be willing to operate closer to factory principles and the division of labour, and a new elite must emerge that will drive the factory process. It is generally accepted that entrepreneurs usually appear in commerce.Rostow and others acknowledge that society may be i n this stage for centuries. To propel society from transition to take-off growth must become self-sustaining. Rostow predicts that investment must rise in excess of 10% of national income in order to guarantee adequate levels of future savings and investment. 6 What is significant in this stage is the emergence of major export industries (what Rostow calls ‘leading growth sectors’). In the US and Russia this would have been the grain industry, in Britain the textiles industry, in Sweden, timber etc.So the industry itself differs from country to country, and Rostow makes clear that LDC’s do not have to produce the same goods as developed nations in order to ‘take-off’. In the stage of maturity society will apply a wide range of new technology to most of its resources. In this period a nation will grow confident and exert itself. It will also have to make a choice at this point as to what it should spend its new found wealth on. Either to move towards high-mass consumption, to build a welfare state, or to meet imperialist ends.The stage of high-mass consumption, Rostow argues, applies only to the US, as at the time of writing (1956) no other society had achieved this. Based on his theory Rostow, Rosenstein and Rodon came up with a 5-year plan for LDC’s following the Western ideology of development. The 5-year plans were largely unsuccessful, not to mention controversial. At the height of the cold war the US funded any tin-pot dictator who was not allied with the USSR, under the guise of aid for development. There are several issues in Rostows theory that has received criticism.Firstly, he negates the multiplier process, and refers to it as ‘backward lineage’. He also ignores foreign exchange constraints, like the cost of importing machinery. His single minded pursuit of capital has led to ‘wide elephant’ projects by the UN, which have caused a lot of damage to the environment and brought very litt le benefit to LDC’s. Also, concentration on capital intensive goods makes things worse. It deprives consumption, gives rise to demand, which makes increases in demand for capital goods inevitable. Simon Kuznets points out that there is no distinction between stages 2 and 3, and also 3 and 4.The characteristics that Rostow distinguishes are not unique to those phases. For example, the changes that occur during transition also seem to occur during take-off. In Kuznets own words: â€Å"It seems to me that Rostow defines these social phenomena as a complex that produces the effect he wishes to explain and then treats his identification as if it were a meaningful identification†7 The main problem with Rostow’s theory is his political bias. This is not surprising if we take into account the historical and political conditions in which the theory was created (the cold war, McCarthyism).Rostow wanted to provide a Western, capitalist ideology of development. The neo-Marx ists point out that LDC’s are very different from each other, and we cannot ignore the historical context in which they were created as Rostow does. The centuries of colonialism still have an effect on LDC’s today and to ignore this is wrong. The neo-Marxists argue that the History of LDC’s is littered with aborted ‘take-offs’ and ‘crash landings’, which have left them with distorted development and dependency. Both Lewis and Rostow tend to indicate that development is a purely domestic issue, and that obstacles to growth are all internal.They emphasise on savings and investment, and do not take into account the many external forces that can stimulate or hinder growth, such as political and economic pressure from TNC’s and the WTO. They make no attempt to explain ideas suggested by the Prebisch-Singer thesis, or to reconcile Emmanuel’s theory of ‘Unequal Exchange’. Overall, both economists imply that growth an d development are solely in the hands of the developing countries, trivialising the dominance and significance of the West in the development process.

Fearing and loving your nation Free Essay Example, 1000 words

Have you ever felt that security is a major concern in Mexico? Security is a concern in Mexico but I do not feel like it is a major issue to the residents. There are parts of this country that are on the news every now and then for crimes and many people worldwide relate Mexico with drug related cartels and violence. As for me, I have lived peacefully all my years and have the warmth and security of family. I mean, I have never thought of being afraid of my people. You have for some years, been jobless. Has this affected your family in any way? Everything happens for a reason and what happened to us my family is just a bump in the road. The state of our economy is not that pleasant and there is widespread joblessness. The rate of unemployment is high and many companies are downsizing. As much as this has had me as a victim, I am a hardworking woman and I know that there are various ways of earning a living respectably by seizing the many opportunities that life offers. We will write a custom essay sample on Fearing and loving your nation or any topic specifically for you Only $17.96 $11.86/pageorder now Therefore being jobless has not had a negative effect on my family at all. Have you been discouraged living in Mexico? You have to be positive despite the obstacles. Life is full of challenges and blessings alike. Through the good times and the bad, a positive attitude is what keeps me going. Sad times never last if one is too busy not thinking about their worries. Despite losing my job, I have had issues with my boss such as my salary not getting raised, and other problems such as tough economic conditions where the rate of inflation is eating into many people’s pockets. Instead of focusing on these, why not look for better ways to increase one’s income and be financially stable and independent? Would you reconsider your stand on moving to the United States? You can not stick to something that is not good for you. My goals that include security for my family and financial stability cannot be fulfilled here in Mexico. This is so becaus e my luck at improving my finances here has not changed for several years now. I guess it is time to seek greener pastures and I believe that the United States is the answer to my problems. Do you have any worries about life in the United States? Of course I am worried on living in a different place other than my childhood town or country for that matter. To get a job may at first prove difficult. Settling down and adopting to the culture of the United States may be a bit challenging too. I have heard of cases where Mexicans in the United States usually get arrested for suspicion of being there illegally.