Abstract Economic globalization can be defined as "the integration of economics through markets across frontiers" . At first blush, the question may be asked, what is the connection between economic integration, democracy and peace? These appear to be thoroughly different outcomes, giving rise to some common effects at best. However, a closer glance reveals that there can be links drawn between integration and democracy and integration and reduced conflict. Can we then claim that economic globalization leads to a more democratic and peaceful society? That is the question this paper attempts to answer.
From the Paper "The literature suggests three avenues to reduce corruption - reduce or eliminate quantitative trade barriers, increase the number of competing firms, and improve the quality of institutions. Although the authors caution against placing too much emphasis on their findings, it is clearly an important result for poorer countries that are trapped in the poverty cycle. This finding suggests that openness on the part of poor countries will lead to reduced corruption, which will in turn improve the prospects of economic development in the country, leading to further incentives to integrate. This "anti-corruption cycle" can arguably be the answer for many Least Developed Countries struggling at present."
A study of the compatibility and implementation of economics and democracy using the definitions of socialism, capitalism and democracy of Marx and Friedman.
2,400 words (approx. 9.6 pages), 6 sources, 2002, $ 89.95
Abstract This paper is about the incompatibility of democracy and capitalism. The writer argues, using many classic political economics texts, that socialism would complement democracy's goals better than capitalism, which was developed in a monarchist paradigm of government. Capitalism results in the concentration of power in isolated locations, whereas both socialism and democracy distribute power evenly through a population. The paper cites Marx as well as Friedman, and opens with clear definitions of socialism, capitalism, and democracy drawn from the works of these authors.
Abstract Discusses the major differences between Athenian democracy and modern democracy. Differences include voting and citizenship rights, gender and background bias in the Athenian social and economic system, the type of representation that each society offered and the 'participation factor' in Athens.
From the Paper "There are several significant differences between modern constitutional democracies and the democracy of classical Athens. Even though the classical Athenian democracy was a major step forward in political thought, at its height there were still many areas in which it was decidedly unlike any democracy existing today. These differences fall into three major categories: differences in who could vote, in the type of representation, and in the overall participation factor.
One major and clearly recognizable difference is that in the Athenian democracy there was only a certain selected element of the population that was allowed to vote. This difference in voting behavior stems from the fact that the Athenian social and economic system was supportive of the suppression of groups of people according to gender and background in ways that are not acceptable in today's western cultures.
For example, women were not given full rights of citizenship. They were also socially and economically kept in a subservient role to men. Women's function was seen as primarily that of propagation and managing a household. Women were not allowed access to the marketplace of ideas that was so important to the Athenians.
These conditions set up an interactive cycle between the social and political institutions; since women were regarded as inferior and not deserving of full citizenship, they were not allowed to vote. However, without the ability to vote, it was very unlikely that any of these restrictions would be modified or lifted. The role of women in Greek society was too firmly entrenched to be easily changed."
Tags: Difference, rights, social, economic, society
Abstract This paper discusses that the main difference between social democracy and capitalism lies in the disagreement over human nature and economics. Social democracy is founded on the premise that a certain amount of competitiveness will allow the production of economic growth. This growth, in turn, stimulates the economy further. The competitiveness, meanwhile, derives naturally from the human trait of self-interest. Communism, however, holds that there is no such thing as human nature. Both Marx and Rousseau believed that man was social and that both could be reshaped. In other words, self-interest was socially constructed and man could be changed to reject his own interest. The difference between communism and social democracy, therefore, centres precisely on this disagreement over human nature.
Abstract The paper discusses democracy and states that democracy is the best form of political construction for both government and governance as there is no other system that is capable of guarding against authoritarian despotism and all the unfortunate characteristics that accompany it. The author of the paper feels it is fair to conclude that the desirability of democracy in developing countries is unquestionable but questions whether it is achievable. The paper thus focuses far more on whether democracy is achievable in developing countries rather than whether it is desirable. The paper states that there currently exists a growing number who consider democracy in any form to be abhorrent and this belief is often espoused by the proponents of Islamic fundamentalism. The paper then gives brief consideration to this issue and to the impact it has on the global spread of democracy. The paper concludes that a secure democracy is a positive basis on which to construct political and social life.
From the Paper "The fundamental tenets of social democracy, as laid down by Huber et al is I believe the base line of what we should consider to be fully a formed and sustainable democratic system. The question that logically follows from this must be, is social democracy in developing countries achievable? I believe that it is, provided that its emergence and progress is nurtured by a profound wish to improve the lives of ordinary people, a process that cannot be rushed. It is when such foundations are sacrificed in order to maintain the economic, strategic and political interests of the world's leading democracies that the process is impeded. Similarly, quick fix solutions, however well motivated are not the answer. The developed democracies have an opportunity to play an enormously positive role in the spread of social democracy in the worlds less fortunate nations, an opportunity that is being squandered."
Abstract This paper explains workplace democracy, the purpose it plays in the development of a successful company and suggests how organizations effectively foster a climate of workplace democracy. The paper explains how some companies have developed a corporate structure with the concept of workplace democracy as its nucleus. The body of the paper discusses workplace democracy that is in place at Google, EBay, Starbucks, Nike and JetBlue. Using these examples the paper concludes that the unique thread that ties these companies together is innovation and the development of totally new business structures that require participatory actions from employees. These companies have been able to foster a climate of workplace democracy through communication, listening to employee needs and developing benefit plans that satisfy these needs.
Introduction
Workplace Democracy Google
EBay
Starbucks
Nike
JetBlue
Conclusion
References
From the Paper "Google is one of the most innovative and successful businesses of the 21st century (Company Overview). The company was created by Larry Page and Sergey Brin who developed a new method of searching the internet (Company Overview). This new creation took place in a dorm room at Stanford University and rapidly broadened to include information seekers around the world. As a result the company is now the largest and most successful search engine available on the internet (Company Overview).
"A large part of the success of Google is related to the corporate culture which utilizes workplace democracy. According to the company's official website although the company is now worth billions the business still has a small company feel. The company's headquarters is known as the Googleplex and is located in Mountain View, California (The Google Culture). The atmosphere is laid back and the workplace is very inclusive and participatory."
A study on democracy in Iraq, looking at how much progress the country has made towards establishing democracy, the quality of its democracy and how well its institutions are functioning.
1,800 words (approx. 7.2 pages), 5 sources, 2006, $ 71.95
Abstract This paper takes three of the fourteen topics provided on the Democratic Audit web site and apply them to a study of democracy in Iran. Specifically, the paper assesses the country's progress towards democracy, the quality of its democracy, and the functioning of its institutions - all by using the following three topics as a "measuring stick". These topics are a) civil and political rights, b) economic and social rights, and c) the extent of participation in the political process by various Iranian citizens.
Abstract The following discussion proposes to assess the history of Hong Kong in terms of political culture and democracy. Initially, the country's famed role as an Asian Tiger in the period from 1960 to 1990 is explored. The anti-democratic bias of the national economic strategy is outlined. Then events surrounding the handover itself and subsequent political events are assessed. Next, this summer's election of the 'election committee' is examined. Finally, Hong Kong's culture of dynamism, dialectic and diversity will be examined.
Abstract The paper discusses how democracy and capitalism are divergent in nature, but they require each other to operate even though their basic values often clash with each other. The paper explains how thinkers and theorists such as Dahl, Phillip Green and James McPherson maintain that total compatibility is only a dream. They feel that capitalism favors 'the rule of privilege' which creates social and economic disparities and these disparities are against the very essence of democracy. The paper shows how we must focus on those features of the capitalist system that provide favorable conditions for democratic institutions for that is the only way to see some harmony between the powerful and conflicting systems.
From the Paper "Dahl feels that despite the divergent natures of the two systems, democracy has always been more successful in countries with capitalist economic system than non-capitalist. He feels that certain features of capitals and democracy are favorable for each other's existence and progress. Hayek (1944: 73) agrees with Dahl and argues that democracy can exist only in capitalist countries however the term capitalist should mean free market economy that promotes healthy competition."
Abstract This paper highlights the main points in Robert A. Dahl's book on what defines a democracy. The paper looks at Dahl's simple but effective method of explaining democracy, discusses Dahl's approach to explaining democracy and the criteria he uses to define it, and gives an overview of Dahl's comments on market capitalism and market capitalism's place in a democracy. The paper concludes with a positive assessment of Dahl's book and suggests that it is highly readable and informative.
From the Paper "The term, democracy, means many things in popular discourse. One has only to turn on the television to hear presidential speeches, public discussion, or news commentators espousing its virtues??goodness,? ?virtue,? and ?liberty,? almost as if the term has become synonymous with freedom itself. In fact this trend is becoming so prevalent, that I find myself checking with each new release of Microsoft Word, if the term "democracy" might yield "freedom" in its thesaurus."
Abstract This paper reviews and discusses democracy versus bureaucracy. According to the paper, the democratic principles expressed by those who inspired the founders of the new democracy called the United States of America, had in mind something much different than the series of bureaus that make up our government today. The paper goes on to say how the struggle over power between bureaucracy and democracy has been debated since democracy began.
From the Paper "Following World War II, with the example of communism taunting them, people in the United States debated whether the government was run by bureaucratic management or profit-and-loss management in the free market. Ludwig von Mises wrote Bureaucracy in 1944, applying his insight concerning economic calculation and his knowledge of the two sides of the equation. He demonstrated in his book that all types of public administration, when run by amateurs, lack the ability to conduct their affairs in an economically rational manner. But he boiled the debate down to whether Capitalism or Socialism was less detrimental to the welfare of the masses."
Abstract The paper examines how political, economic, social and cultural conditions prevailing in a country influence the economic development and the level of corruption. The paper discusses the direct relationship between economic development, corruption and political transition in Mexico, Taiwan, Russia and the People's Republic of China. The paper concludes that there are no easy solutions available for developing countries making the transition from authoritarianism to free-market democracy and struggling to establish viable, stable economies.
From the Paper "Economic development is often correlated to the degree of corruption, especially in countries struggling to transition from authoritarian rule to free-market democracy. For example, in Mexico and Taiwan, it is evident that correlations exist between economic development and corruption, for the sectors of their economies which are performing the best are the ones most riddled with corrupt relationships between government officials and businessmen in the form of paying bribes or providing kickbacks."
Abstract This is a critical paper that reviews the industrial revolution's connections between capitalism and democracy, the liberal theory, as inherited by the U.S. Most of the paper moves on to arguments of the present day and the mythology of democracy and neo-liberal economics that is at the heart of what we call "Globalization." The paper includes several interesting references in addition to the course text.
From the Paper "Since the collapse of the Communist bloc in the late 1980s, one has heard more and more slogans of capitalism in relation to democracy. The idea is the capitalism is the form of economic life that people in former socialist states would naturally want and that democracy is the system of government that they have wanted, too. When this theme is examined, one sees a very old set of ideas that have come to have many questions attached to them that pertain to history, as much as to misinformation."
Abstract The paper refers specifically to the Petan region of Guatemala and generally to the necessity of instituting economic development programs world wide, due to the inter relationship and dependency of countries on each other. This applies amongst other programs particularly to social, economic and political reform.
Outline:
Introduction
Access and control
Accumulation
Marginalization and dispossession
Conclusion
From the Paper "Historically sparsely populated and with industries limited to slash and burn agriculture, the current interest in the region is challenging how the area can be effectively and responsibly used to jumpstart economic development in the region. The development however has also created social, political and economic conflict. The issues have ranged from delegitimation of land tenure, economic exploitation and the increase in incidence of crime including delinquency and drug trafficking. More importantly, efforts to control deforestation and land use have been severely criticized; leading to concerns not only for the ecological health of the Peten region but also is social and cultural value to Guatemalans.
In an assessment by Bernal and associates, there is an impression that developing industries are exploiting natural resources by companies who have advantages in terms of technology and capital. Though the movement has made efforts equalize access to land and resources but the industrial and social capacity of local interest groups are often considered insufficient to effectively utilize property or resources (Smith 211-214). Consequently, there is limited confidence in programs and social support or participation which in turn has impaired the effectivity of efforts to create social concern and significance for ecological issues "
Abstract This paper considers the development of democracy in former Soviet bloc countries. It focuses on how the countries of the former Soviet bloc have had to make a number of political and economic changes in a relatively short time, with most moving toward some form of free market economy and with many attempting as well to develop more democratic governments as well. The paper specifically focuses on Poland and Czechoslovakia.
From the Paper "The countries of the former Soviet bloc have had to make a number of political and economic changes in a relatively short time, with most moving toward some form of free market economy, and with many attempting as well to develop more democratic governments as well. Poland and Czechoslovakia are two such countries, and they have achieve some level of democracy to differing degrees, though each has much further to go to reach the desired end. Western-style democracy is alien to these countries, and each has adapted to it in different ways. The change came in Poland in 1990 with the dissolution of the Polish United Workers' Party (PUWP) after 41 years of one-party rule."
