Asian Financial Crisis 1997 Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 12000 words

Asian Financial Crisis 1997 - Coursework Example 20 HATEML-J, ABDULNASSER IRANDOUST, MANUCHE. "Export Performance and Economic Growth Causality: An Empirical Analysis.(Statistical Data Included)", Atlantic Economic Journal, Dec 2000 Issue 21 International Journal of Manpower, Volume 21, Issue 6 (2006-09-19) 22 (1-10-08) http://www.bis.org/publ/work95.pdf 23 http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-09212003-192501/unrestricted/YingYiChouElectronicDissertation2.pdf 24 Acumen PI- Title: What is aggregate demand Explain what determines the main components of aggregate demand, Date: 2002-01-30 25 (11-20-06) http://jesr.journal.fatih.edu.tr/osman.pdf 26 http://www.caec-asiaeurope.org 27 (3-21-08) http://oenb.at/de/img/ftr_1998_1_tcm14-6070.pdf 28 (8-28-07) http://www.info.gov.hk/hkma/eng/public/qb200703/E_21_31.pdf 29 (3-16-08) http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidwp/pdf/079rev.pdf 30 Leng, Chao-Chun. "Stationarity and stability of underwriting profits in property-liability insurance Part II.", Journal of Risk Finance, Wntr 2006 Issue 31 Romero-Avila, Diego Usabiaga, Carlos. "Unit root tests, persistence, and the unemployment rate of the U.S. States.(Author abstract)", Southern Economic Journal, Jan 2007 Issue 32 (2-19-06) http://www.usvtc.org/trade/wto/WTO_ACC.doc 33 (12-14-07) http://www.cass.city.ac.uk/conferences/mmf2004/files/Kharroubi.pdf 34 for Further Study 62 References 66 Appendix A: Chronology of the Crisis 73 Appendix B: Economic Facts and Figures 75 Executive Summary WHILE IT MAY BE A DECADE OLD, THE ASIAN FINANCIAL CRISIS REMAINS A TOPIC OF SEMINAL CONCERN AND OF ACADEMIC INTEREST. THE CRISIS, WHICH ORIGINATED IN THAILAND AND SUBSEQUENTLY SPREAD TO SOUTHEAST ASIA'S FASTEST GROWING ECONOMIES, BEGS THE QUESTIONS OF HOW' AND WHY.' HOW DID THE CRISIS OCCUR AND WHY WAS THERE A CONTAGION EFFECT.

Entrepreneurship Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words - 18

Entrepreneurship - Essay Example Choremonsters is striving to eliminate the tension experienced by parents when it comes to coordination of household chores. The innovation helps parents to communicate with the children and direct them on various chores. Children have an application that is linked to the child’s application thus improving coordination or cooperation between the parent and the child. This ostensibly makes it easy for the parent to be acquainted with their children’s performance on various chores when away from home. Moreover, Choremonsters is overcoming the ineffectiveness of chore charts. The application teaches the children how to do various tasks at an increased efficiency as compared to the traditional chore charts which children find hard to understand. Choremonsters also solves the problem of having to put excessive efforts to have the children perform chores. This niche has been in existence as there has been no application that has successful been able to digitally connect the child in such a way that enables the child to easily retrieve programmed

Why Philosophy Essay Example for Free

Why Philosophy Essay This paper is about the six questions in Philosophy I gave my reasons and belief’s one why I feel a certain way on each of the questions and after reading I hope you have a better take on Why Philosophy 1. Metaphysics: what is real? Well a lot of people would say that real is anything that could be touched, seen, smelled, or tasted using one of the five senses. But as a Christian I have to disagree I believe that you have to have faith in the fact that something’s are real weather or not you can sense them with the five senses. Take heaven and hell I believe that these are very real tangible places although I never seen touch smelled or tasted either one. So how do I know it is real well faith. I have never been to the Grand Canyon but I know that it is real with that being said how we know that heaven and hell is not real. 2. Epistemology: what is the relationship between faith and reason? Reason is to believe what can be proven math and science laws of gravity and physics nothing left to the imagination if you have reason then there is no need for faith. Whereas faith is the belief in things unseen there is a lot of issue with these two and the fact that if you’re a person of reason there is no room for faith the problem with that is that science does not explain everything so there has to be room for faith I without faith life is useless and you don’t have anything to live for. 3. Ethics: Is morality culturally based individually based or is there a universal morality? I have to say that this was a tough one to answer because really the answer is all three. Culturally based morality is learned through the interactions with the people with in your culture usually starting with the parent or guardian. There is also church or the village chieftain. Then there is the individual morality this take place after you been taught and raised and then you choose what to become or what your moral code will be will you protect your fellow man or will you choose to laws of the street. You then have the most unique morality term and that is the universal morality I call this unique because it is not chosen or learn or gained through life experiences it is automatically instilled in all people. Right and wrong which universal to all the most primitive civilizations understand that it wrong to steal or to murder without ever being taught even criminals know this is wrong they choose to do the wrong and willing to except that the consequences. 4. Aesthetic: is beauty truly in the eye of the beholder, or are there some things that all cultures find beautiful? Yes Beauty is in the eye of the beholder everyone one has there on mind when it comes to what is beautiful and what is not some like roses some tulips and so own this is evident in the people we choose to marry. If everyone agreed on what was beautiful then everyone would look the same or strive to be the same people find different things that they find to beautiful. That is not to say that there are things that a culture find beautiful. Let’s take our culture for example people believe that thin woman is what the population of men find beautiful so companies use this fact to exploit that beauty putting them on TVs and billboards. 5. Political Philosophy: How much power should the government have? The government should have a minimal impact on our lives. It is not supposed to bail out private businesses increasing the national debt. The government is not supposed to control the populace it is the populace that control the government. It is not the job of the government to make the decisions for the people. That is the problem with the government today they have too much power. 6. Social Philosophy: How should humans behave in a society? Humans in most cases depend on society to live and in order to function in a society there are certain rules that apply one being laws. Also respect for the others in that particular society. Freedom of speech and some other rights are lessened due to the infringement of other people’s rights. The rules are followed because of the convenience of living in a society. Such as supper markets gas station and things like these. Now if one was to live in the wilderness most of these rules would not apply for there would be no one’s rights to intrude on allowing them to do as they please but some rights have to be given up for the sake of the better good in a society.

Dworkin Theory of Law as Integrity

Dworkin Theory of Law as Integrity In Laws Empire, Dworkin has distinguished three legal conceptions: conventionalism, pragmatism and law as integrity  [1]  , by criticizing conventionalism and pragmatism, Dworkin concludes that law as integrity is the most plausible and defensible. However, criticism to Dworkins argument-law as Integritycan be seen in various academic works. In this essay, first and foremost, we will briefly discuss the basic arguments of Dworkins theory of law as integrity then we will go on to criticize Dworkins theory in light of relevant legal theories. Introduction of the Theory of Law as integrity Conventionalism Pragmatism In the theory of conventionalism, legal rights can only emerge from existing law, including precedents and legislation. Conventionalism also holds the view that judges must follow the law and should make decisions only based on existing statutes and more importantly, judges must respect what convention deems binding law.  [2]   According to the theory of pragmatism, assignments of legal rights and responsibilities must be consistent with past decisions. Moreover, the pragmatist theory holds the view that adjudication is not really constrained by the law. Hence, pragmatism argues that judges should decide what decision will, according to them, be best for the community as a whole.  [3]  This means that for reasons of strategy judges must sometimes act as if they are applying pre-existing legal rights.  [4]  In the meanwhile, in accordance with pragmatist theory, to some extent, the behaviour of a court in making decision of certain case is not constrained by the existing law. These two legal theories are highly criticized by Dworkin. As Dworkin points out that assumes that judges sometimes invent law, which means that they act in an unconstrained manner. Pragmatism also assumes that judges are hardly constrained when adjudicating cases. It thus cannot account for why judges are so concerned with precedents and statutes when they decide hard cases.  [5]   Dworkin then provides a third theory of law, which he believes not only better represents what actually happens when judges decide cases but is also a morally better theory of law. Law as Integrity The concept of Law as Integrity is a key to Dworkins Constructive Interpretation of legal practice.  [6]  According to Dworkin, judges should identify legal rights and obligations on the basis that all the rights and obligations are crated by the community as integrity, and all those rights and obligations express the communitys conception of justice and fairness. In accordance with Dworkin, the only way to understand legal practice seems to be thattaking the interpretative perspectives of the participant into consider in the practice. Dworkin claims that when judges (as well as lawyers) consider which way is the best to solve a legal issue, they should not simply identify exactly what positive law is applicable in a certain case, but taking an interpretative approach to law as social practice. Dworkin emphasizes that a solution to a certain case is always sought out through a matter of interpretative practice. Dworkins perspective here is quite against that of conventionalists, the conventionalists insist that in dealing with a certain case, the judge only should identify exactly what law is applicable. Furthermore, Dworkin points out that in the debate of a certain case, different opinions and arguments are raised by lawyers, and under this circumstance, the decision of what law is applicable in the case is usually based on what opinion the law amounts to in a particular matter rather than what conventions apply. Participants in such a debate thus do not attempt to link the facts of a case with the supposedly posited law applicable but rather interpret the law in light of a general normative justification or moral point expressed in it. A participant interpreting a social practice [i.e. the law], according to that view, proposes value for the practice by describing some scheme of interest or goals or principles the practice can be taken to serve or express or exemplify.  [7]   Dworkin argues that network of political structures and decisions of his community  [8]  must always be called on by a judge when the judge goes about adjudicating. For instance, legislation and case law which must be identified in a pre-interpretative stage Then in the following stages, the judge must always question himself whether his interpretation of this network could form part of a coherent theory justifying the network as a whole. No actual judge could compose of anything approaching a full interpretation of all of his communitys law at once. But an actual judge can () allow the scope of his interpretation to fan out from the cases immediately in point to cases in the same general area or department of law, and then still farther, so far as this seems promising.  [9]  In accordance with Dworkins arguments, the interpretation of law should not only fit into the legal system but also be the best normative justification of law as such, this means that not only must the i nterpretation of the judges be consistent with the law identified at the pre-interpretative stage, but also the law must be interpreted in a way which is the best in the participants mind. Moreover, according to Dworkins theory, both the judge and any other participant should adjust his own sense of of what the practice really requires so as better to serve the justification he accepts at the interpretative stage.  [10]   We notice that, in accordance with Dworkin, morality affects the whole process of adjudication of cases. By contrast, he dose not express the view that a certain case should be adjudicated and resolved on the basis of sole considerations of justice. Dworkin claims that the moral standards should be derived form the explicit and existing legal practice and contrary to positivists, Dworkin believes that moral principles that cohere with past legal practice are valid propositions of law as well-so much so that these principles can and should go beyond what legal conventions teach us the law is.  [11]   In Dworkins theory, there are two basic elements of law, one is a retrospective element, which he calls fit, and the other is a prospective element, which he calls justification.  [12]  Furthermore, Dworkin points out that in exercising the function of these two elements, judges are required to construct a theory of law which can both fit past legal decisions and makes the law as good as possible. In doing this, the judges are required to search out legal principles which have been previously mentioned in the historical and social characteristics of the legal system and then improve the law for the future by making it more coherent  [13]  . Hence, we can say that according to Dwokins theory, in dealing with a certain case, the judge should try to interpret the law in a way which promotes the coherence of the legal system as well as possible. In other words, it is to say that an interpretationwhich is the most coherent to legal systemis much better than an interpretation-which makes the legal system less coherent. This implies that when interpretation is concerned, there exists a certain tension between what is presented by the existing positivist material and what is the best way to interpret such material from a moral point of view.  [14]   From the view of Dworkin, a judge is like an author in writing a novel, in that case a new author is bound by what another author has written in a previous chapter, but the new author will subsequently attempt to continue the novel in the best possible way.  [15]  A judge should view his or her role in a chain in law, he or she is not purely independent, but is indeed independent to some extent,He knows that other judges have decided cases that, although not exactly like his case, deal with related problems; he must think of their decisions as part of a long story he must interpret and then continue, according to his own judgement of how to make the developing story as good as it can be.  [16]  In other words, Dworkin holds the view that law is not arbitrary but rather the expression of an underlying attempt at forming and clarifying a coherent legal consciousness of society.  [17]  Hence, in interpreting certain legal text, a judge is not completely free. The judge is no t allowed to inject any personal morality into the interpretation of the legal document. More essentially, a judge is required to interpret with the purpose of establishing coherence based on the integrity of existing law. Furthermore, decision making by the judge will depend, that is, not only on his beliefs about which of these principles is superior as a matter of abstract justice but also about which should be followed, as a matter of political fairness, in a community whose members have the moral convictions his fellow citizens have.  [18]  Dworkin also explains this in more general terms: There are two possibilities. Someone might say that interpretation of a social practice means discovering the purposes or intentions of the other social participants in the practice (). Or that it means discovering the purposes of the community that houses the practice, conceived as itself having some form of mental life or group consciousness. The first of these suggestions seems more attractive because less mysterious. But it is ruled out by the internal structure of an argumentative social practice, because it is a feature of such practices that an interpretive claim is not just a claim about what other i nterpreters think. () [A] social practice creates and assumes a crucial distinction between interpreting the acts and thoughts of participants one by one, in that way, and interpreting that practice itself, that is, interpreting what they do collectively. It assumes that distinction because the claims and arguments participants make, licensed and encouraged by the practice, are about what it means, not what they mean. () [An interpreter must therefore] join the practice he proposes to understand ().  [19]   Criticism of Dworkins Legal Theory Moral to full extent According to Michael Sandel  [20]  , Dwokins legal theory begins with the principles of freedom and equality that justify the institutions of democracy and law. However, as Stephen Guise points out that the claim that democracy is just and that law is part of democracy is a claim about a moral ideal.  [21]  If we go further, that is to say, in a moral level, the world without democracy is better than a democratic world. Since in a democratic world, laws are enacted and enforced but laws may be substantively unjust. Stephen Guest criticizes that The theory of Dworkins is moral to the full extent. Interpretation is therefore is not constrained by facts even though it makes use of facts. It does not follow that his theory is subjective, because his moral views like all moral views are subject to revision, correction and, in short, reason.  [22]  Stephen Breyer says that constitutional standards keep subjective judicial decision-making in check.  [23]  In my mind, it is right, but not purely right, that is because, this statement implies that there exists some external checking fact on these judicial subjective judgments, more importantly, this statement demonstrates that judges should not formulate applicable constitutional standards. In the theory of Dworkins, interpretation is something close to the end-product of moralizing with others who are largely in agreement and who endorse true propositions of modality.  [24]  This means that the origin of Dworkins legal theory is moral pro posals concerning equality and freedom. Dworkin cannot explain the extraordinary rigidity of the U.S. Constitution, in particular the way that entrenched provisions of the Constitution conservatively constrain judges by imposing the dead hand of the past  [25]  . In Dworkins perspective, there is no categorical distinction between distinction history and substance, although there is an argument of fit, as we mentioned before, this is merely another form of argument of substance. So in Dworkins theory, there is no way of identifying historical facts about the Constitution distinct from its moral substance. The only arguments are moral arguments and as we mentioned in the first part, Dworkin expresses the idea that entrenched positions can be interpreted morally, in terms, for example, of the protection of democratic decision-making. So law is a form of moralizing that is also an integral part of democracy. If we genuinely believe in equality of respect, we naturally end up with endorsing representative democracy, which means legislative activity through delegated agency. It is not just that the legislature represents my view through legislation but, merely in its existence, it expresses my conviction that I respect others equally. Since I do, I must allow that their convictions count, too, and so I must abide by whatever the procedural outcome is of this respect I owe to others. Moral convictions and objectivity. There is a conflict in Dworkins theory, on one hand, Dworkin emphasizes objectivity in decision making, on the other hand, Dworkin put decision onto a moral basis. As Duncan Kennedy  [26]  claims that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦the judges should not choose the interpretation that applies their own moral and political convictions. I personally dont see what else they could applyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ Furthermore, as Waldron points out that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦These are convictions, not whims, and even where there is nothing else but ones own convictions to follow, no-one thinks that it means those convictions are rightà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Ã‚  [27]  So it is rare or even impossible that a judge will not take personal moral convictions into the process of adjudication or interpretation. Unclear about Justice By holding the same view with Waldron, Smith  [28]  supposes that Dworkins idea or justice is not clear since Dworkin has argued that justice depends on recognizable principles. Furthermore, Smith questions that why should a principle of justice have to be recognizable?  [29]  For principles of justice will surely gain moral recognition if they do because they have force independent of recognition. Someone has to do the recognizing first. How to achieve ideal integrity? Susan Hurley  [30]  defends Dworkins perspective against a claim by Kenneth Kress  [31]  that Dworkin cannot provide a coherent consideration of law in circumstances where there is an intervening judicial decision between a set of facts that ground litigation and the litigation itself. Does the judge decide on the basis of the previous law, or the intervening law? Hurley concludes that if the intervening decision is right, then there is coherence, therefore, there is no problem; if it is wrong, it is a mistake, and need not count. A question may be raised here thatalthough it may have created further rights, say, to reasonable expectations being met, which will cohere with integrity? Moreover, Hurley  [32]  sees the problem in terms of overall moral coherence untrammeled by worries about descriptive facts'. So Hurley usefully broadens the picture by pointing out that coherence is determined as much by hypothetical facts, those that test the limits of principle (and which judges often use), as they are by judicial decisions. Furthermore, as we mentioned before, in Dworkins legal theory, when dealing with a particular case, a judge should interpret and apply law in light of the whole legal system, and make interpretation which is consistent with the integrity of the legal system. However, is this really applicable in practice? In accordance with Waldron  [33]  , it is a challenge to Dworkins descriptive optimism that the facts of the American legal system could make it impossible to give an overall account of American law that would remain true to integrity. But as Stephen argues that there is no such tension between facts and moral optimism as he appears to envisage. The facts are either incorporated into the argument that makes for integrity or they are discounted. There is the possibility that the American legal system has become so dysfunctional that no moral case for integrity can be made for it, but that seemingly remote possibility would not be an embarrassment for Dworkins theory.  [34]  Waldrons comments seem to imply that there are facts that determine law independently of interpretation. And so it has the general form of: Imagine a legal system where integrity might not apply; what then? Dworkins reply can only be and it is his reply that We cannot be sure, before we look, because noth ing in his legal theory requires that all legal systems display integrity  [35]  . Finally, Dworkin must allow that, by making best sense of an existing legal practice, we may still conclude that the practice failed the ideal. Take the fugitive slave Acts for instance.  [36]  What should the judges do when they are legally required to send captured slaves back to the South? In order to maintain the integrity of legal system, the judges should send those slaves back but to achieve the goal of justice, judges should set the slaves free. Hence, the outcome of the judgment represents a serious conflict between integrity and jusitice. A positivist will deal this case by distinguishing legal justice and real justice, but in Dworkins theory, this is criticized. According to Dworkins theory, the relevant ideal here is the ideal of integrity; it is through bad legal argument that one fails to meet that ideal, and it is bad because it hasnt made maximal use, in the circumstances of actual practice, what that actual ideal of integrity requires. So interpretivism produces an ideal, but it is not the outcome that would be the best in all possible worlds, which is how we ordinarily think of ideals. But maybe this doesnt particularly matter. We have the ideal solution in integrity and this differs from the ideal solution in justice. At times both fairness and efficiency require following precedents, but integrity is different, although it will serve both those values as well. Nevertheless, the ideal of integrity appears to be constrained by existing practices in a way that the ideal of justice is not. Or, by its nature, it seems, interpretation is only possible within the existing world, which suggests it is not an ideal at all. A cruder way of putting this point is that making the best sense of existing legal practices is no more than adequately characterizing equity deficits, that is to say characterizing how far these practices fall short of the ideal. If the Legal System is Wicked Obviously, a consequence of Dworkins views is that the legal system itself may not contain too many mistakes. That is because in Dworkins theory, the normative dimension feeds on the law itself, and more importantly, Dworkin emphasizes the relationship between local politics and law. As a matter of fact, Dworkins theory is constructed on the presupposition that the integrity of the legal community is in a large measure reflected in its law. So if the justification of law is to flow from societys political decisions (in the form of law), it follows that these decisions must also be justifiable as such; but this is obviously not always the case, as the examples of Apartheid South Africa and Nazi Germany show. Why would we make racism the best it can be? Dworkins argument here is circular in that it presupposes, in his case, the existence of a liberal democracy  [37]   We also note that Dworkins theory does not require abandoning the history or anthropology of wicked legal systems. As we mentioned before, Dworkin holds the view that law should be treated as conventional, because that is a theory that clearly has a moral point  [38]  . There is no need to talk in terms of the Hart-Dworkin debate'  [39]  Stephen claims, especially as they barely debated these questions. The debate should instead concern the theoretical question of the identification of the conditions according to which propositions of law are true. That debate is important because it concerns, amongst other matters, our moral obligation to conform to law. And so while it is right that we move away from the Hart- Dworkin debate, it would be wrong to move from questions concerning the identification of law, because these are at the core of our moral obligations to the community.  [40]  It is true that there will be occasions when the law requires something the moral force o f which grates with a judges personal convictions. There will therefore be occasions when it may be morally right for the judge to lie where justice trumps integrity. But I dont see how any of this affects Dworkins theory unless, yet again, one supposes that some descriptive fact defeats the moral judgment. Both the systems of apartheid and Nazism contained elements of good that could be put to use through integrity. Since these systems regularly enforced equality in some spheres, and morality says that the racial classifications are wrong, then the laws promoting the immoral policies can be made out as dysfunctional, perverted, or even mistaken and, so, not creative of moral obligations. However, if there is no articulated and public structure that, as Dyzenhaus says, citizens have been encouraged to obey and treat as a source of rights and duties,  [41]  it is difficult to see what is left. Where there is such a semblance of law, of an articulate public structure of rights an d duties, citizens acquiescence forms something of a legitimizing base, which, incidentally, Fuller called the external morality of law.  [42]   What will be interpreted cannot be distinguished from the interpretation itself It is not very clear in what respect an analogy can be drawn between law and literature in that legal texts constrain judges in their interpretative activities. Some argue that legal texts themselves are texts as well and thus also must be interpreted. In other words, what is to be interpreted cannot be distinguished from the interpretation itself. There is no such thing as a text out there  [43]  , and meaning is derived from interpretation. From that point of view, a previous legal text as such does not put any constraints on its interpretation but rather on the shared understandings that live within the interpreting community. Conclusion As we have discussed throughout this essay, although Dworkin tried to provide a theory of law, which, at least in his opinion, not only better represents what actually happens when judges decide cases but is also a morally better theory of law. It seems that his work is unsuccessful. Dworkin tried to avoid the shortcomings of both conventionalist theory and pragmatist theory. In the theory of law as integrity, when comes to interpretation of law, on one hand, Dworkin expects to make the judge constrained by law by arguing that the interpretation of law should follow the step of former decisions and be coherent with the existing legal system, on the other hand, Dworkin tries to make the judge creative, and emphasizes on the moral issues in the process of interpretation. Moreover, Dworkin connects law with other social elements, such as politics and local community, and enlarged the conception of integrity. In conclusion, we see Dworkins theory of law as integrity is good in a moral level but bad in a legal level. As we have discussed in this essay, Dworkins theory of law as integrity lacks applicability, if a theory only sounds good but could not be applied in practice, this theory is not a good one. In addition, as a legal theory, Dworkins theory of law as integrity fails in the following essential aspects. Firstly, this theory made its sole concept integrity conflicted with the concept of justice under certain circumstances. Secondly, when Dworkin makes law closely related to politics, actually, more problems have been raised rather than solved.

What Ways Does An Individuals Behaviour Change?

What Ways Does An Individuals Behaviour Change? This essay will explore whether an individuals behaviour truly changes when they are part of a group through the consideration of various perspectives, methods and underpinning epistemological assumptions and will take the viewpoint that an individuals behaviour does change when s/he is part of a group, however it is necessary to consider the context, such as societal and cultural factors and the importance of experience, interactions, social norms and values as one branch of social psychology, or one form of experimentation cannot fully predict or explain group and individual behaviour. The most prominent debates, theories and studies in relation to group behaviour will be discussed from a multi-perspective position, mainly exploring the social and cognitive aspects of group behaviour, as well as the methodology of experimentation and how group behaviour is measured. This will ensure that a reductionist approach to the subject is avoided. Key factors involved in group behaviour incl ude; obedience, conformity, groupthink, social identity theory (Tajfel, 1979), prejudice, stereotypes and schemas, which will be discussed and evaluated alongside relevant research throughout the essay. This is due to how these factors influence how an individuals behaviour changes under group influence, for example how Aschs line test portrayed the effects of majority influence (Asch, 1952). A group has been defined by some theorists as two or more individuals who perceive themselves as being members of the group or social category (Turner, 1982; Brown, 2000). Group behaviour refers to a situation in which individuals interact in small or large groups, within these groups there may be certain norms, values which are internalised within the individual (Vygotsky, 1978), communication patterns and status differentials. The majority of research conducted in the area of group behaviour is mainly based in the experimental psychology perspective; however critical and qualitative psychologists argue there is a lesser focus on the study of behaviour in context which ideally involves the acknowledgment of the impact of society and culture on group behaviour (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Fox Prilleltensky, 1997; Gergen, 1973; Himmelweit Gaskell, 1990; Renshon Duckitt, 2000), social roles, environments, experiences, relationships, and a movement away from laboratory based measurements. Within mainstream psychology there is still a focus on the cognitive and affective aspects of behaviour, whilst individual level processes which are fundamental in social and group processes are not always acknowledged. According to Nafstad Blakar (Nafstad Blakar, 2012); A full-fledged social psychology cannot be based on experimental laboratory research alone. This is because it is necessary to concentrate on methodological approaches for future research as much of the quantitative experimental psychology involved in addressing and measuring group behaviour does not acknowledge core social aspects such as social life, social behaviour and human development as social beings. One key area within group behaviour is obedience. The study of obedience entails the tendency to comply with orders from an authority figure and where group behaviour is concerned obedience entails an individual adapting their actions in order to comply with the groups wishes or rules. Concerned with the atrocities committed during Nazi Germany, Milgram explored the effects of obedience under the influence of authority (Milgram, 1974). Participants, who witnessed the confederate being strapped into a chair with electrodes in another room, were given the role of teacher whilst a confederate of the experimenter was given the role of learner; The teacher was expected to administer an electric shock for every wrong answer in what they were lead to believe was an experiment about learning, the shocks increased at 15 volt increments and when the participant refused to administer the shocks, they were given standard instructions (prods) by the experimenter, who wore a lab coat, therefore ac ting as an authority figure within the group. 65% of participants administered the full 450 volts, suggesting that obedience is related to situational pressures. In order to attempt to explain why individuals would behave in the way they did during the experiment, Milgram proposed the agency theory. The agency theory according to Milgram consists of two states; the autonomous state, in which individuals make decisions on their own ideas and beliefs, and the agentic state, in which in which individuals give up responsibility and defer the responsibility to those of a higher status. Although the agency theory does attempt to explain rare occurrences such as the obedience in events such as the Mai Lai Massacre and Nazi Germany, there may be other explanations for the obedience, as suggested by French and Raven (French Raven, 1959) who suggested there are five different types of power; legitimate power, reward power, coercive power, expert power and referent power. It is also important to note that the agency theory is more of a description of how society works, rather than explaining why individuals obey authority figures against their better j udgement in some situations. The theory of groupthink could also be applied in order to explain the phenomological behaviour in Milgrams study, as groupthink entails group decisions which are often irresponsible, dangerous, made under extreme pressure and dominated by a powerful leader, therefore Milgrams theory alone by not be sufficient in exploring individual and group behaviour. There are several ethical issues within Milgrams study such as the lack of debriefing, the distress caused to the participants and deception about the nature of the study. Also, despite Milgram carrying out several variations of his original experiment, the experiment has methodological flaws. Due to the laboratory setting of the experiment there was a distinct lack of ecological validity as the obedience portrayed in compliance with an authority figure does not necessarily represent and cannot be generalised to real life social interactions. It has been suggested that Milgrams experiment became caught up in the broader processes of psychologisation (De Vos, 2009). This is due to the power of science and the authority of experimentation which is suggested in the study, specifically where the experimenter acts as an authority figure within the peer-group, urging participants to continue with the experiment. Also, it has been argued that the experiment dramatizes peoples capacity for violence (Brannigan, 2004) and only demonstrates a short-term measure of obedience (Stainton Rogers et al, 1995). Taking these points into consideration, the need for a multi-perspective view of group behaviour can be reiterated as a concentration on laboratory experiments alone does not fully account as an explanation of group behaviour and obedience, this is further evidenced by the suggestion that Milgram does not make a concise conclusion concerning the study. We are led to no conclusions about obedience, really, but rather are exhorted [à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦] to be impressed with the power of your situation as an influence context (Parker, 2000). Further replications of Milgrams original study were conducted in order to address some of the issues which were presented within the experiment, such as ethical issues (Burger 2009) and methodological flaws (Meeus and Raaijmakers, 1995), therefore taking a further qualitative stance on the original study. A solely experimental approach to the study of obedience within individual and group behaviour may not necessarily be useful, although the phenomenon of obedience is portrayed in Milgrams experiment, no true conclusion or explanation is drawn due to a lack of acknowledgement of social, political and cultural factors, and a reliance on quantitative and experimental social psychology. Another area of study within individual and group behaviour is conformity. Conformity is the influence on an individual which may alter their beliefs or behaviour in response to the pressure of a group in order to internalise or fit in with a group. According to Man (Man, 1969) there are three types of conformity; these are normative, which is a desire to be liked by the group, informational, which is a desire to be correct and identification which is conformity to a social role. Aschs well known line study explores normative conformity due to the participants attempts to avoid rejection from the group and informational conformity due to the participants desire to be correct. Asch suggests that an individual will attempt to internalise with a group and display the effects of majority influence (Asch, 1952). The experiment consisted of a participant who was given a selection of lines and was asked to judge which was most similar to a comparison line in the presence of others, who were actually confederates of the experimenter who were instructed to purposely give incorrect answers. 5% of participants conformed to all of the trials, 33% conformed to over half of the trials and 25% did not conform at all. Several variations of the original experiment were conducted; when one confederate was present none of the participants conformed, however when more than three confederates were present strong conformity occurred. This suggests the effects of majority influence and pressure on the individual to act in a manner in accordance to a group, the desire to be liked and avoidance of rejection from the group. Aschs line study distinctly lacked ecological validity due to its artificial laboratory setting, which suggests that the experiment had low ecological validity and may be difficult to generalise to a real-life situation. A replication of Aschs original experiment in which the participants were British engineering, mathematics and chemistry students suggested low reliability within the original study, out of the 396 trials, a participant conformed with the incorrect majority on only one trial.. Aschs experiment has been referred to as a child of its time, due to the social, political and historical context in which Aschs experiment was conducted, as conformity was a social norm during Post-World War Two era, whilst the notion of individualism was rejected (Perrin and Spencer, 1980). The lack of reliability in the study may be due to a change in what is socially acceptable rather than a methodological flaw, and therefore it is of importance to acknowledge social norms and values whilst studying group behaviour as well as the notion that group behaviour cannot be based within experimental psychology alone (Nafstad and Blakar, 2012). One prominent theory which may be applied to real life examples of group behaviour is Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1979). Social Identity Theory details how membership to a group gives an individual a sense of social identity, these groups are important in enhancing an individuals self-esteem and pride, therefore individuals may attempt to increase the status of their own group, or simply discriminate against an out-group through social categorisation. Discrimination against an out-group occurs through prejudice and stereotypes which occurs through three cognitive processes; social categorisation, which is the decision about which group you belong to, social identification, which is more overt identification with the in-group, and social comparison which is comparison to the out-group which is believed to be inferior, this in turn increases the self-esteem of the in-group (Tajfel Turner, 1979). Although it can be argued that Social Identity Theory can provide a concise and full e xplanation for the formation if in-groups and out-groups, it does not clearly define how the process occurs and also is not a predictor of behaviour (Hogg, 2000). Therefore, although Social Identity Theory can explain some aspects of group behaviour, it may not be applicable to real world phenomenon as it cannot provide full explanation for real-life group behaviour such as acts of terrorism. In real-world research, such as a psychological approach to terrorism, it has been suggested that it is necessary not to allow cognitive biases to cloud the analysis of political situations (Abrahms, 2006; Scheier, 2007). Therefore, experimental psychology alone may not be useful in analysing and explaining real-life situations. However, Zimbardo (Zimbardo, 2002) argues that terrorism is all about psychology as it is key to understanding the motives, values and ideology of terrorists; therefore it is clear there is debate as to how real-life examples of group behaviour should be studied. Although many of the most prominent studies in the area of group and individual behaviour are based within experimental psychology, there is a tendency for discursive, critical and qualitative psychologists to argue that there is a need for the exploration of social norms, values and experiences, rather than the notion held by experimental psychology which simply acknowledges that these factors have an affect. When considering the experiments and debates which are discussed within the study of group behaviour, in order for future research to attempt to provide a more concise explanations of group behaviour it may be appropriate to concentrate on people on an individual level within context as well as their actions in a group situation, for example acknowledging their experiences, relationships, values and social roles in order to draw conclusions as to why individuals act in accordance to a group instead of simply displaying extreme phenomena such as in the cases of Milgram and Zimba rdo. It has been suggested that current mainstream social psychology is primarily characterised by the study of the interactions between the individual and groups through experimental study and as a result of this, context such as social and cultural levels have not been represented to their true extent (Doise, 1982/1986). References Abrahms, M. Why Terrorism Does Not Work, International Security, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp.42-78. Asch, S. E. Social psychology. New York: PrenticeHall, 1952 Brannigan, A. (2004) The Rise and Fall of Social Psychology: The Use and Misuse of the Experimental Method. New Jersey: Aldine Transaction. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Brown, R. (2000) Group Processes: Dynamics within and between groups (2nd ed.), Oxford, Blackwell. Burger, J. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64, 1-11. De Vos, J. (2009) Now that you know, how do you feel: The Milgram experiment and psychologisation. Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 7, 223-246. Accessed at: http://www.discourseunit.com/arcp/7.htm on 24th November 2010. Doise, W. (1982/1986). Lexplication en psychologie sociale/Levels of explanation in social psychology. Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de lHomme. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fox, D., Prilleltensky, I. (Eds.). (1997). Critical Psychology. An Introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. French, J. R. P., Raven, B. The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright, A. Zander. Group dynamics. New York: Harper Row, 1959. Gergen, K. J. (1973). Social psychology as history. Journal of personality and social psychology, 26, 309-320. Himmelweit, H. T., Gaskell, G. (Eds.). (1990). Societal Psychology. London: Sage Publications. Hogg, Michael A.; Williams, Kipling D. (2000). From I to we: Social identity and the collective self. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 4 (1): 81-97 Man, L (1969). Social Psychology. New York: Wiley Meeus, W.H.J., Raaijmakers, Q.A.W. (1995). Obedience in modern society: The Utrecht studies. Journal of Social Issues, 51 (3), 155-175. Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper Row Parker*, I. (2000). Obedience. Granta, 71(4): 99-125. Perrin, S. Spencer, C. (1980) The Asch effect: a child of its time? Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 32, 405-406. Nafstad, H. E. Blakar, R. M. (2012). Ideology and Social Psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 6 (4), 282-294. Renshon, S. A., Duckitt, J. (2000). Political psychology. Cultural and crosscultural foundations. London: MacMillan Press Scheier, B. (2007) The Evolutionary Brain Glitch that Makes Terrorism Fail, WIRED. Accessed at: http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2007/07/securitymatters_0712 on 25th October 2007. Stainton Rogers, R., Stenner, P., Gleeson, K. Stainton Rogers, W. (1995). Social Psychology: A Critical Agenda. Polity: Cambridge Tajfel, H., Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Col Turner, J. C. (1982). Toward a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup behavior (pp. 15-40). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Zimbardo, P.G. (2002) Psychology to Play Key Role in National Centre on Terrorism. Monitor on Psychology, 33 (11), December 2002. Accessed at: on 23 January 2006.

Campaign Finance Issues Essay -- essays research papers fc

GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION We are not a democracy, yet we do have a voice in our own government. Elections are the choice microphones for many citizens. There on Election Day, they have the right of making their voices heard; however, many interest groups and a few individuals seem to have a louder voice due to campaign financing: No U.S. official should be beholden to one or a few groups. And no group or individual should have a greater claim on our elected leaders than any other. That’s the way it should work. But it is growing clear to more and more Americans that it doesn’t (McCarthy 24). Recently, it has been the trend to try to make sure the opinions and concerns of minorities are duly noted and pondered on. The only problem seen with this comes about whenever the minority â€Å"buy† the attention of politicians. Typically, minorities are more than a number. The grossly rich, while small in number and percent, have never counted as a minority, but these are the only ones who can afford to give enough support to a candidate to draw attention to them. Again, we see an aristocratic government. Even interest groups of true minorities can’t give enough to impress anyone. Now that we have seen the dangers of campaign financing, we should go back and find out how it started. Max McCarthy speaks of a time when everything got worse in politics. This was not to imply that everything had been perfect before, but once the media gets involved, things tend to go differently. Many years ago, the media began to play a vital role in the political education of our citizens, with radios and televisions. Before, only those with real authority had any complete knowledge of what went on with governmental politics. As each candidate was brought closer and closer to the American people, they actually started to care about things that before were nicely kept secrets. The opinions of these, now seemingly real people, instead of future historical figures, were actually heard, and the people actually knew who they were voting for. With the start of this new technology, campaigning was much easier; all that was needed was enough money to get the name recognition: As campaign costs have skyrocketed in recent years, the percentages contributed by the parties and small individual donors have declined . . . An ever-growing... ...www. Fec.gov Connolly, Ceci. 1999. "Washington Post Magazine". http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/gore 040499_full.htm. Corrado, Anthony, Thomas E. Mann, and Daniel R. Ortiz. ed. 1997. Campaign Finance Reform. The Brookings Institution. Emenhiser, JeDon. 1999. http://www.sorrel.humboldt.edu/~jae1/paper.html Ginsberg, Benjamin, Theodore J. Lowi, and Margaret Weit. 1997. We The People: An Introduction to American Politics. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. Goidel, Robert K., Donald A. Gross, and Todd G. Sheilds. 1967. Money Matters: Consequenses of Campaign Financing Reform in the U.S. House Elections. Rowman & Little field Publishers, Inc. Lanham, New York. Malbin, Micheal J. 1991. Money and Politics in the U.S.: Financing Elections in the 1980s. Chatham House Publishers, Inc. Box One, Chatham, New Jersey. McCarthy, Max. 1972. Elections For Sale. Hough Mifflin Company, Boston. Pelletier, Paul.1999. "Closing the Deal: Ten Fundraising Tips". Campaigns and Elections (May):56-59.

Mechanisms and Processes of the Internet :: Computers Technology Web Essays

Mechanisms and Processes of the Internet Electronic commerce can be defined as the conduct of commerce in goods and services, with the assistance of telecommunications and telecommunications-based tools. Here, the term telecommunications can mean any existing telecommunication networks such as Public Switched Telephone Network, Integrated Services Digital Network, or even Wireless Networks. However the major and the most important telecommunication network of E-commerce is the Internet. The great possibility and potential of E-commerce has been realized with the development of the Internet. Therefore understanding how the Internet works is quite important to better understand E-commerce and to develop E-commerce applications. In this paper I will discuss the mechanisms and process of the Internet. The structure of the paper is as follows:  · The Basic Process  · Mechanisms of the Internet  · IP address and Name Servers  · Ports and Protocols II. The Basic Process When we surf the web, we type any URL in to our browser, and the desired page pop up on our screen. At the most basic level possible, the following diagram shows what happened: Our browser formed a connection to a web server, requested a page and received it. Here are the basic steps that occurred behind the scenes:  · The browser broke the URL into 3 parts: 1) The protocol ("http"), 2) the server name ("www.howstuffworks.com"), and 3) the file name ("web-server.htm").  · The browser communicated with a name server to translate the server name "www.howstuffworks.com" into an IP Address that it can use to connect to the server machine.  · The browser then formed a connection to the server at that IP address on port 80.  · Following the HTTP protocol, the browser sent a GET request to the server asking for the file "web-server.htm".  · The server returned the HTML text for the web page to the browser. The browser read the HTML tags and formatted the page onto your screen. III. Mechanisms of the Internet 1. Mechanisms The Internet is a gigantic collection of millions of computers that are all linked together on a computer network.