Description
1. interview questions $15
2. clinical and statistical significance
3. neural-physiology disorder
4. linear algebra
5. Ohio swot question
6. information system and strategic planning
7. management and business administration
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.
Explanation & Answer
Attached.
An Interview with Cheikh Anta Diop
In this interview, Diop argued that the first human civilizations begun in the Nile Basin
on the eastern coast of Africa. He asserts that it is from th...
Completion Status:
100%
Review
Review
Anonymous
Just what I was looking for! Super helpful.
Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4
24/7 Homework Help
Stuck on a homework question? Our verified tutors can answer all questions, from basic math to advanced rocket science!
Most Popular Content
12 pages
Gap Analysis
Our vision is ambitious. MCMHC Has a comprehensive menu of mental health services and programs with financially strong reg ...
Gap Analysis
Our vision is ambitious. MCMHC Has a comprehensive menu of mental health services and programs with financially strong regional health care provider ...
Answer the Following Questions Based on a Short Story
Please provide answers to the following 3 parts.Part 1Class Exercise: Symbolic Interaction Theory
Cipher in the Snow
Belo ...
Answer the Following Questions Based on a Short Story
Please provide answers to the following 3 parts.Part 1Class Exercise: Symbolic Interaction Theory
Cipher in the Snow
Below is a short story by Jean Mizer entitled “Cipher in the Snow”. Please read the story then analyze it using concepts from Mead’s Symbolic Interaction Theory.
------------------------------------
Cipher in the Snow
It started with tragedy on a biting cold February morning. I was driving behind the Milford Corners bus as I did most snowy mornings on my way to school. The bus veered and stopped short at the hotel, which it had no business doing, and I was annoyed as I had to come to an unexpected stop. The boy lurched out of the bus, reeled, stumbled, and collapsed on the snow bank at the curb. The bus driver and I reached him at the same moment. The boy’s thin, hollow face was white even against the snow.
"He's dead," the driver whispered.
It didn't register for a minute. I glanced quickly at the scared young faces staring down at us from the school bus. "A doctor! Quick! I'll phone from the hotel . . ."
"No use, I tell you, he's dead." The driver looked down at the boy's still form. "He never even said he felt bad," he muttered. "Just tapped me on the shoulder and said, real quiet, 'I'm sorry. I have to get off at the hotel.' That's all. Polite and apologizing like."
At school the giggling, shuffling morning noise quieted as news went down the halls. I passed a huddle of girls. "Who was it? Who dropped dead on the way to school?" I heard one of them half-whisper.
"Don't know his name. Some kid from Milford Corners," was the reply.
It was like that in the faculty room and the principal's office. "I'd appreciate your going out to tell the parents," the principal told me. "They haven't a phone, and anyway, somebody from the school should go there in person. I'll cover your classes."
"Why me?" I asked. "Wouldn't it be better if you did it?"
"I didn't know the boy," the principal admitted levelly. "And in last year's sophomore personalities column I noted that you were listed as his favorite teacher."
I drove through the snow and cold down the bad canyon road to the Evans' place and thought about the boy, Cliff Evans. His favorite teacher! I thought. He hasn't spoken two words to me in two years! I could see him in my mind's eye all right, sitting back there in the last seat in my afternoon literature class. He came in the room by himself and left by himself. "Cliff Evans," I muttered to myself, "a boy who never talked." I thought a minute. "A boy who never smiled. I never saw him smile once."
The big ranch kitchen was clean and warm. I blurted out my news somehow. Mrs. Evans reached blindly toward a chair. "He never said anything about bein' ailing."
His stepfather snorted. "He ain't said nothin' about anything since I moved in here."
Mrs. Evans pushed a pan to the back of the stove and began to untie her apron. "Now hold on," her husband snapped. "I got to have breakfast before I go to town. Nothin' we can do now, anyway. If Cliff hadn't been so dumb, he'd have told us he didn't feel good."
After school I sat in the office and stared blankly at the records spread out before me. I was to read the file and write the obituary for the school paper. The almost bare sheets mocked the effort. Cliff Evans, white, never legally adopted by stepfather, five young half-brothers and sisters. These meager strands of information and the list of "D" grades were all the records had to offer.
Cliff Evans had silently come in the school door in the mornings and gone out the school door in the evenings, and that was all. He had never belonged to a club. He had never played on a team. He had never held an office. As far as I could tell, he had never done one happy, noisy kid thing. He had never been anybody at all.
How do you go about making a boy into a zero? The grade-school records showed me. The first and second grade teachers' annotations read, "Sweet, shy child," "timid but eager." Then the third grade note had opened the attack. Some teacher had written in a good, firm hand, "Cliff won't talk. Uncooperative. Slow learner." The other academic sheep and followed with "dull," "slow-witted," "low I.Q." They became correct. The boy's I.Q score in the ninth grade was listed at 83. But his I.Q. in the third grade had been 106. The score didn't go under 100 until the seventh grade. Even the shy, timid, sweet children have resilience. It takes time to break them.
I stomped to the typewriter and wrote a savage report pointing out what education had done to Cliff Evans. I slapped a copy on the principal's desk and another in the sad, dog-eared file. I banged the typewriter and slammed the file and crashed the door shut, but I didn't feel much better. A little boy kept walking after me, a little boy with a peaked, pale face; a skinny body in faded jeans; and big eyes that had looked and searched for a long time and then had become veiled.
I could guess how many times he had been chosen last to play sides in a game, how many whispered child conversations had excluded him, how many times he hadn't been asked. I could see and hear the faces that said over and over, "You're nothing, Cliff Evans."
A child is a believing creature. Cliff undoubtedly believed them. Suddenly it seemed clear to me: When finally there was nothing left at all for Cliff Evans, he collapsed on a snow bank and went away. The doctor might list "heart failure" as the cause of death, but that wouldn't change my mind.
We couldn't find ten students in the school who had known Cliff well enough to attend the funeral as his friends. So the student body officers and a committee from the junior class went as a group to the church, being politely sad. I attended the services with them, and sat through it with a lump of cold lead in my chest and a big resolve growing through me.
I've never forgotten Cliff Evans nor that resolve. He has been my challenge year after year, class after class. I look for veiled eyes or bodies scrounged into a seat in an alien world. "Look, kids," I say silently. "I may not do anything else for you this year, but not one of you is going to come out of here as a nobody. I'll work or fight to the bitter end doing battle with society and the school board, but I won't have one of you coming out of there thinking himself a zero."
Most of the time -- not always, but most of the time -- I've succeeded.
~Jean Mizer
----------------------------------
Please analyze the story using Mead's Symbolic Interaction Theory. Specifically:
Looking Glass Self: What do you suppose the boy saw when he “looked in the mirror”? Why do you think he perceived himself in that way?
Pygmalion Effect: Do you see the Pygmalion effect working in this story? How? How did it affect the boy’s behavior/self concept? How did it affect his communication with others?
Particular Others: Who were the boy’s particular others? How do you think they affected his sense of self?
Generalized Others: Who were the boy’s generalized others? How do you think they affected his sense of self?
Self Fulfilling Prophecy: Was a self fulfilling prophecy operating in this story? What was it? How do you think it occurred?
General Questions
1. Generally speaking, how do you think Mead’s concepts of Mind, Self, and Society operated to “cause” this young man’s death?
2. Do you think Mead’s Symbolic Interaction Theory provides a good theoretical framework for understanding what happened in this story? Why or why not?
3. Can you think of an example from your own life where Symbolic Interaction Theory was at work?_______________________________________________________________________________Part 2
The Coordinated Management of Meaning
A Hypothetical Negotiation Between Two Business Executives
Directions: Below is a hypothetical negotiation between two business executives. Read the negotiation and then answer the questions which follow.
Business Executive #1: Sam from the United States
Business Executive #2: Yoshio from Japan
Sam’s Perspective: This is a business negotiation. During a business negotiation it is appropriate to state one’s business, make offers and counter offers, use negotiation tactics to gain as much as possible, and then return home. Topics of conversation such as families, hobbies, religion, or politics are inappropriate. Brief inquiries about family or short discussions about sports can be used as small talk to break the ice, but the goal is to get down to business right away. Sam has been away from home for over a week and is eager to get back to her family.
Yoshio’s Perspective: This is a business negotiation. Business transactions are an extension of one’s social and family life. One would not do business with strangers. Therefore, a lot of time must be spent developing relationships before negotiating any business contracts.
Here is the Conversation:
Sam: It is very nice to meet you. Shall we get down to business?
Yoshio: Fine. I thought we might go to dinner tonight, then to the Kabuki tomorrow. I want to show you my country because it is your first visit to Japan.
After several days of social activities, Sam is growing increasingly impatient. Yoshio is feeling rushed by Sam’s insistence on discussing the contract. They begin contract talks.
This is the conversation:
Sam: This is my last price. Take it or leave it! I have to be back at my desk on Monday and this is the best I can do.
Yoshio: I know you are trying to give us a good price for our products.
Sam: It’s a deal, then…?
Yoshio: (long silence…)…
Sam: Fine. I’ll have my people draw up the papers for your approval. We’ll meet here again tomorrow.
Yoshio: Yes, I’ll see you tomorrow…
Sam’s Interpretation: Fabulous! They agreed to all our terms! The Japanese are easier to negotiate with than I thought. I’ll be on a plane home by noon tomorrow!
Yoshio’s Interpretation: How rude Americans are!! I can see we have our work cut out for us if we are ever going to agree on a contract. To threaten us with words like, “take it or leave it”! And, how uncivilized to refuse our hospitality! Tomorrow will be a very long day!
Discussion Questions:
Did Sam and Yoshio coordinate meaning? Not coordinate meaning? Partially coordinate meaning?
What was the context for the communication?
What were the rules for this context? For Sam? For Yoshio?
Let’s look at the speech act “Take it or Leave it!”What were the constitutive (definition) rules operating? Did they agree?
What were the regulative (behavior) rules operating? Did they agree?
Let’s look at the hierarchy of meaning. How were each of the negotiators creating meaning?Content?
Speech Acts?
Contract?
Episodes?
Life scripts?
Cultural patterns?
How can an understanding of the Coordinated Management of Meaning prevent a misunderstanding like this one from happening in your life?
________________________________________________________________________________Part 3
Cognitive Dissonance Theory
Here’s a good video (less than 5 minutes) that shows Leon Festinger, and another famous social psychologist, Dr. Philip Zimbardo, and how Cognitive Dissonance was developed in the 1950s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=korGK0yGIDo
As you read through this chapter, think about the "intrapersonal" dialogue that goes on when we feel an internal conflict. (Intrapersonal communication is the internal dialogue we have inside our own minds.) Indeed, we so dislike psychological discomfort or a sense of inconsistency between our values and our actions that we actively seek to NOT feel cognitive dissonance.
Because of that internal discomfort, people who experience cognitive dissonance are relatively easier to motivate to behave a particular way. They are looking for ways to reduce their internal discomfort. I think the four assumptions of CDT are particularly clear, so spend a little time absorbing the ideas about "magnitude of dissonance," "coping with dissonance," and "minimal justification."
1. Another important aspect of this theory is how it applies to the way we "manage" our perceptions through selection. Can you think of ways that you look for information that is consistent with your values and world view?
2. Look at the section on the "testability" of CDT. Note that what makes CDT difficult to test is not that it can be proved, but that it is difficult to disprove. Why does that happen when researchers look at CDT? What is it hard to disprove the theory? Can you think of a test that you could perform that would yield more definitive results?
South University Wk 2 Major Steps Involved in Implementing a Project Paper
Steps in Implementing Program or ProjectWhile public administrators are involved in all stages of the policy process, much ...
South University Wk 2 Major Steps Involved in Implementing a Project Paper
Steps in Implementing Program or ProjectWhile public administrators are involved in all stages of the policy process, much of their work is focused on implementation of public policies. Review the lecture notes and Chapter 9 before preparing this assignment, as the specific steps from which to develop your essay are clearly outlined.Write a well-organized, three- to four-page essay in which you summarize and discuss the major steps involved in implementing a program or project and identify some of the problems that can arise with each.NOTES CHAPTER 9 Discussions of government policy in areas such as agriculture, education, homeland security, emergency management, criminal justice, environmental quality, foreign affairs, health care, transportation, or land-use planning attempt to convey an impression of well-defined purposes—carefully mapped out, sufficient resources marshaled and at the ready, with consistent support through the political process. However, the realities of governing in the United States differ dramatically from this conception. In our complex and fragmented governmental system, there is often no single dominant political majority capable of determining policy in every instance. Congressional voting coalitions are usually temporary, changing from one issue to the next; presidential election majorities are often fashioned out of very diverse groups in the population, each with policy interests that conflict with others; court rulings may or may not coincide with public sentiment; administrative agencies are not permanently tied to any one political coalition. The combined impacts of these shifting attitudes, institutions, and a very diverse population on the definition, formulation, implementation, and evaluation of public policy often blur rather than clarify policy objectives and content. Instead of being clear and unmistakable government commitments, many policies are “mixed bags” of programs reflecting a variety of past actions and declarations, ad hoc responses to contemporary situations, and considerable uncertainty about future policy directions. Cynicism abounds as greater numbers of citizens express reservations about the capacity of executives, legislators, and public administrators to address fundamental and fiscal issues. Yet there are strong expectations that public problems will be tackled and that the resulting programs will be well managed—that they represent the culmination of deliberate efforts to analyze, plan, design, fund, and operate objectives. There is the further expectation that managers and others will be capable of evaluating the actual achievements of government programs. Although it is difficult to identify or rationalize all aspects of a given policy, managers must focus on discrete tasks involved in organizing and operating programs. This is necessary despite the ever-present swirl of political controversy, media scrutiny, opposing approaches offered by various interests, and bitter partisanship that frequently surrounds much of what governments try to accomplish. In these endeavors, a particular agency or bureau in the administrative process and the individuals within that organization (as well as other “stakeholders” such as recipients of public services, elected officials, and government contractors) must collaborate in a common effort to achieve policy goals. Managing public programs, individually and as they affect the course of public policies, involves major concerns discussed in previous chapters: expertise, ethics, effective management, executive and managerial leadership, organizational structure, motivation, decision making, personnel selection, and budgeting. All of these impact the roles of bureaucracy and the ultimate success or failure of government problem solving. And with growing sophistication in our capacity to analyze public programs has come a greater awareness of the need and potential for more intelligent, more “rational” conduct of public management processes. At the same time, increasing numbers of narrow-focused special-interest groups, commonly referred to as single-issue groups, mount well-funded campaigns on both sides of numerous issues. Therefore, policies are applied through a complicated and fragmented political process that is anything but rational, in classical/economic terms. In this chapter, we examine the nature of public policies; describe various policy-making processes, particularly as they involve individual administrators and private contractors; program management, planning, and analysis; implementation, including how some policy directions are altered in the course of managing individual programs; how programs are (or could be) evaluated; and the challenges of improving policy by applying analytical processes. The ultimate purpose is to understand how public policies evolve as they do, the role of administrative politics in this process, and the operational realities—including problems—of managing public programs to achieve policy goals.The Changing Nature of Public PoliciesWhat precisely is public policy? Many people regard public policies as deliberate responses or purposive actions to alleviate problems and needs systematically identified by some legitimate means. It is commonly assumed that government policies are intended to solve—or at least cope with—major social and economic problems. There is typically some disparity, however, between the perception of the average citizen about policy processes and the outcomes and realities of policy making.public policy(1) organizing framework of purposes and rationales for government programs that deal with specified societal problems; (2) complex of programs enacted and implemented by government. Let us consider some of the most common popular assumptions about government policy. First, some people believe that governments have clearly defined policies, well-thought-out in advance, on all or most major issues and problems. Second, many believe these policies are established through some kind of rational choice of better (as opposed to worse) alternatives made by political leaders. Third, some think everything that is done to address a problem or issue follows those policies. Fourth, it is often assumed that the policies of government are clearly perceived and understood by citizens. And fifth, many believe that government policies are widely agreed on and supported—otherwise, how could they remain in force? As appealing or logical as these ideas might be, not one of them is true. Public policies are generally not clearly defined in the sense that all major problems are anticipated and the machinery of government geared up to meet them before they become unmanageable. That would require the kind of centralized leadership inconsistent with the Constitution and resisted by many of us. Some processes designed to foresee future developments and prepare for them have not accomplished all that they were intended to, and “circumstances beyond our control” often prevail. With the exception of threats to national security and major natural disasters, it is unusual to have a consistent policy for dealing with a specific problem. As a practical matter, governments could not possibly have predetermined policies on all issues, especially accidents, natural disasters such as earthquakes, wild fires, tornadoes, floods, and hurricanes, as well as deliberate acts of terror. Thus, policies are more often the product of responses to particular circumstances or problems rather than the result of deliberate actions. They frequently result from ad hoc decisions made at many levels, at different times, by officials and others who see only some parts of the overall problem. Rational policy choice implies a decision-making capacity largely lacking in most of our noncentralized government institutions. The diffuse intergovernmental array of some 87,000 state and local governments, combined with differences of opinion among over 500,000 elected nationwide policy makers, further weakens the capacity for centrally coordinated actions. Because of this size and diversity, many government activities do not follow official policy directions or support publicly stated goals. Political party platforms, pronouncements by top executives, state and local initiatives and referenda, even Congressional resolutions are often a better reflection of intent than of reality in policy making. What actually takes place often differs from official proclamations of what was supposed to occur. Also, we tend to pay more attention to government activity that is likely to have a tangible impact on our lives, but otherwise it is unusual for large numbers of people to comprehend the intricacies of public policy. A good example is foreign policy. Different ethnic and nationality groups are sensitive to even small changes in what this nation does or contemplates doing regarding their mother countries or other entities with which those groups identify, but most citizens have only a generalized awareness of our overall foreign policy. Another issue that defies easy comprehension is climate change. Although we are generally aware of the ostensible (apparent) effects of climate change on the environment, we tend to view government policy options and actions through the “lenses” of our own experiences. Unless we are personally and immediately affected by climate change (or by any other broad policy concern), we are most likely to accept the status quo, and to question policy proposals that may require us to make significant changes in the ways we live our lives. The visibility of any particular problem or set of issues affects our awareness of proposed public policy. Many domestic policies are also understood only in broad outline. In short, it is not accurate to assume that most Americans are knowledgeable in detail about individual policies. Finally, it is rarely true that there is widespread, active support for existing public policies, although most have at least passive backing. Policy directions that offend basic values of large numbers of people are not likely to be sustained for very long without at least being challenged. Examples of sharp public reaction to disputed policies include resistance to the Supreme Court ban on prayers in the public schools, opposition to judicial rulings on abortion, challenges to hiring preferences and “quotas” for affirmative action, disagreement over the display of religious symbols such as the Ten Commandments in state facilities, opposition to and support for the use of vouchers for public school students to attend private schools, and expressions of public distaste for some forms of public health and safety regulation. In one sense, policies that exist without widespread challenge may be taken as a barometer of public feeling about what is acceptable, generally speaking. Few policies survive that offend either powerful political interests or large numbers of ordinary citizens, or both. In sum, although support for what government does is not necessarily enthusiastic, policies must have a certain amount of acceptability. However, the most acceptable policies may not be the most effective, and the most effective policies may not be acceptable to a majority or a vocal minority. Some compromise is often necessary to implement most public policies. It makes a difference which situations are defined as problems, who defines them, and why they deserve attention in the policy arena. Unequal access to affordable health care, for example, was part of the American scene for decades before President Barack Obama defined it as a high-priority problem in 2008. Although the problem was analyzed and various options were formulated by experts using a rational policy approach (see Chapter 5), opponents were successful in labeling the changes as “socialized medicine,” assuring its defeat in Congress prior to 2010. Nuclear reactor safety, climate change, crime control, job training, “welfare-to-workfare” reform, sex discrimination, and the AIDS epidemic are examples of issue areas that were defined as policy problems long before any action was taken. Also, policy initiatives can come from many parts of the body politic—the president, Congress, interest groups, the mass media, state or local governments, and so on. Perhaps the only policy maker prohibited in theory from initiating policy changes on its own is the judiciary. Chief executives are usually in the best position to take the initiative, but they have no monopoly on attempting to raise awareness of issues for public and governmental attention. Furthermore, most policy changes come about slowly; it is far easier to resist change than to bring it about. American government tends to move in evolutionary fashion; incrementalism has generally been the order of the day. Finally, many policy actions are more symbolic than real. Symbolism is not without value in politics, but it should be understood for what it is and not be confused with substantive change.1 State laws punishing desecration of the American flag, legalizing moments of silence to counter federal court decisions banning school prayer, permitting the display of state flags bearing Confederate symbols, and calls for a balanced federal budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution are largely symbolic, but no less important to constituent groups. Because most citizens are unfamiliar with the details of policy, symbolic actions are often sufficient to satisfy calls for change without threatening the status quo. The passing of public attention from an issue often signals a slowdown in dealing with it, even if many in government would prefer to move more rapidly. Organized group support and opposition make a major difference in how substantive—or simply cosmetic—policy changes are. Public policies, then, tend to be haphazard, not widely understood or actively supported, and often inconsistently applied. Not all situations in society that might be classified as problem areas are, in fact, defined as such. At other times, problems that affect only a small, but politically powerful, minority are defined as public issues deserving of broader attention. This happened in 2008, when the Bush administration tried to ease stock market jitters with an ambitious plan to assist banks, corporations, Wall Street firms, and other financial institutions with significant investments of federal loans and loan guarantees to rescue financially troubled companies. And sometimes an unspoken policy exists to take no action on a problem; the decision not to act can be just as significant as a stated government policy to those interests that benefit from the status quo. When changes in policy do occur, they tend to be rather slow and unfocused. That any coherent policies exist is often a surprise.Types of PoliciesThere is great variety in the kinds of policies pursued by government entities. These can be distinguished on the basis of their essential rationales, their impacts on society, and the respective roles played by administrative agencies in each. Major policy types include distributive, redistributive, regulatory, self-regulatory, and its logical corollary, privatization.2 Distributive policies deliver large-scale services or benefits to certain individuals or groups in the population. Examples are loans and loan guarantees provided by the national government to cover private-sector losses, such as those suffered by the commercial airlines following September 11, 2001, and the banking, financial services, and financial services industries in 2007–2008; agricultural price supports, especially those benefitting wealthy farmers; tax deductions for interest paid on home mortgages; loans for college students; subsidies to energy and oil companies (sometimes labeled “corporate welfare”); and government contracts to politically active private firms. These involve policy subsystems or iron triangles (described in Chapter 2) on almost an ad hoc basis, with direct beneficiaries who do not pay direct costs. Bureaucracies are often, but not always, involved in both the enactment of such policies and their implementation. President George W. Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, was heavily criticized for engineering the “bailout” of politically influential corporations in 2007–2008. The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) bailout was originally estimated to cost taxpayers $300 billion, but current Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner estimated that all but $25 billion of the loans would be paid back by the summer of 2011.distributive policiespolicy actions such as subsidies or tax deductions that deliver widespread benefits to individuals or groups who often do not bear the costs directly. Redistributive policies “involve deliberate efforts by the government to shift the allocation of wealth, income, property, or rights among broad classes or groups” within the population.3 These efforts are often the source of intense controversy in the political arena, controversy that could significantly impact the execution of a policy as well as its initial adoption. Thus, redistributive policies such as affirmative action, the graduated (or “progressive”) income tax, Medicaid for the poor and (to a lesser extent) Medicare for the elderly, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) were all subject to intense debate and conflict during legislative deliberations. This type of policy is most sensitive politically and thus most susceptible to political pressures. It is also very difficult to implement policies that are redistributive across economic classes in society. Many policies that began with this goal have lost much of their redistributive character as a result of changes (for example tax exemptions, lower tax rates, income shelters, and similar loopholes) made in the basic law—some of which were proposed by the agency responsible for its administration! Because of the controversy they generate, redistributive policies almost inevitably draw bureaucracies directly into the policy process, even though many would prefer to remain on the sidelines. In other instances, agencies with jurisdiction over redistributive policies have taken the lead in maintaining their essential character.
3 pages
Decision Making And Problem Solving Worksheet.edited
Talal is a young guy who has just completed a Master's in Business Studies and would like to take a serious career decisio ...
Decision Making And Problem Solving Worksheet.edited
Talal is a young guy who has just completed a Master's in Business Studies and would like to take a serious career decision. He prefers starting a ...
8 pages
Bs Concepts File
The company Say Cheese wants to grow the business by adding two more pizza shops in Vermont through the acquisition of the ...
Bs Concepts File
The company Say Cheese wants to grow the business by adding two more pizza shops in Vermont through the acquisition of the existing Pizza shops. The ...
Financial risk in Samsung company, presentation help
I have a 3 mins presentation about Financial risk in Samsung company and I will talk about these points below. w ...
Financial risk in Samsung company, presentation help
I have a 3 mins presentation about Financial risk in Samsung company and I will talk about these points below. write down what do I need to say ( I will read it when I present)-Samsung is a global company that’s operating in consumer appliances and gadgets market.- The company’s revenue is about 19% of South Korea’s GDP.- Financial risk analysis is a concept where a company intends to widen its consumer market.- It has expanded global network to expanded its market and thus reduce financial crisis- It has microbusiness via franchising thus reducing financial risk- Samsung has decided to shift its focus on profitability by opening up many markets in the developing world hence expanding its global network.
Similar Content
MGMT659 Colorado Technical Management Capstone Data Collection Paper
Assignment DetailsThe document should explain how the data are to be used, how they support measuring the current status o...
Michael Patternson talks about "unresolved conflict" in the workplace, Management Question
The post should be a direct response to the topic for the week and include brief commentary on the posts of other classmat...
HRM 4123 ASU Employee Development Through Coaching & Mentoring PPT & Paper
Step 1:Read about different models of Coaching and Mentoring from Scopus Indexed Journals such as⁻Personnel Psychology�...
Finance Lab Question 1
...
Finance Paper
Assignment StepsDevelop a 1,050-word evaluation describing business structure and financial statements, including the foll...
Boston University Use of Internet in Business Communications Position Statement
1.
Please write a concise position statement identifying how the internet is being issued to enable business communication...
Leading A High Performing Team
Based on the nature of an organization, team leadership entail the management of a group of employers to achieve a particu...
Coffee N More Business Questions
Coffee N’ More is an on-campus coffee and snack cart facility operate on the St. Christa campus of the University of the...
Da1 V1 What Is Wrong With The Chart Da1 V2 Design A Chart Using The Data Pr
Chart 1, this is what is wrong about the chart, it represents GDP as a continuous value between months. In reality, GDP is...
Related Tags
Book Guides
Robinson Crusoe
by Daniel Defoe
The Russian Hoax
by Gregg Jarrett
Breakfast at Tiffanys
by Truman Capote
100 Side Hustles
by Chris Guillebeau
Fear - Trump in the White House
by Bob Woodward
Don Quixote
by Miguel de Cervantes
Their Eyes Were Watching God
by Zora Neale Hurston
Nervous Conditions
by Tsitsi Dangarembga
Of Mice and Men
by John Steinbeck
Get 24/7
Homework help
Our tutors provide high quality explanations & answers.
Post question
Most Popular Content
12 pages
Gap Analysis
Our vision is ambitious. MCMHC Has a comprehensive menu of mental health services and programs with financially strong reg ...
Gap Analysis
Our vision is ambitious. MCMHC Has a comprehensive menu of mental health services and programs with financially strong regional health care provider ...
Answer the Following Questions Based on a Short Story
Please provide answers to the following 3 parts.Part 1Class Exercise: Symbolic Interaction Theory
Cipher in the Snow
Belo ...
Answer the Following Questions Based on a Short Story
Please provide answers to the following 3 parts.Part 1Class Exercise: Symbolic Interaction Theory
Cipher in the Snow
Below is a short story by Jean Mizer entitled “Cipher in the Snow”. Please read the story then analyze it using concepts from Mead’s Symbolic Interaction Theory.
------------------------------------
Cipher in the Snow
It started with tragedy on a biting cold February morning. I was driving behind the Milford Corners bus as I did most snowy mornings on my way to school. The bus veered and stopped short at the hotel, which it had no business doing, and I was annoyed as I had to come to an unexpected stop. The boy lurched out of the bus, reeled, stumbled, and collapsed on the snow bank at the curb. The bus driver and I reached him at the same moment. The boy’s thin, hollow face was white even against the snow.
"He's dead," the driver whispered.
It didn't register for a minute. I glanced quickly at the scared young faces staring down at us from the school bus. "A doctor! Quick! I'll phone from the hotel . . ."
"No use, I tell you, he's dead." The driver looked down at the boy's still form. "He never even said he felt bad," he muttered. "Just tapped me on the shoulder and said, real quiet, 'I'm sorry. I have to get off at the hotel.' That's all. Polite and apologizing like."
At school the giggling, shuffling morning noise quieted as news went down the halls. I passed a huddle of girls. "Who was it? Who dropped dead on the way to school?" I heard one of them half-whisper.
"Don't know his name. Some kid from Milford Corners," was the reply.
It was like that in the faculty room and the principal's office. "I'd appreciate your going out to tell the parents," the principal told me. "They haven't a phone, and anyway, somebody from the school should go there in person. I'll cover your classes."
"Why me?" I asked. "Wouldn't it be better if you did it?"
"I didn't know the boy," the principal admitted levelly. "And in last year's sophomore personalities column I noted that you were listed as his favorite teacher."
I drove through the snow and cold down the bad canyon road to the Evans' place and thought about the boy, Cliff Evans. His favorite teacher! I thought. He hasn't spoken two words to me in two years! I could see him in my mind's eye all right, sitting back there in the last seat in my afternoon literature class. He came in the room by himself and left by himself. "Cliff Evans," I muttered to myself, "a boy who never talked." I thought a minute. "A boy who never smiled. I never saw him smile once."
The big ranch kitchen was clean and warm. I blurted out my news somehow. Mrs. Evans reached blindly toward a chair. "He never said anything about bein' ailing."
His stepfather snorted. "He ain't said nothin' about anything since I moved in here."
Mrs. Evans pushed a pan to the back of the stove and began to untie her apron. "Now hold on," her husband snapped. "I got to have breakfast before I go to town. Nothin' we can do now, anyway. If Cliff hadn't been so dumb, he'd have told us he didn't feel good."
After school I sat in the office and stared blankly at the records spread out before me. I was to read the file and write the obituary for the school paper. The almost bare sheets mocked the effort. Cliff Evans, white, never legally adopted by stepfather, five young half-brothers and sisters. These meager strands of information and the list of "D" grades were all the records had to offer.
Cliff Evans had silently come in the school door in the mornings and gone out the school door in the evenings, and that was all. He had never belonged to a club. He had never played on a team. He had never held an office. As far as I could tell, he had never done one happy, noisy kid thing. He had never been anybody at all.
How do you go about making a boy into a zero? The grade-school records showed me. The first and second grade teachers' annotations read, "Sweet, shy child," "timid but eager." Then the third grade note had opened the attack. Some teacher had written in a good, firm hand, "Cliff won't talk. Uncooperative. Slow learner." The other academic sheep and followed with "dull," "slow-witted," "low I.Q." They became correct. The boy's I.Q score in the ninth grade was listed at 83. But his I.Q. in the third grade had been 106. The score didn't go under 100 until the seventh grade. Even the shy, timid, sweet children have resilience. It takes time to break them.
I stomped to the typewriter and wrote a savage report pointing out what education had done to Cliff Evans. I slapped a copy on the principal's desk and another in the sad, dog-eared file. I banged the typewriter and slammed the file and crashed the door shut, but I didn't feel much better. A little boy kept walking after me, a little boy with a peaked, pale face; a skinny body in faded jeans; and big eyes that had looked and searched for a long time and then had become veiled.
I could guess how many times he had been chosen last to play sides in a game, how many whispered child conversations had excluded him, how many times he hadn't been asked. I could see and hear the faces that said over and over, "You're nothing, Cliff Evans."
A child is a believing creature. Cliff undoubtedly believed them. Suddenly it seemed clear to me: When finally there was nothing left at all for Cliff Evans, he collapsed on a snow bank and went away. The doctor might list "heart failure" as the cause of death, but that wouldn't change my mind.
We couldn't find ten students in the school who had known Cliff well enough to attend the funeral as his friends. So the student body officers and a committee from the junior class went as a group to the church, being politely sad. I attended the services with them, and sat through it with a lump of cold lead in my chest and a big resolve growing through me.
I've never forgotten Cliff Evans nor that resolve. He has been my challenge year after year, class after class. I look for veiled eyes or bodies scrounged into a seat in an alien world. "Look, kids," I say silently. "I may not do anything else for you this year, but not one of you is going to come out of here as a nobody. I'll work or fight to the bitter end doing battle with society and the school board, but I won't have one of you coming out of there thinking himself a zero."
Most of the time -- not always, but most of the time -- I've succeeded.
~Jean Mizer
----------------------------------
Please analyze the story using Mead's Symbolic Interaction Theory. Specifically:
Looking Glass Self: What do you suppose the boy saw when he “looked in the mirror”? Why do you think he perceived himself in that way?
Pygmalion Effect: Do you see the Pygmalion effect working in this story? How? How did it affect the boy’s behavior/self concept? How did it affect his communication with others?
Particular Others: Who were the boy’s particular others? How do you think they affected his sense of self?
Generalized Others: Who were the boy’s generalized others? How do you think they affected his sense of self?
Self Fulfilling Prophecy: Was a self fulfilling prophecy operating in this story? What was it? How do you think it occurred?
General Questions
1. Generally speaking, how do you think Mead’s concepts of Mind, Self, and Society operated to “cause” this young man’s death?
2. Do you think Mead’s Symbolic Interaction Theory provides a good theoretical framework for understanding what happened in this story? Why or why not?
3. Can you think of an example from your own life where Symbolic Interaction Theory was at work?_______________________________________________________________________________Part 2
The Coordinated Management of Meaning
A Hypothetical Negotiation Between Two Business Executives
Directions: Below is a hypothetical negotiation between two business executives. Read the negotiation and then answer the questions which follow.
Business Executive #1: Sam from the United States
Business Executive #2: Yoshio from Japan
Sam’s Perspective: This is a business negotiation. During a business negotiation it is appropriate to state one’s business, make offers and counter offers, use negotiation tactics to gain as much as possible, and then return home. Topics of conversation such as families, hobbies, religion, or politics are inappropriate. Brief inquiries about family or short discussions about sports can be used as small talk to break the ice, but the goal is to get down to business right away. Sam has been away from home for over a week and is eager to get back to her family.
Yoshio’s Perspective: This is a business negotiation. Business transactions are an extension of one’s social and family life. One would not do business with strangers. Therefore, a lot of time must be spent developing relationships before negotiating any business contracts.
Here is the Conversation:
Sam: It is very nice to meet you. Shall we get down to business?
Yoshio: Fine. I thought we might go to dinner tonight, then to the Kabuki tomorrow. I want to show you my country because it is your first visit to Japan.
After several days of social activities, Sam is growing increasingly impatient. Yoshio is feeling rushed by Sam’s insistence on discussing the contract. They begin contract talks.
This is the conversation:
Sam: This is my last price. Take it or leave it! I have to be back at my desk on Monday and this is the best I can do.
Yoshio: I know you are trying to give us a good price for our products.
Sam: It’s a deal, then…?
Yoshio: (long silence…)…
Sam: Fine. I’ll have my people draw up the papers for your approval. We’ll meet here again tomorrow.
Yoshio: Yes, I’ll see you tomorrow…
Sam’s Interpretation: Fabulous! They agreed to all our terms! The Japanese are easier to negotiate with than I thought. I’ll be on a plane home by noon tomorrow!
Yoshio’s Interpretation: How rude Americans are!! I can see we have our work cut out for us if we are ever going to agree on a contract. To threaten us with words like, “take it or leave it”! And, how uncivilized to refuse our hospitality! Tomorrow will be a very long day!
Discussion Questions:
Did Sam and Yoshio coordinate meaning? Not coordinate meaning? Partially coordinate meaning?
What was the context for the communication?
What were the rules for this context? For Sam? For Yoshio?
Let’s look at the speech act “Take it or Leave it!”What were the constitutive (definition) rules operating? Did they agree?
What were the regulative (behavior) rules operating? Did they agree?
Let’s look at the hierarchy of meaning. How were each of the negotiators creating meaning?Content?
Speech Acts?
Contract?
Episodes?
Life scripts?
Cultural patterns?
How can an understanding of the Coordinated Management of Meaning prevent a misunderstanding like this one from happening in your life?
________________________________________________________________________________Part 3
Cognitive Dissonance Theory
Here’s a good video (less than 5 minutes) that shows Leon Festinger, and another famous social psychologist, Dr. Philip Zimbardo, and how Cognitive Dissonance was developed in the 1950s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=korGK0yGIDo
As you read through this chapter, think about the "intrapersonal" dialogue that goes on when we feel an internal conflict. (Intrapersonal communication is the internal dialogue we have inside our own minds.) Indeed, we so dislike psychological discomfort or a sense of inconsistency between our values and our actions that we actively seek to NOT feel cognitive dissonance.
Because of that internal discomfort, people who experience cognitive dissonance are relatively easier to motivate to behave a particular way. They are looking for ways to reduce their internal discomfort. I think the four assumptions of CDT are particularly clear, so spend a little time absorbing the ideas about "magnitude of dissonance," "coping with dissonance," and "minimal justification."
1. Another important aspect of this theory is how it applies to the way we "manage" our perceptions through selection. Can you think of ways that you look for information that is consistent with your values and world view?
2. Look at the section on the "testability" of CDT. Note that what makes CDT difficult to test is not that it can be proved, but that it is difficult to disprove. Why does that happen when researchers look at CDT? What is it hard to disprove the theory? Can you think of a test that you could perform that would yield more definitive results?
South University Wk 2 Major Steps Involved in Implementing a Project Paper
Steps in Implementing Program or ProjectWhile public administrators are involved in all stages of the policy process, much ...
South University Wk 2 Major Steps Involved in Implementing a Project Paper
Steps in Implementing Program or ProjectWhile public administrators are involved in all stages of the policy process, much of their work is focused on implementation of public policies. Review the lecture notes and Chapter 9 before preparing this assignment, as the specific steps from which to develop your essay are clearly outlined.Write a well-organized, three- to four-page essay in which you summarize and discuss the major steps involved in implementing a program or project and identify some of the problems that can arise with each.NOTES CHAPTER 9 Discussions of government policy in areas such as agriculture, education, homeland security, emergency management, criminal justice, environmental quality, foreign affairs, health care, transportation, or land-use planning attempt to convey an impression of well-defined purposes—carefully mapped out, sufficient resources marshaled and at the ready, with consistent support through the political process. However, the realities of governing in the United States differ dramatically from this conception. In our complex and fragmented governmental system, there is often no single dominant political majority capable of determining policy in every instance. Congressional voting coalitions are usually temporary, changing from one issue to the next; presidential election majorities are often fashioned out of very diverse groups in the population, each with policy interests that conflict with others; court rulings may or may not coincide with public sentiment; administrative agencies are not permanently tied to any one political coalition. The combined impacts of these shifting attitudes, institutions, and a very diverse population on the definition, formulation, implementation, and evaluation of public policy often blur rather than clarify policy objectives and content. Instead of being clear and unmistakable government commitments, many policies are “mixed bags” of programs reflecting a variety of past actions and declarations, ad hoc responses to contemporary situations, and considerable uncertainty about future policy directions. Cynicism abounds as greater numbers of citizens express reservations about the capacity of executives, legislators, and public administrators to address fundamental and fiscal issues. Yet there are strong expectations that public problems will be tackled and that the resulting programs will be well managed—that they represent the culmination of deliberate efforts to analyze, plan, design, fund, and operate objectives. There is the further expectation that managers and others will be capable of evaluating the actual achievements of government programs. Although it is difficult to identify or rationalize all aspects of a given policy, managers must focus on discrete tasks involved in organizing and operating programs. This is necessary despite the ever-present swirl of political controversy, media scrutiny, opposing approaches offered by various interests, and bitter partisanship that frequently surrounds much of what governments try to accomplish. In these endeavors, a particular agency or bureau in the administrative process and the individuals within that organization (as well as other “stakeholders” such as recipients of public services, elected officials, and government contractors) must collaborate in a common effort to achieve policy goals. Managing public programs, individually and as they affect the course of public policies, involves major concerns discussed in previous chapters: expertise, ethics, effective management, executive and managerial leadership, organizational structure, motivation, decision making, personnel selection, and budgeting. All of these impact the roles of bureaucracy and the ultimate success or failure of government problem solving. And with growing sophistication in our capacity to analyze public programs has come a greater awareness of the need and potential for more intelligent, more “rational” conduct of public management processes. At the same time, increasing numbers of narrow-focused special-interest groups, commonly referred to as single-issue groups, mount well-funded campaigns on both sides of numerous issues. Therefore, policies are applied through a complicated and fragmented political process that is anything but rational, in classical/economic terms. In this chapter, we examine the nature of public policies; describe various policy-making processes, particularly as they involve individual administrators and private contractors; program management, planning, and analysis; implementation, including how some policy directions are altered in the course of managing individual programs; how programs are (or could be) evaluated; and the challenges of improving policy by applying analytical processes. The ultimate purpose is to understand how public policies evolve as they do, the role of administrative politics in this process, and the operational realities—including problems—of managing public programs to achieve policy goals.The Changing Nature of Public PoliciesWhat precisely is public policy? Many people regard public policies as deliberate responses or purposive actions to alleviate problems and needs systematically identified by some legitimate means. It is commonly assumed that government policies are intended to solve—or at least cope with—major social and economic problems. There is typically some disparity, however, between the perception of the average citizen about policy processes and the outcomes and realities of policy making.public policy(1) organizing framework of purposes and rationales for government programs that deal with specified societal problems; (2) complex of programs enacted and implemented by government. Let us consider some of the most common popular assumptions about government policy. First, some people believe that governments have clearly defined policies, well-thought-out in advance, on all or most major issues and problems. Second, many believe these policies are established through some kind of rational choice of better (as opposed to worse) alternatives made by political leaders. Third, some think everything that is done to address a problem or issue follows those policies. Fourth, it is often assumed that the policies of government are clearly perceived and understood by citizens. And fifth, many believe that government policies are widely agreed on and supported—otherwise, how could they remain in force? As appealing or logical as these ideas might be, not one of them is true. Public policies are generally not clearly defined in the sense that all major problems are anticipated and the machinery of government geared up to meet them before they become unmanageable. That would require the kind of centralized leadership inconsistent with the Constitution and resisted by many of us. Some processes designed to foresee future developments and prepare for them have not accomplished all that they were intended to, and “circumstances beyond our control” often prevail. With the exception of threats to national security and major natural disasters, it is unusual to have a consistent policy for dealing with a specific problem. As a practical matter, governments could not possibly have predetermined policies on all issues, especially accidents, natural disasters such as earthquakes, wild fires, tornadoes, floods, and hurricanes, as well as deliberate acts of terror. Thus, policies are more often the product of responses to particular circumstances or problems rather than the result of deliberate actions. They frequently result from ad hoc decisions made at many levels, at different times, by officials and others who see only some parts of the overall problem. Rational policy choice implies a decision-making capacity largely lacking in most of our noncentralized government institutions. The diffuse intergovernmental array of some 87,000 state and local governments, combined with differences of opinion among over 500,000 elected nationwide policy makers, further weakens the capacity for centrally coordinated actions. Because of this size and diversity, many government activities do not follow official policy directions or support publicly stated goals. Political party platforms, pronouncements by top executives, state and local initiatives and referenda, even Congressional resolutions are often a better reflection of intent than of reality in policy making. What actually takes place often differs from official proclamations of what was supposed to occur. Also, we tend to pay more attention to government activity that is likely to have a tangible impact on our lives, but otherwise it is unusual for large numbers of people to comprehend the intricacies of public policy. A good example is foreign policy. Different ethnic and nationality groups are sensitive to even small changes in what this nation does or contemplates doing regarding their mother countries or other entities with which those groups identify, but most citizens have only a generalized awareness of our overall foreign policy. Another issue that defies easy comprehension is climate change. Although we are generally aware of the ostensible (apparent) effects of climate change on the environment, we tend to view government policy options and actions through the “lenses” of our own experiences. Unless we are personally and immediately affected by climate change (or by any other broad policy concern), we are most likely to accept the status quo, and to question policy proposals that may require us to make significant changes in the ways we live our lives. The visibility of any particular problem or set of issues affects our awareness of proposed public policy. Many domestic policies are also understood only in broad outline. In short, it is not accurate to assume that most Americans are knowledgeable in detail about individual policies. Finally, it is rarely true that there is widespread, active support for existing public policies, although most have at least passive backing. Policy directions that offend basic values of large numbers of people are not likely to be sustained for very long without at least being challenged. Examples of sharp public reaction to disputed policies include resistance to the Supreme Court ban on prayers in the public schools, opposition to judicial rulings on abortion, challenges to hiring preferences and “quotas” for affirmative action, disagreement over the display of religious symbols such as the Ten Commandments in state facilities, opposition to and support for the use of vouchers for public school students to attend private schools, and expressions of public distaste for some forms of public health and safety regulation. In one sense, policies that exist without widespread challenge may be taken as a barometer of public feeling about what is acceptable, generally speaking. Few policies survive that offend either powerful political interests or large numbers of ordinary citizens, or both. In sum, although support for what government does is not necessarily enthusiastic, policies must have a certain amount of acceptability. However, the most acceptable policies may not be the most effective, and the most effective policies may not be acceptable to a majority or a vocal minority. Some compromise is often necessary to implement most public policies. It makes a difference which situations are defined as problems, who defines them, and why they deserve attention in the policy arena. Unequal access to affordable health care, for example, was part of the American scene for decades before President Barack Obama defined it as a high-priority problem in 2008. Although the problem was analyzed and various options were formulated by experts using a rational policy approach (see Chapter 5), opponents were successful in labeling the changes as “socialized medicine,” assuring its defeat in Congress prior to 2010. Nuclear reactor safety, climate change, crime control, job training, “welfare-to-workfare” reform, sex discrimination, and the AIDS epidemic are examples of issue areas that were defined as policy problems long before any action was taken. Also, policy initiatives can come from many parts of the body politic—the president, Congress, interest groups, the mass media, state or local governments, and so on. Perhaps the only policy maker prohibited in theory from initiating policy changes on its own is the judiciary. Chief executives are usually in the best position to take the initiative, but they have no monopoly on attempting to raise awareness of issues for public and governmental attention. Furthermore, most policy changes come about slowly; it is far easier to resist change than to bring it about. American government tends to move in evolutionary fashion; incrementalism has generally been the order of the day. Finally, many policy actions are more symbolic than real. Symbolism is not without value in politics, but it should be understood for what it is and not be confused with substantive change.1 State laws punishing desecration of the American flag, legalizing moments of silence to counter federal court decisions banning school prayer, permitting the display of state flags bearing Confederate symbols, and calls for a balanced federal budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution are largely symbolic, but no less important to constituent groups. Because most citizens are unfamiliar with the details of policy, symbolic actions are often sufficient to satisfy calls for change without threatening the status quo. The passing of public attention from an issue often signals a slowdown in dealing with it, even if many in government would prefer to move more rapidly. Organized group support and opposition make a major difference in how substantive—or simply cosmetic—policy changes are. Public policies, then, tend to be haphazard, not widely understood or actively supported, and often inconsistently applied. Not all situations in society that might be classified as problem areas are, in fact, defined as such. At other times, problems that affect only a small, but politically powerful, minority are defined as public issues deserving of broader attention. This happened in 2008, when the Bush administration tried to ease stock market jitters with an ambitious plan to assist banks, corporations, Wall Street firms, and other financial institutions with significant investments of federal loans and loan guarantees to rescue financially troubled companies. And sometimes an unspoken policy exists to take no action on a problem; the decision not to act can be just as significant as a stated government policy to those interests that benefit from the status quo. When changes in policy do occur, they tend to be rather slow and unfocused. That any coherent policies exist is often a surprise.Types of PoliciesThere is great variety in the kinds of policies pursued by government entities. These can be distinguished on the basis of their essential rationales, their impacts on society, and the respective roles played by administrative agencies in each. Major policy types include distributive, redistributive, regulatory, self-regulatory, and its logical corollary, privatization.2 Distributive policies deliver large-scale services or benefits to certain individuals or groups in the population. Examples are loans and loan guarantees provided by the national government to cover private-sector losses, such as those suffered by the commercial airlines following September 11, 2001, and the banking, financial services, and financial services industries in 2007–2008; agricultural price supports, especially those benefitting wealthy farmers; tax deductions for interest paid on home mortgages; loans for college students; subsidies to energy and oil companies (sometimes labeled “corporate welfare”); and government contracts to politically active private firms. These involve policy subsystems or iron triangles (described in Chapter 2) on almost an ad hoc basis, with direct beneficiaries who do not pay direct costs. Bureaucracies are often, but not always, involved in both the enactment of such policies and their implementation. President George W. Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, was heavily criticized for engineering the “bailout” of politically influential corporations in 2007–2008. The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) bailout was originally estimated to cost taxpayers $300 billion, but current Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner estimated that all but $25 billion of the loans would be paid back by the summer of 2011.distributive policiespolicy actions such as subsidies or tax deductions that deliver widespread benefits to individuals or groups who often do not bear the costs directly. Redistributive policies “involve deliberate efforts by the government to shift the allocation of wealth, income, property, or rights among broad classes or groups” within the population.3 These efforts are often the source of intense controversy in the political arena, controversy that could significantly impact the execution of a policy as well as its initial adoption. Thus, redistributive policies such as affirmative action, the graduated (or “progressive”) income tax, Medicaid for the poor and (to a lesser extent) Medicare for the elderly, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) were all subject to intense debate and conflict during legislative deliberations. This type of policy is most sensitive politically and thus most susceptible to political pressures. It is also very difficult to implement policies that are redistributive across economic classes in society. Many policies that began with this goal have lost much of their redistributive character as a result of changes (for example tax exemptions, lower tax rates, income shelters, and similar loopholes) made in the basic law—some of which were proposed by the agency responsible for its administration! Because of the controversy they generate, redistributive policies almost inevitably draw bureaucracies directly into the policy process, even though many would prefer to remain on the sidelines. In other instances, agencies with jurisdiction over redistributive policies have taken the lead in maintaining their essential character.
3 pages
Decision Making And Problem Solving Worksheet.edited
Talal is a young guy who has just completed a Master's in Business Studies and would like to take a serious career decisio ...
Decision Making And Problem Solving Worksheet.edited
Talal is a young guy who has just completed a Master's in Business Studies and would like to take a serious career decision. He prefers starting a ...
8 pages
Bs Concepts File
The company Say Cheese wants to grow the business by adding two more pizza shops in Vermont through the acquisition of the ...
Bs Concepts File
The company Say Cheese wants to grow the business by adding two more pizza shops in Vermont through the acquisition of the existing Pizza shops. The ...
Financial risk in Samsung company, presentation help
I have a 3 mins presentation about Financial risk in Samsung company and I will talk about these points below. w ...
Financial risk in Samsung company, presentation help
I have a 3 mins presentation about Financial risk in Samsung company and I will talk about these points below. write down what do I need to say ( I will read it when I present)-Samsung is a global company that’s operating in consumer appliances and gadgets market.- The company’s revenue is about 19% of South Korea’s GDP.- Financial risk analysis is a concept where a company intends to widen its consumer market.- It has expanded global network to expanded its market and thus reduce financial crisis- It has microbusiness via franchising thus reducing financial risk- Samsung has decided to shift its focus on profitability by opening up many markets in the developing world hence expanding its global network.
Earn money selling
your Study Documents