Questions Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words - 5

Questions - Essay Example He was interested by the fact that the species were different. He concluded that the species were different because they dwelled in different environments The concept of natural selection explains how species evolves and genes are passed from generation to the next. Darwin argues that a species can develop a functional advantage in that the species grows wing and learn to fly. He asserts that the offspring will inherit that advantage and pass it on to the offsprings. On the other hand, those who are disadvantaged but members of the same species will gradually die and live the superior members of the same species. Species preserve the functional advantage and that help the species to compete in the harsh environment. Darwin’s explanation of the origin of species in 1859 was criticized by Christians because they believed in God’s creation for six days. The natural selection was received with hostility because his ideas were not with alignment with biblical descriptions on how Adam and Eve were created. In addition, after the arrival of Darwin’s theory, scientists conflicted and they did not support the idea of evolution. A vector is a vehicle that transfers genetic materials to a target cell. The significance of vectors is to pass on the genes to the intended cell. For evolution to take place there has to be passage of genetic materials from one species to the other. Hence the vector facilitates the movement of biological traits from one generation to the other. Equilibrium is a principle that explains that genes remain the same from one generation to the other without any disturbing factor. If the situation remains constant then there will be evolution stability. However this can be affected by forces such as mutations, natural selection, non random mating, genetic drift and gene flow. Isolation can promote genetic divergence through mechanisms such as mutation, genetic drift and natural selection. Allopathic speciation is a

Deliberative Democracy Essay Example for Free

Deliberative Democracy Essay To what extent is deliberative democracy an appropriate approach for resolving public policy problems? Definition of democracy. Deliberative approach as a type of democracy. Types of cases, when deliberative democracy is substituted by other types of democracy. The power of majority or the power of nation The power of minority or the power of representatives of interested parties The power of elite or power of professional politicians Deliberative forum as an important instrument of deliberative democracy. The deliberative democracy as continuation of traditions of former concepts in legal government. The deliberative democracy in works of Dewey, Cohen and Rippe. Cohen and his postulates of discourses. Habermas and his approach to deliberative democracy. Critical opinions regarding deliberative politics. Conclusion. Definition of democracy. We hear word â€Å"democracy† quite often in our everyday life. The main meaning of this word is easy to understand. But still, there are a lot of types of democracy. Let’s examine the most interesting kind of democracy – a deliberative democracy and find out, to what extent is deliberative democracy an appropriate approach for resolving public policy problems. Deliberative approach as a type of democracy. It is well known that democracy as a kind of organization of social-political life of the society is a preferable policy for any country. Still, we need to underline that democracy, as well as any other social-political system, is able to show it in different forms, depending on conditions. One of such forms is so-called deliberative democracy. It is such kind of â€Å"democracy, where citizens play the main role in political processes of society† (Barber Winter 1998-1999, p.588). Quite often it is called also a civil democracy. Actually, almost any nation in the world knows what it is, because such social-political system is quite ancient. Almost any nation had tradition of community, where they discussed problems and the ways how to solve these problems, as well as discussion and adoption of practical ways out. The role of citizen starts exactly from this point – from mutual discussion and action in politics within the limits of deliberative democracy. Such type of democracy supposes that a citizen is the effective political actor at the political scene of his country. It is also supposed that active citizen has a number of qualities, which are determined to define quality of his effectiveness. Such citizen has to be able to find out, to discuss and to feel responsibility for problems of his society and to be able to unite with other citizens in order to take decisions. It is also important to take into account all sides of political events, interests and values of other citizens and to find a common base to take effective and preferable decisions. Nevertheless, although such kind of democracy is very interesting, it is very difficult to develop and to maintain its vitality. Types of cases, when deliberative democracy is substituted by other types of democracy. One of the main conditions of existing of deliberative democracy is high level of political and legal competence of its citizens and their desire to participate in political process of their country. Deliberative democracy is changed into other types of problematical democracies when it is impossible to have such conditions. Let’s examine several types of such cases. a) The power of majority or the power of nation One of them is the power of majority or the power of nation. Such type of democracy is often called a direct majority system. The decisions are taken on the base of opinions of majority. The elements of such democracy are referendums, different kinds of Gallup polls and one-stage elections. As a result, process of politics becomes simpler and ability of society to solve difficult social problems is decreased. The power of minority or the power of representatives of interested parties The other kind of democracy is the power of minority or the power of representatives of interested parties. The main demand of this type of democracy, which is called a representative democracy, is that all layers of population have their representatives in the institutions of governing. The problem is that such kind of democracy often becomes anamorphous. In particular, separate groups, who have their interests, start to dominate in political system. As a result, politics, which is brought into society, becomes highly specialized and oriented on only those groups, whose representatives were able to lobby their interests at the governmental level. The power of elite or power of professional politicians Another type of democracy is the power of elite or power of professional politicians. Such type of democracy means that citizens â€Å"almost don’t take part in politics and become cynical in relation to political process† (Finley 1972, p.78). Such politics seems to be the matter of chosen (professionals and specialists) – politicians, managers of election campaigns, image-makers, lobbyists, sociologists, pressmen, etc. Technocratic approach makes this kind of democracy different and almost displaces the citizens from political scene. Deliberative forum as an important instrument of deliberative democracy. Deliberative democracy in comparison with these types of democracy is completely different. It brings into politics voices of citizens, which are ale to change something in political processes of their country. This voice is not associated with simple public opinion, defined by the Gallup polls, simple voting or protesting. Instruments, which help deliberative democracy to function in the modern society, are various. The â€Å"most important instrument of deliberative democracy is so-called deliberative forum† (Honig 1993, p.2). Such forum represents not a simple discussion of a problem, but strictly regulated discussion accordingly to a definite form. Before such forum takes place, its organizers – often it is a kind of initiative group from the number of active citizens – work out the form of problem’s discussion. Participants of this forum obey to the form of discussion with help of qualified moderators (people, who are responsible for the forum). The stages of forum are as follows: The participants share their experience of personal attitude regarding to the problem discussed. Moderator explains to the participants the essence of problem and gives three-four main approaches to solve it. He explains also possibilities to solve it practically, advantages and disadvantages of each approach as well. We have to note that approaches of variants of problem solving are prepared before the forum takes place and are made on the basis of dozens of small forums, Gallup polls, interviews with citizens, governmental authorities, different organizations and other parties, who are involved in problem, etc. The participants discuss approaches of problem solving and reach consensus basing on the most preferable position. It is also very important that participants of such a forum listen to discussions of their partners and can â€Å"change their opinion in the process of discussion† (Bohman 1997, p.343). The practice of such forum shows that situations, when participants of forum change their opinion and prefer other approach, represented by other working group, are quite often. It proves once more that deliberation (discussion) is very strong and important instrument of political influence on citizens and is very important in resolving political public problems. We need to note that deliberation is different from debates. Debates are based on principle that it is very important to prove your own opinion, your own point of view by proving ineffectiveness of your opponent’s opinion. Deliberation presupposes enrichment of your own opinion and gives possibility to reexamine it in the light of discussions and opinions of other participants. The participants work out practical actions for realization of chosen approach and decide when they have to meet the next time to continue chosen practical measures. Moderators make report on results of the forum and present the report to the parties which can be interested and which are able to influence resolving problem. Such report is presented to mass media as well. The deliberative democracy as continuation of traditions of former concepts in legal government. The deliberative democracy is opposed to the kinds of aforementioned democracies. It is also opposed to aggregative democracy, which reflects the results of compromises between the group interests. It is based not on the â€Å"balance of interests, but on the power of arguments for the sake of the good of all citizens† (Bohman, J. Rehg 1997, p.IX). The public sphere is examined as the scene of wide discourse of citizens and reproduces the base for idea of public sovereignty. This civil reflection is not limited by any pre-determined principles. It acts only within the limits of known procedure rules. Actually, the deliberative process is used as the democracy, which allows discovering the sense of taken decisions and their consequences for society in common. Such concept represents a reaction on crisis condition of modern forms of Western democracy. The model of deliberative democracy seems to be idealistic and very interesting. Such concept arouses the question of organic interaction of society and government. It focuses attention on modification of public sphere as the important point of civil activity and influence of civil activity on the governmental politics as well. The deliberative democracy continues traditions of â€Å"former concepts of legal government and is examined as democracy of rational discourse, discussion, conviction, argumentation and compromise† (Connolly 1991, p.1). It is based on the statement that a modern human is a citizen, who takes active part in the life of society. His roles in society as a client and consumer are mixed together with roles of participant in political and public processes. The modern human has tendency to non-belonging to any political party, because he is ready to make compromise and to refuse from his preferences to reach compromise. When we use tradition of legal government conception (particularly, the conception of Kant), we suppose that governmental-legal sphere should be examined to the maximum flexibility. It should be possible to take into account any new theme of discussion, opinions and re-examination of results. First of all we need to solve such problems as role of majority, opinions of minority, parliamentary responsibility and corporatism. The deliberative democracy in works of Dewey, Cohen and Rippe. Deliberative democracy is a concept, used by J. Dewey, which is examined in the modern political theory by such authors as Cohen, Rippe, Habermas, etc. Dewey proposed to refuse from usual understanding of democracy as political domination of majority and to examine the process from the other side, as way to obtain power by the majority of citizens. It can be done with help of public discourses and lobbying interests by social groups and minorities in different discussions and forums. â€Å"The rule of majority is as stupid, as critics speak about it. Still, it had never been only the rule of majority†¦ The means with help of which the majority becomes the majority, are much more important: debates, modification of opinions, discussions with minority, etc†¦ BY the other words, the efficient necessity of democracy is in improvement of methods and conditions of debates, discussions and forums†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Dewey 1954, p 207) So, the very concept of publicity of politics has more important results that the results of politics itself. The idea of deliberative democracy is based on intuition of publicity. It became an independent concept, which doesn’t understand the aim of politics to satisfy interests of all people separately as liberal doctrine. On the contrary, it is the model, oriented on forum, where â€Å"concepts about â€Å"good† for all people is discussed by means of mutual discussion of citizens† (Rippe 2001, p.141.). Cohen explains the method of constitution of the political society. He explains the concept of deliberative democracy by means of a definite ideal procedure of consultation and taking decisions in political institutions. â€Å"The concept of deliberative democracy is based on the intuitive ideal of democratic association, where the justification of rules and conditions of such association is made with help of public arguments and reflexion between the equal citizens. Deliberative politics stipulates that the parties should present grounds for their proposals, support or criticism The grounds should be presented clearly, and all participants can accept the proposal or refuse from it, presenting their critical points of view by means of free discussion between the equal† (Cohen 1989, p.25) Cohen and his postulates of discourses. In such a way, we can define a number of discourses, which are examined as political function and are able to constitute political public society. Cohen speaks about several postulates of such procedures: Such consultations should be made in argumentative form, i.e. by means of well-ordered information between the parties; Consultations should be open and public. Nobody can be excluded from the number of participants; Consultations are free and nobody can force the partner to accept a proposal, except by force of arguments; Consultations have the aim of rationally motivated agreement and can continue as long as possible. Still, the majority can take decision to stop them temporarily; Political consultations first of all should be the subject of discussion of problems, which are the most important and interesting; Political consultations also can be used for â€Å"interpretation of demands and pre-political postulates† (Cohen 1989, p.22). They shouldn’t be limited by valuable consensus, based on common tradition and practice. Habermas and his approach to deliberative democracy. We can see that postulates of deliberative democracy are, actually, the reflexion of discourse theory into politics. So, it is no wonder that the concept of deliberative politics was accepted by Habermas and examined in his book â€Å"Faktizità ¤t und Geltung†, basing on the concepts of discourse theory (Habermas 1998, p.35). Habermas examines new concept of civil society, taking closer concepts of civil society and political public. He retains world orientation, which is resulted on liberal political culture. At the same time he focuses attention on forms of communication, organization and institutionalization of people in communities, where they form opinions, ideas, ideals, motives, values and orientations of different kind. Such conception allows forming new civil society, â€Å"plural, effective and responsible†. Habermas tries to find the principles and values of new civil society in many-sided communication of individuals, groups, countries and regions. We can find also the motive of ambivalent attitude (inheritance and refusal at the same time) to Utopian tradition of modern as consensus of free individuals being the basis of righteous civil order, and with institutional problems of real capitalism. Habermas examines ideals of bourgeois humanism, such as self-organization, rational forming of political will, personal and collective self-determination, self-organization of society – at the background of cynical reality of the modern society. He changes the conceptual pair ideal-reality by the search of potential of rationality in everyday communicative practice. The last one is the basis of ideas, which finds expression in ideals of classical philosophy and continues to be important nowadays. He examines the concept of â€Å"public opinion† as formal structure of communication and presupposition of possibility to reach consensus. What are the ways to form political consensus, which is important for society self-organization? The model of deliberative democracy, supported by Habermas, supposes the ideal of society, consisting of free and equal individuals, who determine forms of mutual life in political communication. The concept of discussion and procedure of political problems and taking decisions is taken as criteria of democracy of the real political process. The procedure of forming opinions and will of the nation should be understood as democratic self-organization. The decision, which is supported by the majority of citizens, should be understood as the legal. Political communication should rationally form the will of participants. The problem of relations between the government and civil society should be examined through the prism of liberal and republican political traditions. The concept of society as a political value (societas civilis) equalizes democracy with political self-organization of society as the one body. It is based on republican tradition, which supports the ideas of Aristotle and Rousseau. The government as bureaucratic administrative mechanism should become a part of society as a whole. Deliberative democracy is not a simple power of citizens’ opinions. It is rather the possibility of power of reason, which is a result of citizens’ discussions. Coordination of plans of activity among the citizens supposes the constant standards of behavior, which stipulate and stabilize mutual social expectations. Stabilization of social character is executed thanks to mutual participation of citizens as well as communication, which coordinates activity of individuals. The aim of communication is to reach consensus. Critical opinions regarding deliberative politics. Still, there are some critical opinions regarding deliberative democracy. Let’s examine some of them. Critics write that the discussions can focus attention on different problems, which are found in the process of discussions. Those problems can influence on â€Å"positive taking decisions, because they can worsen situation by arousing different disagreements† (Held 1995, p.92). Even if the discussion helps to reach agreement, sometimes there are cases when such agreement is undesirable. People are able to get satisfaction from feeling of their â€Å"unevenness† and â€Å"difference†. And, on the contrary, they can think that consensus can lead to mediocrity. Such participants of discussion can understand the competition of ideas – dispute – to be vitally important for their personal freedom. Such institutional embodiments of thought lay on the basis of different attributes of democracy. So, we can resume, that the discussion not always leads to consensus. Also, when a discussion leads to consensus, it is not always can be examined as the advantage. The deliberative approach is criticized also because its aim is based on optimistic pre-suppositions regarding the government. Nevertheless, any theory has its weak points. Conclusion At the same time deliberative model of society focuses attention on personal rights of citizens, the principle of equality and practice of government. The ability to actualize those rights can be understood as ability to be a citizen in such deliberative society. Sharing position of Habermas, we can suppose that democratic society prepares the establishment of status of a liberal citizen. Such kind of participation in political processes of society is very important and actual in forming of â€Å"conscious† citizen and gives him possibility to participate in taking politically important decision and resolving public problems. In such a way, deliberative democracy presupposes education of responsible citizen, able to estimate difficulty of problems. Such citizen is able to accept legal interests of other interested groups (including traditional opponents). Principle of deliberative democracy generates the feeling of united nation and can be called an appropriate approach for resolving public policy problems. Works Cited: Barber, B. (Winter 1998-1999). Three Scenarios for the Future of Technology and Strong Democracy, â€Å"Political Science Quarterly†,vol. 113, â„â€"4 Bohman, J. (1997). â€Å"Deliberative Democracy and Effective Social Freedom: Capabilities, Resources, and Opportunities† in Deliberative Democrac, Essays on Reason and Politics, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts-London Bohman, J. Rehg, W. (1997). (ed.) Deliberative Democracy, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massach.-London, England Cohen, J. (1989). Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy, Hablin A., Pettit B. (Hrsg.), The Good Polity, Oxford Connolly, W. (1991). Identity / Difference: Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox, N.Y. Dewey, J. (1954). The Public and its Problems, Chicago Finley, M. (1972). Democracy, Ancient and Modern. New Brunswick Habermas, J. (1998). Faktizità ¤t und Geltung, Frankfurt a.M. Held, D. (1995). Democracy and the Global Order, From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance, Cambridge, Great Britain Honig, Ð’. (1993). Political Theory and the Displacement of Politics, N.Y. Rippe, K.-P. (2001). Ethikkommissionen in der deliberativen Demokratie, Kettner M. (Hrsg.), Angewandte Ethik als Politikum. Frankfurt

Principle-agent Problem in Shareholders and Managers

Principle-agent Problem in Shareholders and Managers This essay identifies the principle-agent problem between shareholders and managers. It also overlooks UKs corporate governance compared to Germany and Japan. Furthermore effectiveness of UKs system will be analyzed amid recommendations to reduce the vulnerability. Economic theory speculates that a firms goal is to capitalize on shareholders wealth; achievable with entrepreneurial firm since owners are managers. However, ownership nowadays is significantly diluted, with companies owned by large shareholder groups. This causes the separation of ownership and management which hinders the relationship between shareholders and managers; where managers replace shareholders interest with their own. This may be due to information asymmetry  [1]  where managers have the power to act in accordance to shareholder needs. This is known as the agency problem and is common in modern corporate. Under this theory the relationship is formed through a binding contract whereby principals (shareholders) appoint the agents (managers) to execute services with authority to make decisions. However such contracts are imperfect as the impracticality to include every action of the agent whose decisions has an impact on their and the principals benefits. Thus, self interested behaviour arises in organisations as the interest of both parties diverges, i.e. principals interest regards maximisation of shareholders wealth (profit maximisation) whereas agents interest lies in own utility maximisation (bonuses/promotion). Shareholders permit managers to run the firms assets; resulting in a conflict of interest. The fundamental problem therefore is to align the interests of both parties. Furthermore, principals expect board of directors to base their decisions on maximising equity value. However the board of directors expect managers to follow strategies that support their goals. This situation illustrates that shareholders have no direct input into the operation and therefore have no power to tell managers what to do. This issue arises because of the separation of ownership and control and therefore managers are able to pursue goals beneficial to them and unfavourable to shareholders. Overall, detachment between the two parties increases lack of goal congruence. The question arises as to why shareholders do not monitor management? There are three reasons why taking control causes difficulties. (1) Expensive to monitor managerial activities as obtaining information is difficult (2) disgruntled shareholders are unable to pose threats in order to reduce undesirable managerial behaviour i.e. hiring an outside member and (3) dispersed shareholders have an incentive to free ride. Keasy et al 1997 regards the above as economic costs to monitoring. These limitations pose problems for shareholder wealth since undesirable managerial actions takes place in the absence of control. Shareholders may introduce incentive packages which include profit related bonuses, performance, promotion incentives and encourage employees to buy shares which increase their wages, to encourage agents to make optimal effort. Due to the above problems, nations have developed systems which carry out independent monitoring and control of the firm in order to align the overall goal. OECD 1999 stated that corporate governance structure specifies the distribution of rights and responsibilities among different participants in the corporation, and spells out the rules and procedures for making decisions on corporate affairs. By doing this, it also provides the structure through which the company objectives are set, and the means of attaining those objectives and monitoring performance. In UK capital markets play a vital role where share prices advocates performance levels. Managements focus is to maximize shareholders wealth through the use of independent board of directors. The fear of takeover bids forces management to undergo effective actions. Approximately 50% of shares are held by institutional investors indicating dominant ownership. Cadbury Report 1992 states large proportion of shareholder ownership influence companys actions. In 2008 the Financial Reporting council developed the Combined Code i.e. various reports/codes pertaining good corporate governance. The most influential is Cadbury Report 1992  [2]  , was produced as the lack of monitoring management activities caused several scandals whereby executives acted in their interest. Initially, Polly Peck  [3]  went into liquidation after years of false accounting leading to scrutinizing of the financial aspects and accountability. However after the scams of BCCI and Robert Maxwell, they revised the relationship between boards, auditors and shareholders. The final report states CEOs and Chairmans of companies should be separated. Jenson 1993  [4]  states that if roles were mutual, conflict of interest would arise. Furthermore, 3 non-executive directors, two of whom should be independent  [5]  and an audit committee involving non-executives should be included. Companies were encouraged to follow these practises alongside the code of best practise which outlines other areas of concern. However the one size fits all problem was recognised by Cadbury causing all companies registered in UK to follow the comply or explain system. Companies should comply with corporate best practise or have legitimate reasons for non-compliance. Furthermore, the board must offer a full explanation to shareholders and explicate how their practises are consistent with shareholders. Its acceptable only when shareholders believe good governance has been achieved. Greenbury committee, formed to evaluate directors remuneration packages and the lack of disclosure of payments in the annual reports, commenced over publics anger regarding increases in executive pay. The report added to the Cadbury Code and advised (1) each board include a remuneration committee involving independent non-executives briefing shareholders annually and (2) directors should have LT  [6]  performance related pay, all disclosed in the annual accounts. Moreover, progress should be reviewed every 3 years to ensure companies are operating effectively. The Hampel committee  [7]  formed in 1998 suggested all previous principles should be collaborated into a Combined Code. Furthermore, the chairman of the boards should act as the leader, investors should consider voting the share and all remunerations information including pensions should be disclosed. The Turnbull Committee, created the next year, advised that directors should be held accountable for internal financial and auditing controls. Several reports have contributed to the Combined Code namely the Higgs review outlining the actions of non-executives. More recently, after the collapse of Northern Rock and the financial crisis that followed, the Walker Review formed a report concerning banking sectors. The Financial Reporting Council produced a new Stewardship Code in 2010. Germanys corporate system is mainly stakeholder oriented and diffuses away from shareholders interests. The objective is maximising stakeholder value thereby revealing several distinctive differences. Firstly, the banking sector is a major stakeholder. Charkham (1994) stated that banks hold a dominate position in financing and supervising companies for numerous reasons. (1) During 1870 companies were heavily reliant on credit. Banks began offering LT loans to LT clients who tied the companies, obtaining ownership and acting as shareholders within industrial firms. (2) Banks hold 25% of voting capital in large corporations and 28% of seats on the supervisory boards. (3) Banks are shareholder representatives, authorised to vote for their shares plus proxy shares  [8]  , giving further control. Consequently companies are unlikely to face takeovers, since banks will support them through financial hardships unlike in the UK. Secondly, co-operative culture is articulated under the Co-determination Act 1976 whereby workers obtain significant roles in the management process; known as work councils. Work council staff influence business actions and partake in decision making processes. Employees (elected by work councils) sit on the supervisory board when a firm has more than 2000 employees alongside shareholder representatives. This system reduces workforce conflicts by improving communication channels, increase bargaining power of workers through legislations and finally correct market failures. Overall productivity levels increase, with low levels of strikes as better pay and conditions entailing good industrial relations. Finally, Germany involves a two tier board compared to UKs one tier board. It includes a management board (Vorstand) where managers monitor daily operation and conduct of the firm. Plus a supervisory board (Aufsichtsrat) involving only non-executives  [9]  who monitor the management board responsibilities and approving decisions. Separation of the two increases the awareness of individual responsibilities and helps prevent management abuse. The downfall is having worker representatives on the supervisory board as they will opt for decisions beneficial for employees rather than company. For example closing down a factory may deem good for the company however problematic for redundant employees, making it is difficult to work in the best interest of the company. Germanys corporate system lies heavily on good industrial relations which considers its company, employees and public. It shows corporations are a social institution rather than an economic one as it does not put financial value for shareholders at the top of the list of policy objectives  [10]  . Shareholders are seen as one of many stakeholders and not just a privileged constituency. The Japanese corporate governance revolves around banking relations like Germany along with life time employment. There are prominent features including the intervention of government and close alliances between government and companies. Business and industrial activities are monitored by the Japanese Ministry of Finance, involving them in the management and decision process. Japanese corporate rely on main banks  [11]  which are all interlinked with firms, forming a concentrated ownership (shareholders). Prowse 1992 states that individuals hold 26.7% of a firms equity while corporations hold 67.3%. Unlike western countries, Japanese banks can hold equities up to 5%. The argument is by acting as lenders and shareholders, conflict of interests of debt providers and equity will be eradicated. Moreover banks hold these equities for long periods, building a LT banking relationship unlike UKs transactional banking. Furthermore, they are involved with the internal management by obtaining seats on the board of directors. They actively contribute in the decision process and act as insurers for companies entering financial difficulties i.e. bankruptcy or takeovers. Like Germany, banks form LT contracts with companies based on financial services and supervision and act as representatives for other shareholders through proxy votes. One major distinction in Japan is the Keiretsu system. Companies form close alliances mainly between banks, businesses and the government, by working towards each other success. The role of the government became important when they intervened in 1990s as Japan suffered a recession. The government wanted to restore the economy through its policies and regulations by improving the corporate governance to stimulate growth and investment. Germany and Japan both work toward the interest of the company and workers as a collective. However Japans board structure is different as all members consist of former employees excluding outside directors apart from bank officials. The boards have more members than UK and Germany as some companies have over 60 directors. This proves very effective as no domination of directors occur. According to Allen and Gale (2000), focusing on stakeholders rather than solely on shareholders, societies resources are being used efficiently as employees, suppliers and customers are taken into account. This enhances productivity, thus generating higher profits, benefiting the firm and shareholders. Since 1990 the UK have implemented many policies reforming the management and governance of companies. These range from codes, reports, regulation and legislations; but how effective are they? To ensure company interests are aligned with shareholders, UK has imposed various committees to monitor the effectiveness. For example, audit committees review audits annually and overlook financial relationships between companies and auditors. Nomination committees administer human resources and plans future directors. Compensation committees examine management actions and daily operations. Moreover the existence of institutional investors has its advantages as investing in firms they have incentive and motivation to monitor them. This leads to high performance levels which reduces agency costs. However, companies practise ST  [12]  profit maximisation without LT planning making companies underperform, therefore investors sell their shares and exit rather than voice their discontent (occurs mainly in Germany). Overall UKs approach in monitoring company interest is effective as companies have majority of existing shareholders through the need of committees. The Code of best practice gives shareholders confidence that companies are operating with high levels of transparency during decision making processes. From this, the comply or explain system was created, whereby some freedom is left for companies to make effective decisions. The gains from this is that (1) managers and shareholders follow the LT interest of both the company and owners (2) distinguishes the culture barrier individual firms face since there are different levels, size and ownership of companies, whereas code of best practice instils one size fits all rule. Moreover, codes are more effective than regulations as companies can grow whereas enforcing strict internal controls companies are limited to procedures. Furthermore, codes tackle more softer problems relating to best practise compared to regulations i.e. training and supporting directors in their role. The Cadbury Report reflects the above whereby The effectiveness with which boards discharge their responsibilities determines Britains competitiveness position. They must be free to drive their companies forward, but exercise that freedom within a framework of effective accountability. This is the essence of any system of good corporate governance. For this system to work effectively shareholders require full disclosure to facilitate them in their decisions and having rights when dissatisfied. Consequently companies must disclose information in their annual reports stating how they have applied the combined code and giving shareholders voting rights to discharge directors. All these requirements are set out under the company law making the system successful since it was adopted in EC  [13]  and included in the EUD  [14]  in 2006; outlining same principles. Empirical evidence show that UK has drawn close to the concept of good corporate governance. According to the FTSE ISS Corporate Governance Index and Governance Metrics International Reports, the UK has the highest average governance score out of all the countries. Moreover 94%  [15]  of UK pension Funds considered corporate standards in the UK has developed exceptionally. The following reforms revolve around two primary issues (1) lack of separation of management and control and (2) dilemma faced by non-executive directors in terms of monitoring. Accordingly UKs current reforms indicated the need for independent non-executive directors to minimise conflicts otherwise present. However, the disadvantage regarding this independence is, there is less incentive to spend a sufficient amount of time controlling company issues because they have no direct relationship with the company. In addition, doubts on how much knowledge they acquire also poses a problem. One possible pivotal solution that could be incorporated into UK governance is increasing the frequency and duration of board meetings. Company information is very broad and complex especially relating to LT financial performances, competitive position and organisational structure. Therefore it is vital that directors assign more time to assess the information and deem upon past decisions and events. It is recommended that directors meet on a monthly basis for continual supervision and allow directors to address all areas and ask specific questions that affect the future of the company. There are issues surrounding this proposal for example, preparation, however the more frequent the meetings the less time needed to prepare as oppose to the time needed for meetings held every quarter. Moreover, meetings should not be limited to a time schedule but rather should last until all aspects are covered. This method is very flexible for example meetings could last more than one day when a co mpany is in a difficult situation. The advantage is that opinions will be shared more openly and allows non-executive directors to be more involved; this should be carried when discussing the long term corporate strategy. Another solution is altering the composition of the board. In the Combined Code section A.3.2 it pronounces that at least half the board, excluding the Chairman, should comprise non-executive directors determined by the board to be independent. This does not specify the maximum number of seats in total. Therefore it is advisable that the fewer directors, the more likely that each director can play a dynamic and imperative role. The recommended number should consist of eight to ten directors in total. This is so that there is enough variety and sufficient array of viewpoints. When there are more than ten or twelve members on the board, there will be a free rider problem where some directors will stop preparing for meetings and rely on the work of others resulting in topics not being discussed in depth. Finally UK should consider adding a supervisory board like Germany and Japan as this will allow wider diversity among the decision making processes. Moreover it will reduce abuses from dominate directors since there is constant revision of management performance. Overall UK should cease to improve existing polices and the challenge lies in keeping UKs corporate governance an asset rather than a liability for companies.

Losing Religion and Finding God in The Day Zimmer Lost Religion :: Day Zimmer Lost Religion Essays

Losing Religion and Finding God in The Day Zimmer Lost Religion Paul Zimmer's poem "The Day Zimmer Lost Religion" tells of the narrator's respect and fear of Christ as a boy. He is now a man and dares to challenge Christ. The expected punishment does not occur, and Zimmer loses his faith in religion as he now perceives it. The first stanza is about childhood fear of God. The narrator says, "The first Sunday I missed Mass on purpose / I waited all day for Christ to climb down" (1-2). Zimmer felt he deserved to be punished, to have Christ "Club me on my irreverent teeth, to wade into / My blasphemous gut and drop me like a / Red hot thurible" (4-6). Zimmer clearly expects something terrible to happen, emphasized by the presence of a watching, anticipating Devil. Stanza two is about rebellion. "It was a long cold way from the old days" (8). Zimmer would never have dared to miss Mass in his younger years. Zimmer feels he has come a long way from his boyhood days, "A long way from the dirty wind that blew / The soot like venial sins across the schoolyard" (11-12). Is the dirty wind the forces in life that we cannot control? Is the soot the flaws we begin to see in our elders as we grow older? Has Zimmer observed how weak man can be and questioned why God allows our transgressions? In the schoolyard, "God reigned as a threatening, / One-eyed triangle high in the fleecy sky" (13-14). Does Zimmer feel God had reigned high in the sky and observed each sin we do? He equates the schoolyard with the world. Zimmer knows the minor sins of the schoolyard. God knows the sins of all. The last stanza is about mature faith. Zimmer repeats that he "waited all day for Christ to climb down . . . and pound me / Till me irreligious tongue hung out" (16-19). Zimmer seems to feel that Christ is obligated to punish and that in fact He even enjoys it. Zimmer never mentions a God of love; is this why he feels there must be more to religion than what he knows now? In the last two lines, Zimmer tells us, "But of course He never came, knowing that / I was grown up and ready for Him now" (20-21).

Social Ostracism in Mark Twains Adventures of Huckleberry Finn Essay

Social Ostracism in Mark Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn In the words of Pap, â€Å"You think you’re better’n your father, now, don’t you, because he can’t [read and write]?† (2). In Mark Twain’s adventure novel Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Huck Finn escapes from civilized society to traverse the Mississippi River. Throughout the book, Twain uses various themes such as social ostracism to comment on human nature and its role in shaping society. Sometimes mainstream society is not as right and moral as it believes, and when individuals try to justify it they push away their own humanity. Twain demonstrates this through the various lifestyles, comparing the intellects and beliefs of different social classes, and Huck’s conforming to each facet of society. One of the first instances Twain uses to portray sociological exclusion reveals itself in the contrast of lifestyles. Throughout his life both prior to and after his â€Å"murder,† circumstances expose Huck to opposing ways of life including but not limited to rich vs. poor and simple vs. complex. Personifying middle-class society, Widow Douglass acts as a mother figure for Huck, deeming it her duty to â€Å"sivilize† (1) her adopted son, dressing him well and sending him to school. On the contrary, Pap observes that â€Å"You’ve [Huck] put on [†¦] frills† and swears to take him â€Å"down a peg† (14). The two family icons pull Huck in opposite directions, but as influential as they may be, Huck knows he does not have a place in either world. If anything, Huck identifies more with the simplicity of Pap’s natural way of life than with the materialism of the middle-class of society. Willfully shunning both Pap and Widow Douglas, Huck finds a way to â€Å"keep Pap and the widow from following† him instead of moving â€Å"far enough off before they missed [Huck]† (31). Furthermore, a contrast of the characteristics of men and women presents itself when Huck attempts a reconnaissance mission as a girl in St. Petersburg. Huck cannot go as himself because society would catch him and return him to what he escapes from, but the way men and women live is different enough that they cannot impersonate each other. Although he practices and thinks he manages, Jim’s comment that Huck does not â€Å"walk like a girl† (41) does not do it justice. Almost instantly the woman Huck chooses to question sees through his disguise, explaining that Hi... ...inds a way to fit in only to find that he doesn’t belong—belonging to all societies, yet none of them. The only place where he finds relative peace is on the river. It is the only place where there is nothing to struggle against. Huck is a misfit wherever he goes, rejecting and rejected by mainstream society and every other accepted society that he finds along the river. Throughout his journey, Huck finds different ways of separating himself from society while being a part of it. He sees how quickly life changes and how lifestyles can affect a person. Further set apart by his views, Huck forsakes traditional beliefs for superstition and the balance of luck. Through his journey along the Mississippi River, Huck also understands how much intelligence changes. Feeling no affinity for any aspect of mainstream society he experiences, Huck willingly spurns what he knows as humanity for the society that suits him. At the close of his journey when Aunt Sally makes plans to â€Å"adopt [Huck] and sivilize [Huck],† Huck informs the reader that he has no desire to join high society—â€Å"[he] been there before† (220). *The paranthetical documentation is for the Dover Thrift edition of the book.

Critique of Mary Worley’s Article: Fat and Happy

As obesity escalates towards becoming an epidemic in modern day America, pressures to stay fit have become overwhelming from media and doctors. Mary Ray Worley, a member of the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance (NAAFA), believes that modern day society is completely intolerant of obesity so much as to say that they â€Å"would rather die or cut off a limb than be fat† (492). She has made it a priority to convince Americans to accept obesity which she fights for in her essay, Fat and Happy: In Defense of Fat Acceptance. She believes that people should not be ashamed of their bodies, or try to change them to fit in with the crowd. She discusses a new outlook on body image and believes that we all should create â€Å"a new relationship with our bodies, one that doesn't involve self-loathing† (496). In her essay, Worley compares twentieth-century society to a NAAFA convention she attended. Worley describes her home as a place where â€Å"you’re grateful if you can find clothes that you can actually get on, and forget finding clothes that actually fit you. † In Worley’s eyes American culture has always treated obese people as a lower class and pushed aside anything that was designed for a fat person. On the other hand, at the convention she finds a planet created specifically for overweight people. The convention opened her eyes to an entirely different planet that is free of inhibitions with nothing to be ashamed of. There she could find clothes that shaped to her body perfectly and she was entertained by belly dancers of all shapes and sizes that â€Å"were exquisitely beautiful and voluptuous† (493). She then goes on to discuss how society views fat people and how she believes health care professionals are prejudice towards them. Mary concludes by arguing that like her, all obese people can learn to love their bodies and â€Å"play and dance without self-consciousness† (496). Appearance seems as if it’s almost everything in today’s society, especially with women. Worley explains that society feels that losing weight is easy and that â€Å"it is acceptable to shun fat people and make them the butt of cruel jokes† (492). Without a question, it is not fair that overweight people go through their entire lives being criticized and taunted for their weight. Worley explains how rude comments discourage fat people from exercising because they are embarrassed and â€Å"they don’t have the support they need to continue† (494). It is the stares and snide remarks that give overweight people low self-esteem. Worley justly states that â€Å"you’re entitled to the space you take up† (496). No person should feel like they need to hide away from the world. Not all of Worley’s claims have valid points however. She stated that â€Å"health professionals are among the most prejudiced people around† (494). She is implying that the majority of health professionals are prejudice towards all of their overweight patients. Yet her reasoning was not supported and her claim was fueled solely by resentment. She also explains that overweight people do not like going to doctors or weight loss clinics for medical needs, because â€Å"the goal is usually to lose weight as quickly as possible, as though to snatch the poor fat soul out of the jaws of imminent death†(494), in contrary to focusing on just being healthy. This is true with some health professionals, but it should not hinder someone from finding an adequate physician or nutritionist Worley further excuses obesity by giving many reasons as to why obese people don’t try to lose weight. She excuses inactivity by the embarrassment of exercise; however, she does not address any other contributors to obesity such as diet. There is no excuse for eating unhealthy on a regular basis. It is alright to treat oneself once in a while, but junk food on a daily basis is not excused. Poor eating habits are not excused for overweight or thin people, because healthiness is not determined by how fat someone looks. Worley also states that â€Å"body size is primarily determined by one’s genetic makeup† (493). Although there is evidence to support that the overall size of one’s body is genetically determined, DNA however, does not force oneself to have an extreme excess of body fat. Worley may have discussed that exercise plays an important role in overall health and happiness, but she did not focus on the many other factors that lead to obesity and health issues. Worley is right to say that one’s happiness and healthiness should not be determined by weight. All people, fat or thin, should feel comfortable in their own bodies. No person has the right to tease or criticize someone else’s body to lower someone’s self esteem. On the other hand, people that are overweight cannot blame their health problems on other people. They need to take charge of their life by exercising, eating healthy and seeking good medical advice. It is not right to make hasty generalizations against health professionals, because there is a reason why doctors go through eight or more years of schooling. All current knowledge of obesity has been derived from physicians and scientists studying the anatomy and physiology of the body. Overall, one’s goal should not be to lose weight, but to be healthy and feel great. Living a healthy lifestyle will lead to higher feelings of self worth, which can overcome the psychological effects that fat jokes create. Worley encourages her readers to â€Å"be proud of yourself and never dread unwanted attention† (496), and that is possible. Not everyone may accept obesity, but it is the overweight people themselves that must learn to make good lifestyle choices and accept themselves in order to truly be fat and happy. Works Cited Worley, Mary Ray. â€Å"Fat and Happy: In Defense of Fat Acceptance†. Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum. 9th ed. New York: Pearson, 2005. Print.

Euthymides’ Three Revelers Essay

Euthymides’ Three Revelers is a Greek red-figure vase painting which dates back to about 510 BC. It was found in an Etruscan tomb in Vulci, Italy, where it had probably been imported from Athens. This is proof of the virtuosity of ancient Greek artists, and is quite ironic since the Greeks learned vase painting from the Corinthians. The earliest ancient Greek vase paintings were created using the black-figure technique. This involved using a clay-based slip to draw on the figures and later adding details by incising them into the clay of the vase. Through a process of firing the vase multiple times, the slip would turn black; the silhouetted painted figures contrasted with the natural brown-orange color of the vases. Exekias’ Achilles and Ajax Playing Dice (c. 525-520 BC) is a well-known example of black-figure vase painting. The background of the scene is the natural clay color and all the painted figures are blackened slip with incised details. In Exekias’ painting, there are also details in white on the capes of the two men. The red-figure technique was developed shortly after and is the opposite of black-figure. The background around the figures was painted with slip, leaving them to be detailed with black against the natural color of the vase. This allowed the artist to paint with higher detail since no incisions were necessary. The painting of the Three Revelers is found on a vase used for storing wine called an amphora, so it is appropriate that the three men are celebrating (and indeed reveling) in their drunkenness. The man on the left hasn’t even considered putting down his cup before joining the fun. The scene probably takes place during or after a symposium- a combination drinking party, orgy, and debate. Symposiums were held and attended by aristocratic Greek men, often to debate political, moral, or ethical issues. Perhaps the most famous story of one of these events comes to us by way of literature as Plato’s The Symposium. Euthymides was a rival of Euphronios, who was considered to be the master of red-figure painting. Euphronios’ innovation can be seen in his depiction of  Herakles Wrestling Antaios (c. 510 BC). The two combatants are shown in higher detail and more naturally than any prior work. The giant Antaios is shown grimacing, his hair unkempt, and his body contorted. Herakles, however, shows no signs of struggle: his hair and beard are neat, his face is calm. Perhaps the greatest achievement of the Greek vase painters was their attempt to make art more of an optically correct experience than an ideally correct one. For instance, Herakles’ right foot can be seen tucked behind his leg. The artist’s use of perspective assumes that viewers will understand that Herakles’ calf is behind his thigh, leaving only part of his foot to be seen. Before this point an artist would assume no such thing. His goal and purpose was to show his subjects so that they could be understood and identified by anyone at any time with no conjecture necessary. For instance, the low relief figures chiseled into the Harvester’s Vase (c. 1500 BC), though they are marching from left to right across the scene and we might expect to see them from the side view, are portrayed in the composite profile (profile legs, frontal torso, profile head, frontal eye). Euthymides took this idea of correct optical representation one step further. Whereas the two main figures in Euphronios’ Herakles Wrestling Antaios are shown from the side view and the frontal view, the Three Revelers are shown not from a frontal or rear view, not from a side view or profile, and not in the composite profile used exclusively for centuries prior. They are shown in a three-quarter profile, seen from the side but not completely. The figures recede into the background creating a third dimension: depth. Euthymides knew just how revolutionary this was, so he signed his work with the customary â€Å"Euthymides painted me,† but added â€Å"as never Euphronios [could do].† The three-dimensional foreshortening of painted figures eventually became the artistic standard because of it’s representation of optical experience rather than representation of the ideal, easily identifiable aspects of the body. This can be considered not only an important technical advance, but an artistic one as well. In Onesimos’ Girl Preparing to Bathe (c. 490 BC), the  three-quarter profile lends a flowing, lifelike movement to the subject. Conversely, the contorted composite profile used in the centauromachy detail of Kleitias’ Fraà §ois Vase (c. 570 BC) virtually stops the motion of an otherwise active and exciting scene. The innovation and creativity found in Euthymides’ Three Revelers began to establish the aesthetic, naturalistic focus of Greek art that followed it. Though they were first realized by ancient Greek artists, attention to detail and depiction of figures as they are seen rather than in a universally understood, simplified rendering are indeed two important concepts which can be recognized in any piece of modern visual art. Further, the Three Revelers is the beginning of a dynamic from the ancient techniques of simple representation to the infinite levels of abstraction that we find today in all art forms: music, literature, film, and so on. It should be no surprise that the same culture that turned symbolic portrayals of the world and their own mythology into what we would today call art is the same one that concentrated the eternal search for truth by giving it a name- philosophy, and in both cases provided the basis for all following thought and analyzation.