Muhammad Yousha
COMPARATIVE POLITICS - 103
Renu Gosala
19/October/2022
MID-TERM EXAM
1. Why is it difficult to create a science of comparative politics? Is it because this
area of study is relatively new, or are there fundamental obstacles that will
always limit what we can know based on the comparative method?
The science of comparative politics is difficult because there are so many differences
between countries around the world. States have their own ways of dealing with politics,
influenced by the local perspectives and circumstances that most influence local
politics. All of these regional peculiarities and circumstances make comparative politics
difficult to formulate. Some of the other main reasons that make it difficult to create a
science of comparative politics are, First, the circumstances that limit the science of
comparative politics vary around the world. Second, the historical situation of each
country also makes this comparison difficult. Most importantly, it also depends on the
cultural environment of a country, which varies greatly from country to country. It also
reduces the possibility of comparative politics, etc., being influenced by different
national historical situations from country to country. There are always fundamental
obstacles that limit what can be known based on comparative law. There are more
underlying obstacles than novelty.
Some of the biggest obstacles are the different stories around the world that establish
very different ground rules. For example, royalty may be good for England, but not for
other countries. Some countries believe in a constitution and democratic values, while
others have a mixture of constitutions and royal powers that depend on the country's
cultural values. Furthermore, it also depends on the story and its environment, as
follows: B. The French Revolution changed the face of Europe and gave it democratic
values, but not in the same way as the rest of the world. Therefore, it can be said that
creating a science of comparative politics around the world is very difficult. Because the
diversity around the world makes comparisons difficult, and there are many factors
behind it. In the example above, you can easily understand the whole process and so on.
2. Do you think, long-term, the decision to leave the European Union (Brexit) will be
a good or a bad decision for the United Kingdom? Why? CH-7-UK
The decision to leave the European Union will be a bad decision for the UK in the long
run. There are several reasons why I believe this to be the case. First, leaving the EU
could reduce trade and investment between the UK and the rest of Europe. This could
lead to slower economic growth and increased unemployment. Second, leaving the EU
could make it more difficult for the UK to negotiate trade deals with other countries.
This could lead to reduced exports and lost jobs. Leaving the EU could lead to an
increase in crime and terrorism as the UK would no longer be part of her EU's Schengen
zone.
Leaving the EU could reduce trade and investment between the UK and other European
countries. As a member of the European Union, the UK currently benefits from trade
agreements with the rest of the EU. These agreements allow duty-free trade between
the UK and other EU countries, lowering the price of goods and services imported into
the UK from the EU. The EU has a number of investment treaties with other countries,
allowing more EU investment into the UK. Leaving the EU could make it more difficult
for the UK to negotiate trade deals with other countries. As a member of the European
Union, the UK is currently participating in her EU trade negotiations with other countries.
This means the UK will have a say in what is included in these trade deals and will
benefit from the deals negotiated.Leaving the EU could lead to an increase in crime and
terrorism. As a member of the European Union, the UK now benefits from the Schengen
Agreement. The Schengen Area is a group of countries that have abolished passport
and customs controls at their common borders. This allows free movement between
Schengen countries. Leaving the EU could reduce the quality of life for people in the UK.
As a member of the European Union, the UK now benefits from EU environmental
regulations. These regulations also help protect the environment and improve the
quality of life for people in the UK.
3. Imagine that you were tasked with recrafting a new political-economic system for
your country to reduce inequality or to increase economic growth. What are the
biggest changes you would make? What would the potential financial and social
cost be to make those changes?
In my view, the key reforms that need to be implemented if we see a reduction in
economic inequality or an acceleration in economic expansion are discussed below:
The main benefit of imposing new taxes on the rich, or raising existing ones, is that it
helps redistribute wealth and reduce levels of inequality. It can also be used to support
social initiatives that help low-income people. Otherwise, it helps reduce inequality.
However, this strategy can also have unintended consequences in certain situations. It
may encourage wealthy people to move their money and wealth out of the country, or to
devise clever ways to avoid paying taxes through accounting manipulation. On the one
hand, in my opinion, the potential positive effects of implementing this strategy far
outweigh any possible negative effects.
A key benefit of investing in education and training is that it helps improve the skills and
employability of low-income workers, which helps reduce economic inequality and boost
economic growth. However, this strategy can also have unintended consequences in
certain situations. The benefits of improved education and training have not been
realized for years, and there is always the possibility that the funds spent are not being
used as efficiently as possible. The expected benefits of doing so far outweigh the
expected disadvantages. A major benefit of investing in physical infrastructure is that it
creates new jobs, increases economic growth, and improves the overall quality of life for
all residents of the country. However, this strategy can also have unintended
consequences in certain situations. The costs can be high and there is always the
possibility that the money spent will not be used in an efficient way. The disadvantages
far outweigh the disadvantages. These changes could result in higher taxes for those
who already have enough money, and businesses could pass on the cost of higher
salaries to their customers in the form of higher prices for their products and services.
It's possible. However, in my opinion, the benefits of implementing these adjustments
far outweigh the drawbacks.
4. The resource curve looks at the relationship between resources and
authoritarianism. What about democracy? What questions might we ask about
the relationship between natural resources and existing democratic regimes?
The resource curse is a paradox of abundance, referring to the inability of many
resource-rich countries to fully exploit their natural resource wealth and their
governments' ineffectiveness to meet the needs of the common good.
An important factor that explains whether a country benefits from its natural
resources is its political system. One of the conclusions drawn in political science
is that democracy is far better than dictatorship at avoiding the resource curse. In
democracies, political constraints limit predatory behavior and rent-seeking, and
accountability at least somewhat reduces the potential for exploitation of casual
gains from natural resources. What we can ask about the relationship between
natural resources and existing democratic regimes is what has this dictatorship
learned so far from not escaping this curse? And how do we decide which
democratic model is best suited to escape the natural resource curse? And to
what extent will coherent democratic institutions facilitate this process? ?Norway
is a destination for many resource-rich countries, so that resource abundance is
associated with instability, civil war, oppression and political violence, rather than
improving the standard of living for society as a whole. This often leads to bad
consequences and encourages the idea that natural resources can become a
curse.