Varieties of Corporate Governance PowerPoint Presentation

Varieties of Corporate Governance - PowerPoint Presentation Example Corporate governance is not only a strategic approach and a driving force for an economy, but it also emphasizes on the variations in its system. The variations differ according to the business situation, such as failed incorporate networks may emphasize on the implementation of financial orientation type corporate governance system (Lazonick & O'Sullivan, 2000). Within the applied system of corporate governance, organizational arrangements and social relations act as those factors that determine the controlling authorities for an organization. The culture within an organization is thoroughly important, when directors and controlling authorities to run corporate governance are to be decided. It is up to the priorities of an organization; whether it is more towards revenue generation or towards the development of an ideal presence in the market, such as HTC Corporation. Therefore, this is the organizational arrangement that helps in picking the controlling authorities for a firm (Lazo nick & O'Sullivan, 2000). ... The firms may take advantage of the institutional approach, where system of corporate governance can be accomplished according to the outcomes (Dore, 2000, pp. 115-127). Supporting Arguments As the core argument of the article talks about the diversifications and variations of the corporate governance; therefore, in order support this main argument few of the supporting arguments are developed to achieve the aim appropriately. It is revealed that the relationship developed among the key stakeholders of an organization, including labour, capital and management, differs region to region (Aguillera & Jackson, 2003). Article also measures the isolated effects of all the stakeholders; thus, ‘forward-looking’ approach is used to analyze the effects. In the considered article, role of institutional complementarities in developing a suitable corporate governance system at a firm level is also analyzed. It can be observed that practicability of a certain institution rises, when o ther business institution does not suit particular business circumstances. In few cases, it is found that organizations are not likely to work on strategic orientation, when it comes to deal with financial system (Dore, 2000, pp. 118-124). By describing the dimensions and variations in such system, the role of directors and executive is also truly significant in determining the sustainable and reliable dimensions for any firm. One of the existing obstacles in the implementation of corporate governance is the conflicts, which may arise when interests of labour are suppressed by the interests of management and capital of the firm. The theoretical model presented in the article has served the main purpose properly.

Exploring Geneses and Linkages Essay Example for Free

Exploring Geneses and Linkages Essay The contours of international relations changed dramatically during the 20th century, which saw three great conflicts on the world stage. While the First and the Second World Wars were largely located in Europe but found the participation of every major power across the globe, the Cold War split the international system into two ideologically distinct parts, and escalated the scale and scope of contestation beyond Europe. The aim of this essay is to reflect upon the causes behind each of the great wars of the previous century, and also to explore the linkages (and resulting continuity) between one to the next. By looking at the origins of the First World War, we shall find the genesis of the Second, and by analyzing the circumstances of the latter’s conclusion, we shall seek to explicate the onset of the Cold War. The origins of the First World War, which stretched from 1914 to 1918, lay primarily in two distinct geopolitical developments of the late 19th and early 20th century. The first of these was the unification of the German state following the relative period of peace in the wake of the Napoleonic Wars. In 1871, the German unification found the dominance of a singular territory at the center of Europe. Even though thee were initial reservations against German expansionism, the country’s imperial aspirations soon became apparent. A growing population, vast territories, military and industrial growth in an emergent Germany upset the European balance of power at the beginning of the 20th century. As a response, Great Britain, France, and Tsarist Russia formed an alliance, which sought to curtail Germany’s increasing search for territory and markets, with North Africa and the Middle East emerging as primary spheres of contention. While the former alliance maintained that they were safeguarding national interests against German imperialism, the latter claimed it was the victim of the imperial system that restricted access to new opportunities. Matters came to a head in 1914 and war ensued between the imperial alliance and revisionist Germany. A great degree of debate surrounds the causation of the First World War’s outbreak, with some historians squarely placing the blame on Germany, while others arguing that the War resulted out of a series of chain reactions in part due to the manner in which German military plans were conceived. The War ended with a victory for the Anglo-French alliance, but the Tsar of Russia was overthrown by the (communist) Red Army in the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. The post-War settlement came at Versailles in 1919, with Britain and France held Germany completely responsible for the conflict. Therefore, the settlement – though there were disagreements among the victors over its terms – was harsh on Germany, and included a series of reparations that critically undermined Germany’s status in Europe. Germany was forced to demilitarize, while France occupied the strategic and resource-rich territories of the Rhineland. Perhaps the most humiliating of all clauses in the Treaty of Versailles, however, was the â€Å"War Guilt† clause, which demanded heavy economic extractions from Germany. These were presumably done because it was a popular move domestically for the Allies and also because it provided the opportunity to permanently curb German efforts to fight major wars. These strategies, however, proved imprudent in the end. One of the distinguishing features of the post-First World War world order was the formation of the League of Nations, an international organization based on the premise of common objectives and collective security. Though the League served as the precursor to the United Nations, its implementation left its leading voice – American president Woodrow Wilson – dissatisfied. The League adopted a policy of appeasement, without bearing down on Italian, German, or Japanese aggression in the 1930s, and precipitated the onset of the Second World War in 1939. However, World War II (which lasted from 1939 to 1945) had much deeper origins in the Treaty of Versailles than in the failings of collective security. We must remember that the harshness of the Treaty had embittered the German population, and the same set the scene for Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist Party to come to power in 1933. Soon after, democratic institutions in Germany were obliterated and replaced by the Nazi propagandist machinery; Hitler began rearming the country and massively investing in industry and technological innovation, while adopting a policy of anti-Semitism socially. In Europe, a series of crises spiraled out of control and led to the outbreak of war. Italian annexation of Abyssinia, German remilitarization of the Rhineland, and expansion into Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland, and sustained civil war in Spain were all contributing factors. Soviet Russia, under the leadership of Joseph Stalin, entered into a non-aggression pact with Germany in 1939, so as to secure its western borders; this provided Hitler with the opportunity to concentrate on the rest of Europe, as he gradually unfurled his plans of continental domination. There remains a considerably vigorous debate with respect to the origins of the War in Europe, as many historians see it as an extension of the First World War, with the structural imbalances resulting out of the rise of and alliance between Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Others claim that it was a war effort carefully constructed and implemented by Hitler, who had prepared meticulously for the War throughout the 1930s, turning the German state into an efficient war machine. It must be noted, however, that the formal declaration of war in 1939 came from Great Britain and France. A significant difference between the First and Second World Wars was the proliferation of war in the Eastern front, as Japan joined hands with Germany and Italy to form the Axis powers. The Meiji Restoration in Japan, Japanese expansionism in China and the Manchurian Crisis of 1931 opened the casket of war in East Asia, and Japanese aggression on the United States (US) – the (in)famous Pearl Harbor bombings – in 1941 meant that the latter had to terminate its isolationist policy and enter the War. In Europe, the German invasion of Soviet Russia in 1941 facilitated the alliance of Stalin’s regime with the Allied Powers. The last two incidents are noteworthy because these tilted the strategic and military balance in favor of the Allies, leading to an eventual victory in 1945. The Second World War remains the bloodiest military conflict in the history of humanity, and left most of Europe devastated. However, even before the dust could settle on the scourge of war, a new form of conflict emerged, as the US and the Soviet Union (USSR) found themselves vying for supremacy at the world stage; the end of the War had seen the traditional great powers depleted in resources and influence, and this power vacuum attracted both the Americans and the Soviets. The ensuing Cold War between these two superpowers would define the topography of international politics for the next four and a half decades. There, however, were other lessons to be drawn from the end of the Second World War, which inform us about the onset of the Cold War. The Wartime alliance amongst the US and the USSR had grown fragile by 1945, and serious disagreements ensued over post-War settlements. On the eastern front, World War II in effect ended with America’s explosion of the atomic bomb in Japan (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) in 1945. This also confirmed the US’ position as the sole nuclear power, while the USSR retained a conventional superiority in Europe. Even before the latter could attain nuclear parity (which happened in 1949), the two superpowers were at loggerheads as both attempted to assert their influence over Europe, culminating in the Berlin Blockade of 1948, which concretized the Iron Curtain that divided Western and Eastern Europe. The Cold War was characterized by a struggle for power between the US and the USSR, in order to achieve global dominance, both in terms of ideology and military might. The East-West conflict was organized by way of two monumental alliances: the US-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the USSR-led Warsaw Pact. Further, a nuclear arms race was another defining feature of the Cold War, with massive arsenals stockpiled by either side. Though the world came close to Armageddon more than once (especially during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962), nuclear deterrence preserved the bipolar peace of the Cold War. We find that there are three distinct interpretations of the Cold War. The first understand the conflict as a contest between rival ideologies – liberalism and communism – that tore the world asunder from 1945 to 1991. This ideological divide not only resulted from the unique histories and political cultures of the United States and Russia, the ideologies in turn determined policies, further reinforcing the divide. A second explanation of the Cold War casts the conflict as a geopolitical struggle where adversaries of relatively equal strength endeavored to gather more power and influence over other states in the international system. In this view, the Cold War was nothing but a clash of national interests. Another view sees the Cold War as the result of technological developments, most importantly nuclear weapons, culminating in a deadly arms race between the two superpowers. A major characteristic of the Cold War remained that there was never any direct confrontation, except in diplomatic circles, between the two rivals; instead a series of proxy wars were fought across the globe, designed to advance superpower interests. The end of the Cold War, again, is an event surrounded by debate. Many suggest that it was the aggressive stance of the Reagan administration that brought an end to the conflict, while others claim that it was a result of changes in Soviet policies under Mikhail Gorbachev. Thus, we find in our exploration of the three major conflicts of the 20th century that there remain several linkages that establish continuity from one to the other. All of these bear historical significance in our understanding of war and, in effect, lead the paths to the present when contemplating about international conflicts.

The Appease for more Lands and the Effects Essay -- English history, ba

The battle of Hastings of 1066 intertwined English history with that of Normandy and consequently with France. Once William of Normandy conquered England, the nature of medieval English state transformed drastically. In 1086, all land in England became a fief held by the â€Å"crown in return for service.† Norman presence under King William â€Å"diminished local particularism† by scattering and distributing land. Furthermore, as Hollister and Stacey indicate, Norman Conquest brought with it, its own form of feudalism distinct from its French counterpart— â€Å"more orderly and thoroughgoing†.† As a result, a tightening of the military occurred; fortresses could no longer be built without royal authority to prevent insurrections. In addition, other Norman elements such as the French language and culture manifested among the English elites, but in no way made their identity. William’s conquest did not eliminate Anglo-Saxon culture that preda ted him; instead, he adopted the Anglo-Saxon disposition and Carolingian forms of rulership, which continued under other Norman rulers of England. By the Norman Conquest, England had already become one of the most integrated and consolidated states in Europe with a highly structured system of royal administration, well-established laws, and a centralized economic system (with effective forms of taxation). At best, the Norman Conquest improved already existing political, economic and social structures. The battle of Hastings led to the switch in English monarchy and linked English fate to France for centuries to come both militarily and economically but it was not the making of England. Norman rulers from 1066 onward focused more on territorial expansion than developing the English identity as a showcase o... ...,† as transformations that occurred in England, legal, economic and ecclesiastical all emerged independent of France, mostly from internal pressure than outside push. As Hollister and Stacey illustrate, the distraction of England by its interaction with Franc is evident in the fact that â€Å"almost every English king since the Norman Conquest had campaigned against the French at one time or another.† While conquest and military expansion by the twelveth and thirteen century became a part of the English need to expand its empire it was not a necessary attribute to their â€Å"Englishness.† Bibliography: Halsall, Paul. â€Å"The Trial of Joan of Arc, 1431." New York: Fordham University, 1998. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1431joantrial.asp Hollister, C. Warren, Robert C. Stacy, and Robin Chapman Stacy. The making of England to 1399, 8th ed. Houghton Mifflin, 2001.

Position Supporting Stem Cell Research Essay

Cells that can make a distinction into a variety of cell types are called stem cells and comprise embryonic stem (ES) cells and adult stem cells. Since ES cells can turn into a new organism or can differentiate into any tissue type, they are said to be â€Å"totipotent.† Adult stem cells, conversely, as they cannot turn into any type of tissue, are said to be â€Å"pluripotent.† For instance, bone marrow stem cells can turn into red blood cells, T-lymphocytes, or B-lymphocytes, however not muscle or bone cells. Nerve stem cells can as well turn into different types of nerve tissue. Stem cell research attempts to engineer tissues from the body’s stem cells to replace defective, damaged, or aging tissues. In 1998, scientists were capable to grow human ES cells indefinitely. Since then, researchers have performed stem cell experiments on mammals and have had some achievement in repairing spinal chord injuries in mice. Since scientists cannot use federal funds to carry out research on embryos, private corporations, most particularly the Geron Corporation, have funded ES cell research. Geron, awaiting possible ethical concerns, appointed its own ethics advisory board. The Clinton administration sought to loosen the interpretation of the ban on embryo research to permit the government to sponsor research on the use of ES cells once they were available. President G. W. Bush had made the decision to permit use merely of about sixty existing cell lines, and not the production of embryonic cell lines particularly made for the purpose of use for stem cells[1]. The majority of the stem cell procedures proposed to date would employ the ES cells from embryos formed by couples in fertility clinics. In the United States, thousands of embryos are discarded each year as IVF couples cannot use all of their embryos. A couple may make three-hundred embryos in an attempt give birth to one child. One more approach to stem cell research suggests that researchers make embryos for scientific and medical purposes. This approach, recognized as therapeutic cloning, or somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), engrosses transferring the nucleus from a cell in a person’s body into an enucleated egg[2]. The ES cells from this new embryo would match the tissue in the person’s body, therefore avoiding the potential tissue rejection problems that might occur in stem cell therapy. The potential of stem cell research is huge, for the reason that so many diseases result from tissue damage. Stem cell research could bring about advances in treating paralysis, diabetes, heart disease, pancreatitis, Parkinson’s disease, liver disease, arthritis, as well as many further conditions. [3] Thus human pluripotent stem cell research is very important as firstly it propose help in understanding the actions that take place during normal human development. The understanding of human cell development could make possible further understandings regarding how abnormalities such as cancer occur. Secondly this research helps us to find out why some cells turn into heart cells whereas other cells turn into blood cells. Although it has been previously recognized that a gene turning on and off is central to cell development, however it is not recognized what makes these gene turn on and off–stem cell research will most probably give a possible explanation. In a realistic sense this could make possible further understandings of cell development abnormalities. Thirdly pure samples of specific cell types could be used for testing different chemical compounds so as to develop medicines to treat disease[4]. This would make more efficient the process of medical testing in order that merely medicines that have a helpful effect on cell lines would be tested on animals and humans. And most significantly this research could be very helpful for cell transplantation therapies. Theoretically, stem cells could be â€Å"grown† into replacements for diseased or destroyed cells[5]. This would permit medical science to get to the bottom of diseases of organ failure for instance diabetes as well as neurological disorders for instance Parkinson’s disease. The main protest to this promising research has to do with the source of ES cells. ES cells can be acquired from aborted embryos, embryos remaining after infertility treatments (IVF), embryos created only for research by IVF techniques, and from SCNT techniques (that is therapeutic cloning)[6]. To get ES cells, consequently, one have to either create embryos that will be used, manipulated, or destroyed, or one have to get embryos leftover from infertility treatments. However here is where the abortion debate resurfaces, as these techniques would engross treating embryos as mere things or objects and would not give embryos the esteem they deserve, as said by some critics. That is to say that a proper, fair and realistic account of what comes out of the freezer is a 5-day-old ball of about 150 cells, and of that the researchers will want to use about 30. What comes out of the freezer is unquestionably human tissue however it is not human. That ball of cells has no hope at all of becoming a human being without further intervention. One must not confuse the existence of a chance of becoming a human being with actually being human. The tissue can be likened to organs taken from a lately deceased person for transplant. Neither the organ nor the tissue is dead; it is human tissue but it is not human. One may say the same of sperm, for instance, every sperm must be protected that is available for the reason that it might, under circumstances where other things have to happen, become a human. That is practically the same thought. What has to happen there is that the sperm has to meet with an egg to fertilize that egg, which then has to be looked after. What has to happen with a 5-day-old ball of cells in which the egg and sperm have previously met is that it after that has to be implanted in a woman and stay there for nine months. In both cases nothing is going to happen unless other things are brought into play. It is a very strong view that it is not being talked about a human, rather about human tissue that will with the intervention of others, and only with the intervention of others, has the chance of becoming human. A parent’s right must be supported to demand that any of these untouched fertilized eggs be left untouched for afterward use or not be used for research. Very few, if any, parents who have had the advantage of the IVF program would refuse the chance for spare fertilized eggs to be used. They themselves turned to the wonders of science to give them what apparently nature was otherwise going to deny them, those who through the wonders of science have had what must have been their greatest dream realized would definitely not deny the chance for science to make better things for others. After all, how many fertilized eggs at varying stages of development were used in the IVF programs to get to the point where one could have a successful IVF program? †¦ [7] Some supporters of this bill do not deny where one is now with the science. He just wants science to have the opportunity to take him to further and better places. One cannot say that there is no practical application of this now, so not do the research. That is the equal of saying to a child that you are not permitted to swim in the pool until you have learned to swim. How can one possibly refuse to do research on the basis that he does not have the researchers’ outcomes? One can not get those outcomes until he proceeds with the research. So, again, one must be very much on the side of proceeding with stem cell research. Some of the objections which have their foundation in a religious view held by their proponents. Living by a decent set of values is far more vital than defending the doctrine of one church over another. If you lead a good life and if there is a kingdom of heaven you will be welcome into his or heaven. Your religion is your business and no-one else’s. When you make your religion an issue, you drag it into the political domain and you tarnish it. It follows that we attach very little importance or interest to arguments over religious dogma. Similarly, we do not turn to the state to legislate for one religious view over another. Without doubt, we can clearly see the risks of adopting a view that your religion is the right one and the rest of the world must be converted. This point is quite simple: each to his own religion. If you say to one that doing something is against God’s will, then he will respond by assuring you that, if God is annoyed, God will punish whoever has done that thing. The state should never be used as God’s enforcer. Over the years, as we have been approaching 50, we can assure you that we have every confidence in God’s capability to settle accounts. It has not been our experience that he or she usually waits until you are dead. Numerous people who have done the wrong thing have met their maker in a practical sense while they were still alive[8]. In brief, we are talking about fertilized eggs that are in the freezer. They have not the slightest chance of becoming human unless they are accepted by the mother to be carried for 9 months. We are talking about fertilized eggs where that is not the case. The outcome is that they are either going in the bin or going to be used for the betterment of mankind. My other proposition is that we cannot now say whether the science is good or bad. We do not know where the science is going to take us. Science of itself is not fundamentally good or bad; it is what we do with it that will make that case. We have to understand that the benefits of this research may take years to come. That merely makes us say: start more quickly. We simply ask those who, due to their religious beliefs, have a very authentic concern regarding this bill to accept that they are entitled to follow their religious beliefs; they are not entitled to demand by legislation that everybody else does the same. References: Adil E. Shamoo, David B. Resnik. Responsible Conduct of Research; Oxford University Press, 2003 Daniel Callahan. What Price Better Health? Hazards of the Research Imperative; University of California Press, 2003 John Harris. On Cloning; Routledge, 2004 Sandra Braman. Biotechnology and Communication: The Meta-Technologies of Information; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004 Thomas Kemp. â€Å"The Stem Cell Debate: A Veblenian Perspective†; Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 38, 2004. [1] Daniel Callahanpg 55 [2] John Harris, pg 90 [3] Daniel Callahan, pg 67-69 [4] Thomas Kemp, pg 6 [5] ibid [6] John Harris, pg 78-79 [7] Sandra Braman, pg 105 [8] Adil E. Shamoo, David B. Resnik, pg 210

Legacy of the Kazakh Khanate in the Political Culture and Traditions

In 1991 year new state the Republic of Kazakhstan is appeared on the map. The history and culture of Kazakhstan is numbered a thousand years. One of the important issues is about aboriginal population’s origin, formation and origins of its nationality, development of culture and cultural traditions, relationships with other civilizations. Applying for written sources we can verify that Kazakhs khanate had been formed to 1470 when on the territory of Kazakhstan in south-eastern regions Semirechye and in vales of Chu Kazakh sultans Dzhanibek and Girey could head the numerous tribes, which had been jointed in tribe named â€Å"Kazakh†, ‘Kazakhs†.At the beginning of XVI century in the time of Kasymkhan the Kazakh khanate was strengthened, its borders were widened, syrdarya towns Turkestan, Otyrar, Sayram, Sauran, Syganak, Suzak and Chimkent were part of Kazakh khanate . Kazakhstan becomes known in Asia and Europe. The XVI century is an important milestone in the history of Moslem world from which the new time reckoning is began. The distinguished east scientist V. V. Bartold wrote  « In the new history of Moslem in contrast to rapid change of dynasties and powers? olitical instability, states small dimensions and that’s why lack of any whatsoever patriotism, now we can see the countries establishing there. We see the Moslem power of Great Mongols in India, then Turkey, Persia †¦ † Approximately at that time Kazakh, Yarkend khanates had been appeared in Central Asia. The Turkic Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Kyrgyz, Kara-kalpaks were announced on the historic scene. When the last khan Taukekhan died, the power had deputed to the number of steppe khans and each of them was at the head of separate groups of Kazakhs and the territories Kazakh khanate existed up to 1716.At that time the process of disintegration and decay had began and the end of this process the state was being included in Russian empire. The ethnicon of â€Å"Kazakhâ⠂¬  given the name of state is Turkic word. It is generally agreed that it means â€Å"free man† Kazakhs were very hardworking nomads and farmers, have had the great fat herd, rich pastures, and fertile lands on sub mountain and vales of rivers. But telling about Kazakhs and the first Kazakh nation it is necessary to know that origin of that nation as its culture and statehood dated from centuries. Bibliography: http://www. toptravel. ru/bgkkfl2. htm http://kazakhstan. awd. z Turkic roots of Kazakh political culture and traditions Kazakhstan has a rich past. Its geographical and geopolitical position has played a vital role in promoting the country’s development. Located in the center of Eurasia, Kazakhstan has long found itself at the crossroads of the world’s most ancient civilizations and trade routes. It has been a land of social, economic and cultural exchange between East and West, North and South, and between the major players in Eurasia. At different st ages of its history, various states emerged and developed in the land which became today’s Kazakhstan. All contributed to Kazakh culture.In later centuries, the steppes were home to a powerful state formed by the Huns. Their empire greatly influenced the geopolitical map of that time. The Great Roman Empire in Europe eventually fell from the blows of the Attila the Hun’s daring warriors. Later, the Huns were replaced on the steppes by Turkic tribes. They founded several large states known as â€Å"kaganats† stretching from the Yellow Sea in the East to the Black Sea in the West. These states were distinguished by a culture progressive for that time. They were based not only on a nomadic economy but also on an oasis urban culture with rich trade and handicraft traditions.During this time, cities and caravanserais were founded in the oases of Central Asia, the territory of South Kazakhstan and Central Asia. They stood along the famous trade route known as the Grea t Silk Road which connecting Europe and China. Other trade routes were also important including the route along the Syr Dariya River to the Aral Sea and the South Urals as well the so called â€Å"Sable Road† from South Western regions of Siberia through Central Kazakhstan and the Altai region. It was through trade on the â€Å"Sable Road† that the Middle East and Europe were supplied with expensive furs.Major cities and trade centers founded on these routes included Otrar (Farab), Taraz, Kulan, Yassy (Turkestan), Sauran, and Balasagun. The Great Silk Road not only stimulated the development of trade, it also became a conduit for progressive scientific and cultural ideas. For example, the great philosopher Al-Farabi (870-950) was greatly influenced by the culture of the trade routes. Born in the Farab district, Al-Farabi was dubbed in the East â€Å"the Second Teacher† after Aristotle for his profound researches in philosophy, astronomy, musical theory and mathe matics.The outstanding scholar of Turkic philology Mahmud Kashgari lived here in the 11th century. He created the three-volume â€Å"Dictionary of Turkic Dialects† which summed up Turkic folklore and literature heritages. In the 11th Century, Yusup Balasaguni of the town of Balasagun, a famous poet and philosopher, wrote â€Å"Kutaglu Bilig† (â€Å"A Knowledge that Brings Happiness†) which is recognized as having played an important role in the development of modern social, political and ethical conceptions. The Sufi poet Hodja Ahmet Yassaui, who lived in the 12th century, wrote a collection of poetic thoughts â€Å"Divan-i-Khikmet† (â€Å"Book of Wisdom†).He is famous throughout the Muslim world. Part of the cultural legacy of that period is the elegant urban architecture. Examples such as the mausoleums of Arystan Baba, of the great Sufi Hodja Akhmet Yassaui in Turkestan and Aisha Bibi in Taraz are among the best preserved. Apart from this, the m ost ancient nomads of the region invented the â€Å"yurt†, a dome-shaped easily dismantled and portable house made from wood and felt, ideal for their nomadic life and beliefs. In 1221, Mongolian tribes of Genghis Khan conquered Central Asia and added their culture and values to the increasingly complex society of the region.By the second half of the 15th Century a process of consolidation had begun among the peoples of the Central Asian steppe. This process, derived from the various ethnic and cultural identities, was drawn together by a common world view and lifestyle. The first Kazakh khanates emerged at this time. By the first half of the 16th Century, the formation of a single Kazakh nation was completed. The word â€Å"Kazakh† in the old Turkic language meant â€Å"free† or â€Å"independent† which perfectly fit the character of the people who had been long yearning for their own independent state.In the 17th and 18th Centuries the nomadic Jungar tr ibes directed by the Chinese Bogdykhans started a large scale war against the Kazakh khanate. However, thanks to the courage of the â€Å"batyrs† (knights), the decisiveness of the Kazakh leader Ablai Khan, the diplomatic skills of the Kazakh ‘biys’ (sages) Tole Bi, Kazdausty Kazybek Bi, Aiteke Bi, and self sacrifice of the people, the Kazakhs escaped total capture and physical annihilation. The Kazakh khans were forced to seek the military protection of the Russian Empire, which eventually led to Kazakhstan’s loss of sovereignty in 1871. For a time, the fate of Kazakhstan was tied to theEuropean model of social development and the fate of the Russian State and its peoples. After the 1917 revolution Soviet power was established in Kazakhstan. Kazakhs suffered greatly under Soviet control. Due to the forced collectivization in the 1930s, hunger caused the death of 1. 5 million Kazakhs, which was more than 40 percent of the nation. Hundreds of thousands Kaza khs fled to China and elsewhere. The brightest and the best of the nation were repressed and often shot dead. The regime’s last gasp was the brutal repression of the Kazakh people on December 17, 1986 as they took to the streets seeking justice.Many consider this the beginning of the end for the once mighty Soviet Union. Kazakhstan proclaimed its independence on December 16, 1991, and Nursultan Nazarbayev was democratically elected the first President of the country. Bibliography: Kiessling, Kerstin Lindahl. â€Å"Conference on the Aral Sea: Women, Children, Health and Environment. † Ambio Vol. 27, No. 7 (November, 1998): 560-564. Weiner, Douglas. A Little Corner of Freedom: Russian Nature Protection from Stalin to Gorbachev. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2002.Soviet transformation of Kazakh society and legacy in political culture and traditions Arguably the most drastic economic policy employed by Marxist-fashioned governments and the Soviet Union was that of agricultural and industrial collectivization. Forcing local Soviets to develop state-controlled farms and industrial construction projects, the Soviet collectivization programs generally had two overarching purposes: the ideological liberation of the Soviet orbit from class antagonisms and the concupiscent parasitism of â€Å"kulak† banditry, and the economic attainment of a fiscally self-sufficient Marxist society.Soviet republics endured two major phases of collectivization that yielded both beneficial and catastrophic effects. The Stalin government (1922-53) initiated collectivization projects as a means to cultivate â€Å"socialism in one country,† with an industrialized war machine and a well-fed population completely free of the capitalist approach. As the Comintern and NATO plunged into the Cold War, the Khrushchev government (1953-64) reimposed agricultural collectivization with the so-called â€Å"VirginLands Program† specifically with the inten t of freeing the USSR from humiliating dependency on Western capitalist food imports. Soviet collectivization made possible economic and industrial achievements that would otherwise have been impossible. However, the blatant accomplishments of collectivization came at a tremendous price, directly creating some of the most horrendous human and environmental catastrophes of the twentieth century.In both phases of Soviet collectivization, the people of Kazakhstan endured by far the worst of these disasters, suffering man-made famines and starvation, irreparable environmental desiccation, the eventual transformation of the entire Aral Sea to saline ruin, mass exodus and displacement, and astronomical casualty. Even worse, the second phase of collectivization (the Virgin Lands Campaign) only exacerbated the irrecoverable environmental tragedies of the first phase.These disasters are entirely derived from the legacy of collectivization. 1 Despite the Soviets' ideological insistence on the benefits of collectivization programs in Kazakhstan, the Kazakh people experienced far greater suffering and calamity than they profited, and are still struggling to recover from the ecological consequences even today. It must be acknowledged that the Soviet Union never intended to directly inflict any physical catastrophe on the Soviet republics or the Kazakh people.It must also be readily emphasized that the Soviet collectivization policy eventually contributed to undeniable industrial, political, cultural, and employment achievements, which transformed tribal Kazakhstan into a modern republic and an exporter of anything from steel, to cotton, to Snow Queen ® vodka. But the price that the Kazakh people were forced to pay was far too high. Both phases of collectivization have inflicted an indelible legacy of agricultural ruin, economic depression, physical ailment, and environmental catastrophe that far outweigh the benefits of the forced proletarian liberation brought by the So viet Union.Unfortunate for the Kazakhs, the tragic legacy of calamitous Soviet agro-economic policy did not fall with the Berlin Wall, and it may require centuries to recover Stalin's first phase of Soviet collectivization represents easily the worst physical and environmental nadir of Kazakh history. The collectivization initiative began almost immediately after the final incorporation of the Kazakh tribes and polities into the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) in 1936.The agricultural potential of the fertile and pristine Kazakh steppe was perceived as an invaluable source of tremendous collective output for the state. As in the other, recently â€Å"liberated† peoples newly incorporated into the USSR, those Kazakhs that were fully absorbed into Soviet society through forced collectivization would eventually enjoy significant benefits that would have otherwise been impossible for the semi-nomadic Kazakhs, such as theoretically near-universal literacy and employment, th e development of urbanized cities and transportation systems, health care, job security, and sustenance.Although the majority of these benefits owe themselves to Soviet policy rather than collectivization itself, these accomplishments must be weighed with the tragic consequences if we are to conclude that collectivization had an overall negative effect on Kazakh society.Bibliography: CNN. com. â€Å"Athrax ‘time bomb' ticking in Aral Sea, researchers say. † CNN. http://www. cnn. com/WORLD/asiapcf/9906/21/anthrax. island/ Conquest, Robert. The Harvest of Sorrow. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987. Krech, Shepard, John Robert McNeill, and Carolyn Merchant. Encyclopedia of World Environmental History: A-E. New York: Routeledge Press, 2004.

Louis Vuitton Moet Hennessy Example

Louis Vuitton Moet Hennessy Example Louis Vuitton Moet Hennessy – Case Study Example Louis Vuitton Moet Hennessy (LVMH) Case The key drivers of performance in luxury goods business include brand power and heritage. Furthermore, the intense competition generates remarkable strategies that sustain the business of luxury brands and encourage key players to participate in a more competitive manner. The success recipe in this industry looks like having the vital ability to hit the button and that is to target the segment for high net-worth individuals together with aggressive expansion to potential multiple regions by offering them diversified portfolio of luxury brands, which obviously are among of the excellent moves that LVMH performs. To nurture its leadership position, LVMH adheres to the value of excellence by employing talent, audacity and thoroughness as published in its annual report (Ramaswamy 6). In other words, it is not just only about providing competitive brands and successful retailing strategy, but employing the combined management of skills and resource s as the potential reasons why LVMH nurtures its leadership position. Creativity and innovation, and partnership and acquisition on the part of LVMH clearly resulted to employing more talented human resources, acquiring abundant resources and promoting successful quality distribution of actual product offerings, which lead further to the company’s competitive advantage in its industry. LVMH businesses include wines and spirits, fashion and leather goods, fragrances and cosmetics, watches and jewelry and selective retailing. The quality of this portfolio can be characterized under the level of successfully highlighting brand power and heritage, which is an action that also has become the potential source of synergy. LVMH is having an ambitious plan to double its sales and profits in the next five years. Concerning this, one important strategy is to first undergo a more thorough customer analysis that will lead to discovering potential market segments that remain unexplored a s of today. This will most probably lead to potential increase of LVMH’s market share in the long run.Work CitedRamaswamy, Kannan. â€Å"Louis Vuitton Moet Hennessy: In Search of Synergies in the Global Luxury Industry.† Thunderbird: School of Global Management (2003): 1-15. Print.

Youth Culture in the 60s essays

Youth Culture in the 60's essays During the decade of the 1960s, the United States began to fully celebrate youth culture in a way that had only begun to brew in the 1950s. Youth culture began to rise and was thrust into mainstream America because what was occurring was a widespread rebellion against the mass society occurring in young, college students. It was a rebellion against the 1960s politics of the United States, the Vietnam War, and the culture of the older generation in general. However, this rebellion occurred exclusively among American youth that came from white, middle to upper class, and affluent families and were given the privilege of attending college. While the sense of alienation and estrangement was certainly present in the entire generation, rebellion was only able to occur among youth that were so spoiled with affluence that they had the ability to rebel without any inhibitions. The 1960s were a time of an approaching revolution for the United States, and it can be credited, in a large part to, American youth. The youth rebellion of the sixties was lead by college students that felt alienated, estranged, and distant from their parents, the American dream, and the older generation. These students rebelled against mainstream culture, largely opposed to the Vietnam War, and rallied for the Civil Rights Movement. The reasoning behind their rebellion came from a desire for a revolution. However, the significance of the sixties youth culture is not solely in the rebellion itself, but in the fact that it was exclusively college students whom were doing the rebelling. The students that were dissatisfied by the American dream in which their parents had in store for them were completely middle to upper class whites that came from affluent backgrounds. They were so spoiled by this privileged upbringing that they had no idea what it felt like to be oppressed, an d therefore were completely able to rebel and held no inhi...