GD : One topic a day

[anarchy]

Originally Posted by tris

No.....no No
I have not written these articles.Just picked them from various sites

Oh no!!
damn..
please state the source yaar..
it is one of the rules of the place.. and continue posting such material... its loads of help!!!

[tris]

Come on Puys post some good GD topics & write ups.Lets make a good compilation

[why and how]

Originally Posted by tatimatla

Dude...I wish I had enough knowledge to discuss the stuff with you...but one thing I can say for sure is that I'll have enough knowledge within a month...it's a promise.
Until then, me a silent spectator (and thanker)...u doing a great job indeed.

well even i want to do the same .. can u tell me what dya plan to do .. as in ur mode of action ?

[tris]

See the purpose is to create a compendium for all puys to access at the time of gd

[tris]

What should India strive for- Westernization or modernization?

The modernisation of Indian society was a matter of concern for those who assumed power when the country became independent more than 50 years ago. The intelligentsia, as a whole, viewed modernisation with favour if not enthusiasm. This was true not only of India but of newly-independent countries throughout the world. Decolonisation was viewed as an opportunity not for a return to the past but for a more effective and meaningful participation in the modern world. It was tacitly assumed that some countries had travelled further along the road to modernity than others but that the others too could and should catch up with the former.

The modernisation of society was regarded as not only desirable for its own sake but also as a precondition for the development of the economy and the advance of democracy. Economic development was an urgent task in a country in which poverty and stagnation were widespread. Much of the blame for the poor state of the economy was laid at the door of colonial rule. With the removal of that constraint, the road to economic development seemed wide open. But there were internal constraints as well in the form of age-old social habits, practices, customs and institutions. In the newly-independent countries of Asia and Africa, the obstacles to economic growth were not only technological, they were also institutional. The removal of those obstacles or the modernisation of society was thus viewed as essential for growth and development.

The advance of democracy also required some recasting of traditional social arrangements. Indeed, the idea of `political development' soon took its place by the side of economic development. The creation of democracy did not stop with the adoption of adult franchise and the holding of regular elections, important as they were. It required effective political socialisation and political participation, in short, education in citizenship. The impulse for modernisation came from many different sources and not just from the requirements of economic development and democratic politics. In the wake of Independence, Indians looked forward to participating in the modern world as free and equal members. The political leadership under Jawaharlal Nehru was modernist and not traditionalist. Independence created new opportunities for breaking free from the cobwebs of the past. The Indian middle class wanted a modern and not a traditional education for its children. The urge for a modern, not to say a western, education for their children has expanded and intensified among middle class families in the last 50 years.The seeds of modernisation along with those of democracy and development, were planted in Indian soil during the colonial rule. Independence and decolonisation brought in new elements and new configurations, but at least in India they did not lead to a complete break with the immediate past. Neither Nehru, the first Prime Minister, nor B. R. Ambedkar, the main architect of the Constitution, wanted such a break; and even Sardar Patel threw in his weight in favour of retaining the ICS, till then regarded as the steel frame of imperial rule.
Attitudes to modernity and modernisation have changed between the middle of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st. Fifty years ago, the modernists held the field because the traditionalists spoke in a weak voice and post-modernism was yet to be born. There are various reasons why modernisation has lost some of the appeal it once enjoyed. First, as the process unfolded its social costs became more and more apparent, and to some at least they seemed to outweigh its benefits. In some areas and in certain phases it tends to increase rather than reduce the gap between the socially advantaged and the disadvantaged. Second, certain homogenising tendencies inherent in modernisation make it appear as a perpetual threat to the social and cultural identity of the nation as a whole. The prophets of doom declare that modernisation will rob Indian society and culture or its identity and yet leave Indians far behind on the path of progress.

Apprehensions of loss of identity are not easy to dispel; one can at best try to see that they do not assume pathological forms. In its origin and evolution, the idea of modernisation has been tied inextricably to that of westernisation: that has been the poisoned chalice for many ardent nationalists who want their country to progress. Many might like to subscribe to modernisation but they would not like to submit to western hegemony. Is it possible to have a modernity that will be completely untainted by any association with western ideas and values?
In an important study of the Arab world conducted just after decolonisation began, Daniel Lerner spoke by preference of modernisation rather than westernisation. He explained his preference by saying his Arab readers would be more comfortable with the first than with the second. They welcomed modernisation but were deeply ambivalent towards the West.

In his Tagore lectures barely a decade later, M. N. Srinivas decided to face the issue squarely and chose `westernisation' instead of `modernisation'. He pointed to the complexity of westernisation and to the depth of its penetration in Indian society. Although it had spread widely, its spread was not uniform. It started during colonial rule, but the end of colonial rule did not bring westernisation to an end. Rather, as Srinivas noted, "the process has become greatly intensified, in many ways, since 1947 when India became independent." Further, there was, according to him, a change in the motive force by which the process was driven. In the 19th century, the desire for social reform took precedence over the urge for national freedom, but the priorities became reversed in the course of time.
Srinivas' account of social change in modern India, published in the mid-1960s, is remarkable for its depth of historical insight and its freedom from ideological cant. He gave the due share of credit to British rule but did not fail to point out that the British generally acted in their own interest, which was not always the interest of their Indian subjects. Nor did he believe that "the mindless imitation of the West" was all that there was to the process of westernisation. Although by no means uncritically admiring of India's modernising elite, he gave its members credit for their capacity for adaptation and innovation.
Indian society has moved too far along the road to modernity for it to be able to turn back now or even to stay at a standstill. No society can today opt out of the modern world without doing irreparable harm to itself. Being part of the modern world means remaining open to influences from all around. There will be blind imitation, no matter how much we deplore it; but there will also be intelligent adaptation as there has been in the past. Too much anxiety about the loss of identity and authenticity puts the brakes on a society's natural growth process.
Modernisation has not led all societies to become carbon copies - or caricatures - of any one society, and is unlikely to do so in the future. The modern world allows choices to be made, but the choices are not unrestricted. There are those who say that the modernity that emerged in the West in the wake of Enlightenment is irredeemably flawed, and that we should turn our back on it and create our own alternative modernity. That would be a vain and hopeless pursuit. Modernisation is not like a bus which one boards as one chooses and from which one alights as one pleases.

[nairpraveenk]

The topics choosen are simple awesome. Are you googling and finding these post from a myriad of post. Stil, good work. it takes time to dig out such good article . Well you too must give credit to the author right?.
Do post the link too and keep up the good work!!

[tris]

Capitalism is a very flawed system but the others are so much worse

Many people reading about the recent spate of business scandals in the USA may conclude that capitalism is a pretty dreadful system. We have long moaned and groaned about crooked Indian businessmen who inflate profits, hide liabilities, manipulate markets, and break a hundred laws. But the US scandals show that crooked businessmen exist everywhere.
This week, some of the biggest energy companies in the US such as CMS, Dynegy and Reliant admitted that up to 80 per cent of their electricity trades in California were bogus. They indulged in fictitious sales to one another to create the illusion of a boom in revenue. They also indulged in various dirty tricks (some of which could be criminal and lead to prosecution) to exploit loopholes in power regulations (like artificially creating power congestion and then getting paid to relieve it).
This showed there was nothing unique about the peccadilloes of Enron, the seventh biggest company in the world some months ago, that hid huge debts off its balance sheets and overstated profits to create an illusion of prosperity when in fact it was heading for bankruptcy. Enron was abetted by one of the celebrated Big Five of accounting, Arthur Andersen, which is now in the dock for criminal obstruction of justice. The most celebrated giants like General Electric and Boeing stand accused of fudging their accounts to show ever-rising quarterly profits. Microsoft, the biggest of all, is on trial for monopolistic behaviour. Pfizer, the biggest drug company, stands accused of manipulating drug prices, and last year, a cartel of drug companies were fined for trying to rig vitamin prices. Big oil companies are being investigated for rigging petrol prices.
Crooked behaviour is not uniquely Indian or American. It is inherent in human behaviour, and can reach great heights in a capitalist system. Now, market systems have enabled many countries to achieve stunning improvements in living standards that would have been considered impossible a century ago. Businessmen seek to enrich themselves, not society. But competitive, transparent markets force businessmen to compete on a level playing field, because of which the main gains of all their innovation and enterprise go to consumers. For the 500 biggest companies listed in Fortune magazine, net profit averages only 3.3 per cent of sales.
For that very reason, however, businessmen are constantly tempted to find ways to reduce competition and transparency to increase their profits at the expense of customers. This can take legal forms (lobbying, innovative book-keeping, exploiting loopholes) or illegal forms (bribes, fraud, rule-breaking).
No wonder, then, that so many people are utterly disgusted with capitalism and seek alternatives. No wonder they find the profit motive a morally unacceptable basis for ordering an economic system.
When the main actors of such a system are self-serving, manipulative and greedy; when they fudge facts, make false claims and promises, bend the law in various ways and indulge in outright crimes, how the outcome be at all satisfactory? Answer: for the same reason that self-serving, manipulative and greedy politicians produce a satisfactory outcome called democracy.
The argument for a market system is exactly the same as for democracy. Winston Churchill once said that democracy is a very flawed system, but all the others are so much worse. The same is true of capitalism: it is a very flawed system but the others are so much worse. Enron hid its liabilities and exaggerated its assets. But do not all political parties hide their political liabilities and exaggerate their political assets? Many crooked business promoters promise investors the moon in order to raise money. But do not politicians also promise the moon to get votes?
Companies fudge their books and make inflated claims to mislead gullible investors. But do not politicians make inflated claims to mislead gullible voters? Businessmen claim to represent the national interest while feathering their nest (by, for instance, demanding high import barriers in the holy name of swadeshi). But politicians in a democracy also claim to represent the national interest while feathering their own nests.
Businessmen indulge in bribery. So do politicians. Businessmen revel in black money. So do politicians. Businessmen hire hoodlums to beat up workers or ruin a rival's business. Politicians too hire hoodlums to capture polling booths and sabotage rivals' rallies. Businessmen intimidate and buy up rivals to reduce competition. Politicians too use intimidation and money to buy defectors.There are many criminals in business. There are many criminals in politics too. The use of money, muscle and influence to sabotage rivals and competition is a feature of democracy no less than of capitalism.
Why, despite all this, do we regard democracy as the best political system? Because it is grounded in choice for the ordinary man, and freedom to choose is a paramount virtue that makes other freedoms possible. In democracies, the ruler is chosen by ordinary citizens and voted out by them too.
Politicians do their best to subvert free choice through the use of money, manipulation and muscle. Yet the freedom to choose empowers ordinary citizens so much that, despite a thousand flaws, democracy turns out to be more desirable and beneficial than the most well-meaning autocracy. Democracy creates a market for political goods. Capitalism creates a market for material goods. In both cases, the freedom to choose gives the ordinary man in the street greater power than the biggest political or economic giant. By shifting his vote, the ordinary citizen can oust the most entrenched politician, and by shifting his custom he can bankrupt the most entrenched company. Lenin was logically consistent in refusing to allow freedom of choice in either political or material goods. What I find amusing is the notion of many democratic socialists that the people must be free to choose their own rulers, but cannot be allowed to choose what goods to buy; that political licensing is abominable but industrial licensing is moral. There lies the road to serfdom.

[tris]

Many of us were quite interested to know the source.Well Many of these topivs have been picked from IIM CAT 2006 : IMS India : Training for IIM entrance exams, MBA in India, MBA Abroad, CAT Coaching / training

[chuck_gopal]

Dude, rather than make this seem like an RC passage practice session, why don't you just post a topic... Just the title... And we can have a discussion on that.

Liek your last topic was excellent. You should have just given the topic, poured in your views, waited for others to respond, and then at the end maybe post the article you found

That, I feel, would be more constructive.

But hats off to you, man, for this initiative

ChUcK

[frankgambale]

Hi Guys ... some more info on the topic "The developing world needs trade, not aid, to help the poor" ... was searching for info in google and came across this .Even i am trying to learn about these topics so thought my post might help ,so here goes............

The developing world needs trade, not aid, to help the poor
November 15 2002



Handouts from the rich nations too often fill the pockets of dictators rather than the bellies of the starving, writes James Shikwati.

About a year ago, trade ministers who met at the last World Trade Organisation meeting in Doha, Qatar, launched a new round of trade negotiations called the Development Round. Since then very little has been done in the way of freeing up trade to people in poor countries.
Indeed, mostly things have gone in the opposite direction, with the US announcing a subsidy bonanza for its farmers and imposing restrictions on steel imports. Meanwhile, to the extent that the international community has been discussing "development" it has been in the context of increasing "aid" to the "developing" world. This was the theme of the meeting in Monterrey, Mexico, in March, and again at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg.
But "aid" will not stimulate development. Only trade can do that. For many years, well-meaning aid agencies have sought to help people in poor countries. Since the 1960s, over $500 billion. has been given to the governments of African countries in the form of grants and soft loans. Yet the results have been less than spectacular. During the 1980s, at least 92 attempted military takeovers - some succeeding, some not - were recorded, affecting 29 African countries. Between 1981 and 1996 aid to Africa from all donors averaged about $US19 billion annually. During the same period, nearly half the countries in Africa experienced significant episodes of violent conflict between government and opposition groups. Four million people lost their lives, including seven heads of state; 3 million people became refugees.
The question remains: how can something that seems so good have had such a corrosive effect? The answer is that aid gives untrustworthy leaders the resources with which to engage in violent and repressive acts. Mengistu (Ethiopia), Pol Pot (Cambodia) and Idi Amin (Uganda) are among the more infamous recipients of foreign aid. Even food aid has been diverted to feed soldiers whose sole aim is to keep the population down. Recent reports indicate Robert Mugabe is diverting food aid to his supporters rather than allowing it to go to the starving millions in Zimbabwe.

In places where poverty is rife, aid becomes the route to riches for the elite. Money is disbursed through contracts, with rulers receiving huge kickbacks for their favours. By 1982 Zaire (now Democratic Republic of Congo) had accumulated a foreign debt of $5 billion. Its president, Mobutu Sese Seko, had accumulated a personal fortune of $4 billion.

@media print {.nopr {display:none}}

Aid also undermines the democratic accountability of government. By offering governments a non-tax source of revenue, it enables them to ignore the wishes of citizens and reduces their incentive to deliver public services efficiently and effectively. It also exacerbates cronyism. Why not award valuable contracts to your brother-in law's more expensive (and less efficient) building company if you know the people can't complain?
For the poor of the world, the main concern is that their governments stop strangling and looting their economies. As the Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto has shown, economic progress depends mainly on society's institutions. That means formal property rights, free markets and the rule of law. These institutions enable people to own and exchange goods without fear of arbitrary expropriation, either by bandits or by the state. They thereby encourage economic activity, which enables people to escape from poverty. Some even become rich.
The rich world can help - by opening its markets to textiles, agricultural goods, and other products from the poor world. Trade will lead to production that will lift the standards of living in poor countries. It could also remove its agricultural subsidies, which reduce world market prices of these goods, reducing the amount poor-world producers can obtain for their goods.
When the developed world does give aid, it should be narrowly targeted (say, to provide assistance to trade negotiators or technical training), or in the form of products (such as food aid or medicines) rather than money that can be stolen, diverted or misused.
Guilt and goodwill have blinded many to the damage that aid can do. Trade, not aid, is the solution for the poor. At this week's informal WTO ministerial meeting in Sydney, trade ministers should make good on their promise at Doha to create a world trading system that benefits all participants. That means reducing tariff and non-tariff barriers on all goods, as well as reducing agricultural subsidies.
James Shikwati, director of the Inter-Region economic Network in Nairobi, Kenya, is visiting Australia for the WTO meeting.