The development of the international economy in the period 1945-2000 favoured rich countries at the expense of the poor. How far do you agree?
"The development of the international economy in the period 1945-2000 favoured rich countries at the expense of the poor". How far do you agree? The global economy faced several ups and downs after World War II from 1945 to 2000, due to transformations achieved through the development of the economy. More often than not, these changes were executed by the richer 1st world developed countries (DCs) like the USA, Western Europe (WE) and Japan. While some of their policies aimed to improve the international economy on a whole, there were others that were pro-West and discriminated against the less developed countries (LDCs), hence causing them to enter crisis or suffer losses in trade and industry. This essay seeks to evaluate the extent of the policy changes and other events which disfavoured the economies of the LDCs or only benefited the DCs, as compared to those aiming to eliminate preferential treatment or discrimination. International economic institutions such as the World Bank (WB), IMF, GATT and WTO played significant roles in regulating the global economy and implementing new rules that affected both the DCs and LDCs. To begin with, the Bretton-Woods institutions were inherently unresponsive to 3rd world interests upon establishment, as they felt the LDCs were insignificant in the global economy. The institutions were largely inclined towards accelerating the
To what extent is the oil crisis of 1973 a turning point in postwar economic development?
Chin Ying Lin Olivia (2) 6L 07/02/2010 To what extent can the oil crisis of 1973-4 be regarded as a turning point in the development of the international economy? The 1973 oil crisis was an event when the members of Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) proclaimed an oil embargo in response to the U.S. decision to re-supply the Israeli military during the Yom Kippur war and lasted until March 1974. In this essay, a "turning point" is defined to be a landmark- an event marking a unique or important historical change of course or one on which important developments depend. While acknowledging that the oil crisis certainly had dramatic and lasting impact on the development of the international economy: in terms of signifying the start of a worldwide shift in power away from the U.S for the first time, bringing about catastrophic repercussions on the international economy and also leading to the formation of the G-7 ; to regard it as a " turning point" would be an overstatement, due to the temporary nature of the crisis, as well as preceding events such as the collapse of the Bretton Woods System, and the continuity of dominance of the US in the global economy, albeit with lesser power than before the oil crisis. All these suggest otherwise: either that other events qualify more as a "turning point" than the oil crisis, or that there remained continuity of
Using these four passages and your own knowledge, asses the view that the US policy of Marshall in 1947 was motivated mainly by the altruistic desire to help the economic recovery of Europe
Using these four passages and your own knowledge, asses the view that the US policy of Marshall in 1947 was motivated mainly by the altruistic desire to help the economic recovery of Europe. The situation in Europe after the Second World War was truly desperate; many states were in ruins due to the devastation that caused unimaginable poverty and distress. At the surface, the US's plans to help Europe through the Marshall Plan are altruistic; however, looking deeper, the benefits that the US receives are high and rewarding. So much so, that it could be construed that the US had ulterior motives within their altruistic attempt on rebuilding the European Economy and thus benefiting themselves. During the interwar period, the US had based its foreign affairs on a "policy of glorious isolationism" - a policy that would have separated the US from the affairs of the world that did not concern them. At the end of the Second World War, the US's view had changed considerably in that they now wanted to help the European Community through 'the offer of aid through Marshall's new programme...'1 it was 'made available to all European countries without distinction,'2 making it seem that the US were being all inclusive within their scheme to help. At the surface, this would have been altruistic in that Marshall was helping Europe because he saw the devastation left behind from the Second
How far do you agree that the Cold War broke out in Europe because the USA and the USSR disagreed fundamentally about how they should treat the shattered European economy?
How far do you agree that the Cold War broke out in Europe because the USA and the USSR disagreed fundamentally about how they should treat the shattered European economy? Subsequent to the Second World War in 1945, the European economy was in tatters as much of the infrastructure had been laid to waste and industrial centres destroyed. As such, the two main victors of the war, the United States of America (USA) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), declared their commitment to postwar unity and mutual cooperation in improving global conditions. 1 Yet, in less than two years, a fervent rivalry between the two nations led to a breaking up of accord, concerning mutual blaming, the division of Europe, as well as the difference in political ideologies. The Cold War broke out in Europe in 1947, signifying a sharp and unexpected deterioration in postwar relations between the USA and USSR. Yet all through this period, the rivalry between the two superpowers was played out in numerous areas: military coalitions; ideology, military, industrial, and technological developments. Europe was split in half, with Western Europe supporting the USA, and Eastern Europe being an ally of the USSR. So, was the disagreement on how to deal with the shattered European economy between the USA and USSR the sole reason for the Cold War? I would agree with this statement only to a small
To what extent is Rambo: First Blood Part 2 typical of Hollywood main stream cinema's treatment of gender in the 1980's?
MAC 120 To what extent is Rambo: First Blood Part 2 typical of Hollywood mainstream cinema's treatment of gender in the 1980's? Action films in the 1980's reflected the changes and insecurity's within American society. There had been a rise in feminism meaning that the masculine form and dominance was being undermined and white working class males did not know where their place was in society. It was also in the immediate time after the Vietnam War and confusion and anger still lingered. The Vietnam War divided the American nation as a whole because, as it has been in recent times with the war in Iraq, people didn't fully understand why America needed to impose their presence in a country where they felt they had nothing to gain. The action film in the 1980's introduced a hero that differentiated masculinity and femininity using the form of the body as a way of ensuring power, dominance and self-respect. Rambo: First Blood Part 2 is a typical film of this era in terms of masculinity and the ways in which men and women are portrayed. In the film Rambo: First Blood Part 2 Sylvester Stallone portrays a typical action hero of the 'war film' genre in the 1980's but also an outcast of society after the Vietnam War. He is a veteran of Vietnam and came home to find that
Was the collapse of the USSR historically inevitable?
Was the collapse of the USSR historically inevitable? The twenty fifth of December 1991, Mikhail Gorbachev resigns as President of The Soviet Union and the country is dissolute in fifteen republics after an existence of nearly seventy years. Before this moment, less or none historians predicted this collapse. Nevertheless, one can ask the question whether this collapse was historically inevitable or not. The aim of this essay is not to rewrite History but explain what has lead to the end of the Soviet Union. First of all, this essay will describe shortly some important steps of the Soviet History after the Second World War and in the context of the Cold War, in order to help the understood of the final collapse. Even though the last years of the soviet regime were crucial, former events and policies influenced the Breakup of USSR. In the second part, I will analyze how some events and factors, such as economy, nationalism, internal and external pressures, personalities and the war of Afghanistan made this collapse inevitable. Even though some scholars, such as Gaddis1, argue that the end of the cold war and the collapse of Soviet Union were not historically expected, this essay will show that it seems inevitable. In order to understand the Collapse of the Soviet Union, some historical facts need to be reminded2. After the death of Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev became General
How far was the Boer War, 1899-1902, a turning point in the history of the British Empire
How far was the Boer War, 1899-1902, a turning point in the history of the British Empire? (20) The Boer War symbolizes the climax of imperial tensions and excitement of the late 19th century, and can be viewed as a turning point in the history of the Empire, precipitating widespread changes. The first of these is a change in the attitudes towards the ideology of empire; the second is a change in terms of future administration of the empire; and the third is a change in the role of Britain as a dominant world power. The combination of these changes caused the beginnings of a series of transformations concerning the British Empire. The first significant turning point was in terms of attitudes to empire. At the end of the 19th century Britain was experiencing enormous prosperity, characterised by imperial expansion and dominance. Owing to her industrialisation and resulting wealth, Britain became a strong and influential world power, monopolising trade in Africa, India and Asia. Through her 'Open Door' policy in China, Britain controlled 70% of world trade, reaping enormous profits. Moreover, she controlled extremely profitable gold and diamond mining regions in Africa, and capitalised on trade in India which was a source of cheap materials and labour, as well as a huge and profitable market for British goods. Therefore, Britain's imperial position was strong and dominant,
How far were Maos agricultural policies responsible for the scale of the Great Famine in China, 1958-1962?
How far were Mao's agricultural policies responsible for the scale of the Great Famine in China, 1958-1962? Mao's agricultural policies were extreme, unpopular and carelessly thought through which made them largely responsible for the scale of the Great Famine. These policies included bad agronomical theories of Lysenkoism and 'Sparrowcide', as well as Collectivisation and the agricultural policies from the Great Leap Forward. Chinese researchers were told that the Soviets 'had discovered and invented everything,' which meant that they looked up to the USSR believing that their actions and ideas i.e. Lysenkoism, a Soviet theory, would also benefit China. There were also other contributions which can be argued to have caused the huge scale of the famine such as the effects of the Anti-rightist campaigns in 1957, Party corruption, USSR grain repayments along with terrible weather conditions and the situation in Tibet. Collectivisation from 1953-57, was the first agricultural policy taken on by Mao which was unsupported by the peasants in the countryside who were the majority of the population. The whole aim for Collectivisation was to massively increase grain production at a relatively quick pace, but the difficulties of implementation only led to a 3.8% increase overall of crop production, and only a tiny 1% in the last year in 1957. These disappointing figures represent how
"Asses the successes and failures of Mao's domestic policies between 1949 and 1976."
"Asses the successes and failures of Mao's domestic policies between 1949 and 1976." During the time period of 1919 to 1949, rival warlords and factions struggled to assert authority in China. The two chief contenders were the Nationalists, the Kuomintang led by Sun Yatzen, and the Communists, the CCP led by Mao Zedong. Mao's initial plan was to obtain support from the peasants as the consisted of more than 75% of the population in China. After the four year struggles that followed Japan's downfall after WWI, the CCP and Mao Zedong had won the civil war. In 1949, Mao declared the PRC, Peoples Republic of China. From this period on until 1949, Mao had numerous domestic policies, some were failures and some successes. These policies can be divided into 3 categories, "Economic, Thought reform and Political/social." His optimal goal was to turn China into a super power, a power as powerful or greater than The United States. The focus of this essay is to establish whether Mao achieved this goal with his domestic policies. The effect of the civil war on China was that there was major instability in the Country. Mao knew it and one of his major concerns in order to achieve his goals was to even out this insecurity. In 1949, Mao launched the Organic law which divided China into 6 subdivisions. Each of these were regulated by offices and bureaus, which also included officials. Force
How effectively had Japan modernized itself by 1914?
How effectively had Japan modernized itself by 1914? -- Introduction Not until the 1800's did Tokugawa realize how powerless they were. Since the early 1600's, Japan completely isolated itself from the Western countries. Due to the anti-Christianity attitudes of the Tokugawa Ieyasu, Japan prohibited itself from any contact with the Western countries, and trade was mostly done with the Dutch and Chinese. For the next 200 years, although the Japanese made contact with its trade partners, and gained information about some of the current developments, the western countries were far more advanced. Japanese fiefs such as Satsuma and Choshu noticed this when Commodore Matthew C. Perry finally succeeded in breaking down the wall of Japan's seclusion in 1864. -- What was the impact of Perry's missions on Japan? Dissatisfied about the fact that American "ship-wrecked sailors" were treated very badly by the Japanese, the United States sent Perry to negotiate a treaty with Japan. In 1853, Perry arrived in large, intimidating ships to display their strength and frightened the Japanese. Perry was then able to discuss his desire for a treaty for the shipwrecked sailors. Unable to make decisions for themselves, Tokugawa exposed their weakness by having to ask the imperial leaders whether they supported the American Treaty. A year later, the actual Treaty of Kanagawa was signed. Under
