Abstract
The economic and political growth of South America has been a disappointing one over the years. Despite having attained political independence at roughly the same time with the U.S, the nations of South America fell rapidly behind the U.S. During the 19th century, the economy of South American experienced no growth per capita, and this is a period during which the per capita income of the U.S and Canada grew between four and sixfold. The poor economic growth of South America cannot be understood well without looking at politics and economies of other nations. Since the years of independence, several nations’ levels of social, political and economic conflicts have been high, and this has generated strong impediments to the development of their economies.
Introduction
Each and every country has its own political and economic development systems that they adopt. Political development entails a resilient alteration in philosophies or institutes that modify the practicable set of alternatives open to unraveling political problems. Its study can be understood as the progression of the edifice of a state in correspondence with the changes that take place in the economic and social dimension of the populace (Wiarda et al, 87). Similarly, economic development entails the continual concentrated activities of policy makers and communities that encourage the standards of living and economic health of a specific country something that implies that each country has its own unique political and economic developments systems. This paper will be endeavoring at elucidating and expounding on how political systems of countries differ as well as how the legal systems of countries differ. In addition, the paper will be expounding on the determinants of the level of economic development of a country on top of analyzing how transition economies are moving towards marked based systems.
Question 1
The political systems of most countries differ because of the way their sixfold structures work. This political structures include; political parties, legislatures, interest groups, executives, courts and bureaucracies. It is understood that this political structures work differently according to the country. Similar structures can have different functions across the political systems. For instance china and Britain have all six types of these political structures, but their institutions are organized differently in these two countries (Buxton et al, 54-55). The political executive in Britain consists of the cabinet and the prime minister, and the cabinet includes the heads of major agencies and departments. These officials are usually selected from among the members of parliament. China has a similar structure, called the state council which is headed by a premier and consists of various ministers and ministerial commissions (Dogan et al, 45-46). But, while the prime minister of Britain and the cabinet have substantial powers of policy making, China’s state council is closely supervised by the general secretary of the communist party, the politburo and the Central Committee of the party and it has less influence over the public policy by far.
Still using the case of China and America, both of the countries have legislative bodies, the National People’s Congress in china and the House of Commons of Britain. While the House of Commons is a key institution in the policy making process of Britain, the Congress in China meets for only brief moments during which they ratify the decisions made by the communist party authorities. In terms of political parties, Britain has competitive party system whereby the majority members in the House of Commons and the cabinet are persistently confronted by an opposition party or parties competing for the support of the public. In china, the communist party has the control of the whole political process. There are no other political parties in China, and the government agencies simply implement these policies.
This simple comparison of China and Britain gives knowledge about how political systems of nations can differ. Some systems are made to function the way they do because their leaders want to control them differently. Another reason why they differ is because of the level of democracy that exists within those nations. Some nations do not have democracy at all, while others like Canada has limited democracy due to full control of the prime minister.
Question 2
The history and comparative law have very close links as they explain characteristics and peculiarities or background of legal ideas which is sometimes referred to as legal jurisprudence. Legal systems can be very broadly or more narrowly defined into national legal systems. For instance the French legal system also forms part of the civil law system, the legal system of Australia also forms part of the common law system as does the legal system of America (Goodin et al, 121). Within these national systems, further legal systems exist. For example the political structure of a country may allow for various legal systems for different provinces or states as it is in the United States of America, Switzerland and Australia. Legal systems may exist with the absence of political structures as it is the case of Islamic law or the Jewish law.
Question 3
The economic development of a society or a country is usually associated with rising incomes, and the related increase in savings, investment and consumption. Other factors include technology, education and the quality of life of the people in the society. When a country is developed, many people get access to education and the crime rates can reduce. Another thing that comes with development is technology. A developed country can get access to high standard of technology that increases work efficiency, decreases production costs and sometimes conserves the environment (Dogan et al, 45-46). This is the reason as to why the U.S, which is the leading nation, has the most advanced technology. Health dictates the quality of life because health is wealth. People in a developed nation can get access to better health facilities, which increases their life expectancy. In general the following determines economic development; widespread access to standard housing and infrastructure, low levels of poverty, universal access to social safety and low levels of infectious diseases (Goodin et al, 121).
Question 4
Since late 1980s, many of the world’s political economies of many nations have two major changes. First, there was a wave of democratic revolutions witnessed that swept the world, many of the totalitarian regimes that existed previously collapsed. There are three main reasons that give an account of the spread of democracy (Wiarda et al, 87). One of the reasons is that totalitarian regimes failed in the quest to deliver economic progress to the bulk of their population that was increasing. Secondly, new technology in terms of information and communication has broken down the ability of controlling access to uncensored information by the state. Finally, there has been a move aimed at moving away from centrally planned mixed economies to free market economies.
Question 5
Paralleling the spreading of democracy since the years of late 1980s has been the transiting or changing from the command economies, which were centrally placed, to the market based economies where the goods and services that the country produces and their prices are not planned by anyone (Buxton et al, 54-55). The basis for transformation has been the same all over the world. In general, both command and the mixed economies failed to provide the required standards of sustained economic performance as it was experienced in other countries that had adopted the market-based system. This was a more reason has to why more countries across the world would want to avoid an economy that was planned by the government.
Work Cited
Buxton, Julia, and Nicola Phillips. Developments in Latin American Political Economy: States, Markets and Actors. Manchester: Manchester Univ. Press, 1999. Print.
Dogan, Mattei, and Dominique Pelassy. How to Compare Nations: Strategies in Comparative Politics. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, 1990.
Goodin, Robert E., and Hans-Dieter Klingemann. A New Handbook of Political Science. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996 (Chapters 2 and 3, and Part 4)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook
Wiarda, Howard J, and Harvey F. Kline. Latin American Politics and Development. New York: Perseus Books Group, 2010. Internet resource.
