Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Global Business Today Canadian 4th Edition Hill Solutions Manual
Global Business Today Canadian 4th Edition Hill Solutions Manual
https://testbankfan.com/download/global-business-today-canadian-4th-edition-hill-sol
utions-manual/
CHAPTER 2
COUNTRY DIFFERENCES IN POLITICAL ECONOMY
INTRODUCTION
POLITICAL SYSTEMS
ECONOMIC SYSTEMS
Market Economy
Command Economy
Mixed Economy
LEGAL SYSTEMS
STATES IN TRANSITION
Instructor’s Manual to accompany Global Business Today, 4th edition (Hill & McKaig) 1
Deregulation
Privatization
Legal Systems
Implications
Attractiveness
Ethics and Regulations
Learning Objectives
Chapter Summary
This chapter focuses on how political, economic, and legal systems collectively influence a country’s ability
to achieve meaningful economic progress. The first half of the chapter focuses on the different political,
© 2015 McGraw-Hill Ryerson Ltd. All rights reserved
Instructor’s Manual to accompany Global Business Today, 4th edition (Hill & McKaig) 2
economic, and legal systems that are influential in the world. It is made clear to the reader that these
differences are significant, and must be clearly understood by the managers of international firms. The
section that focuses on legal systems includes a discussion of intellectual property, including patents,
copyrights, and trademarks. Protecting intellectual property is a particularly problematic issue in
international trade. The second half of the chapter focuses on the determinants of economic development.
The author makes the point that a country’s political, economic, and legal systems have a direct impact on
its economic potential. The importance of innovation, along with the types of systems that facilitate
innovation, is discussed. Next, the author discusses the parts of the world that are transition from one
political-economic ideology to another, and the implications of this changing political economy. Finally,
the chapter ends with a brief discussion of ethical issues.
Summary
The opening case describes the positive economic changes in Ghana that result from economic
liberalization policies. The opening case tracks the changes within Ghana since gaining its
independence from Britain in 1957 and through its progression of military coups and corruption
over the ensuing decades. Political liberalization began in 1992 and from that point onwards, and
up to 2010, measures were put in place to advance Ghana to its next phase of prosperity, being
derived from its oil boom. Norway and Thailand’s revenues laws were used as an example of
ensuring that oil profits would go into a national fund as opposed to be siphoned off in corrupt
practices. Part of the new development that followed these progressive measures was to embark on
a national public works initiative that included a national road construction and airport on projects,
and to double the country's electricity supply between 2010 and 2015.. Even though Ghana’s
economy is still primarily commodity-based in cocoa exports, its economy shows promise thanks to
these new measures put in place.
1) What was the most important change since Ghana’s independence that allowed it to chart long
term economic success?
2)
The student can site the political liberalization measure that came into effect in 1992 and then
further discuss other areas mentioned in the case such as privatization and market-based
reforms.
Instructor’s Manual to accompany Global Business Today, 4th edition (Hill & McKaig) 3
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
W. Ransom, $4,817.60; B. F. Rice, $3,200; T. J. Robertson,
$4,374.80; F. A. Sawyer, $4,294.40; George E. Spencer, $4,106; W.
Sprague, $4,508; W. M. Stewart, $1,486.40; J. P. Stockton, $4,790;
T. W. Tipton, $3,358; Lyman Trumbull, $3,980; G. Vickers, $4,880;
J. R. West, $2,468 80.
III.—Names of Senators who covered into the Treasury amounts
due them under retroactive provisions of law, with date of such
action.
There is no record in my office showing that any Senator covered
into the Treasury any money to which he was entitled by the
retroactive provisions of either of the acts of September 22, 1789,
March 19, 1816, January 22, 1818, August 16, 1856, or July 28, 1866.
The following Senators covered into the Treasury the amounts due
them under the retroactive provision of the act of March 3, 1873,
namely:
1873.—May 26, H. B. Anthony, $4,497.20; June 23, W. A.
Buckingham, $4,553.60; May 21, R. E. Fenton, $4,184; June 2, F. T.
Frelinghuysen, $4,644.80; May 19, H. Hamlin, $4,136; August 14, O.
P. Morton, $3,922.40; April 9, D. D. Pratt, $4,121.60; August 25, A.
Ramsey, $3,041.40; March 28, C. Schurz, $3,761.60; May 9, John
Scott, $4,733.06; July 11, John Sherman, $4,336.40; May 2, C.
Sumner, $4,445.60; May 22, A. G. Thurman, $4,359.20; March 28,
Henry Wilson, $4,448; September 6, George G. Wright, $3,140 80.
Note.—Several of these Senators, as well as others who have not
either drawn or covered into the Treasury the amounts due them
under the retroactive provision of the act of 1873, expressed to me
their intention to allow the money to lapse into the Treasury by the
ordinary operation of law, which they supposed would occur July 3,
1873. After learning that it could not be covered in, except by their
order, before July 3, 1875, some gave me written instructions to
anticipate the latter date. I am unable to furnish from any
information in my office the names of Senators who themselves paid
into the Treasury salary drawn under the act of 1873 or previous acts.
I have not furnished the names of Senators who have left increased
salary undrawn, as this information was not called for in the
resolution.
IV.—A Comparative Statement.
At the second session of the 42d Congress that body, and the
President as well, were compelled to consider a new question in
connection with politics—an actual conflict of State Governments.
There had always been, in well regulated State governments,
returning boards, but with a view the better to guard the newly
enfranchised citizens of the South from intimidation, the Louisiana
Republicans, under very bold and radical leaders, had greatly
strengthened the powers of her returning boards. It could canvass
the votes, reject the returns in part or as a whole of parishes where
force or fraud had been used, and could declare results after such
revision. The Governor of Louisiana had made several removals and
appointments of State officers for the purpose mainly of making a
friendly majority in the returning board, and this led to the
appointment of two bodies, both claiming to be the legitimate
returning board. There soon followed two State governments and
legislatures, the Democratic headed by Governor John McEnery, the
Republican by Governor Wm. Pitt Kellogg, later in the U. S. Senate.
Kellogg brought suit against the Democratic officers before Judge
Durell, of the Federal District Court, and obtained an order that the
U. S. Marshal (S. B. Packard, afterwards Governor), should seize the
State House and prevent the meetings of the McEnery legislature.
Then both governments were hastily inaugurated, and claimed the
recognition of Congress. The Senate Committee reported that Judge
Durell’s decision was not warranted, but the report refused a decisive
recognition of either government. A bill was introduced declaring the
election of Nov. 4, 1872, on which this condition of affairs was based,
null and void, and providing for a new election, but this bill was
defeated by a close vote. Later on, Louisiana claimed a large share in
National politics. Somewhat similar troubles occurred in Alabama,
Arkansas, and Texas, but they were settled with far greater ease than
those of Louisiana. The correspondence in all of these cases was too
voluminous to reproduce here, and we shall dismiss the subject until
the period of actual hostilities were reached in Louisiana.
The Grangers.
S. M. Cullom,
Speaker House of Representatives.
John Early,
President of the Senate.
John L. Beveridge,
Governor.
The same spirit, if not the same organization, led to many petitions
to Congress for the regulation of inter-state commerce and freight
rates, and to some able reports on the subject. Those which have
commanded most attention were by Senator Windom of Minnesota
and Representative Reagan of Texas, the latter being the author of a
bill which commanded much consideration from Congress in the
sessions of 1878–’80, but which has not yet secured favorable action.
In lieu of such bill Senator Cameron, of Pennsylvania, introduced a
joint resolution for the appointment of a Commission to investigate
and report upon the entire question. Final action has not yet been
taken, and at this writing interest in the subject seems to have
flagged.
The disastrous political action attempted by the Grangers in
Illinois and Wisconsin, led to such general condemnation that
subsequent attempts were abandoned save in isolated cases, and as a
rule the society has passed away. The principle upon which it was
based was wholly unsound, and if strictly carried out, would destroy
all home improvements and enterprise. Parties and societies based
upon a class, and directed or perverted toward political objects, are
very happily short-lived in this Republic of ours. If they could thrive,
the Republic could not long endure.
Supplementary Civil Rights Bill.
“Article —.
SHERIDAN’S REPORT.
New Orleans, January 10, 1875.
P. H. Sheridan,
Lieutenant-General.
JOINT RESOLUTION.
George F. Hoar,
W. A. Wheeler,
W. P. Frye,
Charles Foster,
Clarkson N. Potter,
William Walter Phelps,
Samuel S. Marshall.