Economic Development More Important Than Democracy in Promoting a Essay

Economic Development More Important Than Democracy in Promoting a Welfare State - Essay Example Essentially, this paper provides various definitions of the â€Å"welfare state condition,† attempts to juxtapose the democratic view with the perspective that favors economic development, and presents a plausible explanation why economic development is more important than democracy. Also, this paper will enumerate several practices that contribute to economic development, thereby, increasing the chances of attaining a welfare state. Definition of Welfare State Over the years, there has been no strict and general definition of the welfare state. Some relate the term to power and industrialisation while others try to refer it as one of the capitalist contradictions. A classic definition of the term is the state’s â€Å"responsibility for securing some basic modicum of welfare for its citizens† (Pierson & Castles, 2006, p.160). Apart from this definition, Asa Briggs (as cited in Flora & Heidenheimer, 2009, p.29) also defined the welfare state as the condition chara cterised by an organised power that uses politics and administration to change the direction of market forces. This can be done in three ways: (1) through ensuring that individuals and families could receive a minimum income regardless of their properties’ market value, (2) by assisting families and individuals meet their social needs, thereby, reducing their sense of insecurity, and (3) ensuring that all citizens, regardless of social class and status, are given the highest standards of social services (as cited in Flora & Heidenheimer, 2009, p.29). The Democracy View vs. Economic Development After the in-depth discussion of the term welfare state, it is worthwhile to present the split views of paternalism and the democracy. Paternalism connotes economic development while democratic views favor a free market model. Throughout the years, there has been an existing clash between paternalism model followed in the 18th century and the emerging free market model that was especial ly advocated by Adam Smith. As a result, there were several insights generated to support its stand as well as to oppose each other’s perspectives. Paternalism, as defined by Abercrombie and Hill (as cited in Varano, 1999, p.26), is an economic institution that organises the productive unit and regulates the relationships between the owners of the means of production and their respective subordinates. Moreover, it is composed of different access to power and resources and an unequal distribution of goods and services. Oftentimes, paternalism emphasises elite control and privilege towards the subordinates. It also attempts to lessen the worst effects of industrial capitalism through combining traditional and community norms. Contrary to this view, some sociologists and economists alike such as Richard Sennett (as cited in Varano, 1999, p.27), contend that paternalism was intended to mask the hidden interest of the industrialists to enforce high level of production. He continue s by citing that paternalism only connotes elite oversight and community welfare instead of advancing the morale of the workers (Varano, 1999, p.27). The free-market model also extremely contradicts to the paternalistic model since the latter was based on some statute laws, common laws, and customs while the former allows the exploration of the

Diversity in Work and Organisation Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Diversity in Work and Organisation - Essay Example It must change to reflect the said diversity and in so doing, partially contribute towards the amelioration of cross-cultural, transnational and cross-linguistic paradigms (Hon and Brunner, 2000; Grin and Korth, 2005; Morrison, 2006). If they are to effectively perform within the bounds of multicultural societies and ethnically diverse markets, organizations must hire a diverse pool of talented people who bring skills such as language and cultural expertise to the equation. Changing demographic realties, whether on the local or the global level, have brought a plethora of challenges and opportunities to the fore. As regards opportunities, people who previously have been denied the opportunity for full development of their talents may achieve greater opportunities. However, these opportunities to minorities and diversity have been created through struggle, particularly opposition from the dominant majority. To alleviate these issues, organisations commonly talk about implementing diversity programs and other initiatives to increase understanding of different cultures and to help acclimate foreign individuals into society and, herein, lies the greatest challenge (Hon and Brunner, 2000; Grin and Korth, 2005; Morrison, 2006). The challenge to the positive and constructive exploitation of the opportunities which diversity promises lies in the management of diversity through the adoption of employee diversity training programmes, ultimately lending to the de velopment of an organisation's human resources. While the majority of Western companies have openly expressed their commitment to diversity management within an HRD context, Morrison (2006) argues that commitment has been largely limited to rhetoric, as opposed to action and HR training. Diversity rhetoric, as opposed to action, abounds. This does not imply, however, that the rhetoric is without value or does not have the potentially to constructively inform the design of diversity training programmes. As Edelman, Riggs, and Drita (2001) point out, the diversity rhetoric which pervades management and HR journals positively directs organisations towards the management of diversity, the value of diversity and the real-time benefits which organisations may accrue from adopting flexible management styles which are willing to defer to the interests of individuals, and able to resolve new types of conflicts that arise from various cultural backgrounds. Moreover, this new management style needs to be supportive of various lifestyles, able to match different types of people to appropriate jobs, and willing to accommodate different methods of accomplishing work and evaluating people (Edelman, Riggs and Drita, 2001). Diversity rhetoric has, in some cases, translated into a recipe for action. Companies have begun providing diversity training, particularly to managers. As early as 1991, a study of 406 organizations showed that 63% provided diversity training for managers, 50% provided a statement on diversity from top management, 39% provided diversity training for employees, and 31% had a diversity task force (Winterle, 1992). According to Gilbert and Ivancevich (2000), as organisations and societies have become