The Relationship Between Political Democracy And Economic Growth Economics Essay

The Relationship Between Political Democracy And Economic Growth Economics Essay The relationship between political democracy and economic growth has been a center of debate in the past fifty years. A corpus of cross-country research has shown that the theoretical divide on the impact of democratic versus authoritarian regimes on growth is matched by ambiguous empirical results, resulting in a consensus of an inconclusive relationship. Through this paper challenges this consensus. In contrast to the current consensus, we show that once the microscope of analysis is applied to the accumulated evidence, it is possible to draw several firm and robust conclusions regarding democracy and economic growth. Supporter of democracy argue that the motivations of citizens to work and invest, the effective allocation of resources in the marketplace, and profit maximizing private activity can all be maintained in a climate of liberty, free-flowing information and secured control of property ( North, 1990). Democracies can limit state intervention in the economy, are responsive to publics demands on area such as education, justice and health, and encourage stable and long run growth (Rodrik, 1999, Lake and Baum 2001, Baum and Lake 2003). Opponents of democracy, on the other hand, argue that democracies lend themselves to popular demand for immediate consumption at the expense of profitable investments, cannot be insulated from the interest of rent-seekers, and cannot mobilize resource swiftly. Democracies are said also to be prone to conflicts due to social, ethnic and class struggles. While some authors favor authoritarian regime to suppress conflicts, resist sectional interests and take coer cive measures necessary for rapid growth, others remain overall skeptical on whether regimes, rather than markets and institutions, matter for growth (Bhagwati 1995). Actually, there are millions of journal articles on the internet regarding to the topic of democracy and economic growth, and in order to get those articles, Google scholars and others journal websites are used to download those to read. Moreover, I use the snowball technic to keep on trace of the best sources. For example, when I found the best source, I look at its references, and then I followed the old references or foot notes of each best source to get more best sources. Since some journals are not free for download, I somehow need to spend money on the journal website in order to get the sources. Moreover, in term of getting best sources from the Google or Google scholar, I typed the only the key words of the topic of research. For instance, instead of using economic growth, I can use economic development, or Gross nation products of each nation. What is more, in order to limit the number of sources on the net, I used the quotation mark, plus sign, or equal sing around the word finding. Importantly, even there are a lot of website that can provide the best convincing information regarding to the topic, I still looked and priority on the famous websites before selecting the sources. Meanwhile of the finding and selecting the best sources, I scanned all the sources to get the overall ideas-what those resources mean to the readers, and in specific skill of selecting the best sources, I just looked the abstract part, and jumped to the conclusion. By doing that, I can pretty sure that I can comprehend what the papers want to be told. Then, I look at those finding, methodologies, limitation, and discussion sections to analyze, find the strength and weakness, and to critic them in the right ways. Of course, even the general knowledge of the researchers seem to be so higher than me, and in order to critic them, I need to read what the fallacy of the research are. For example, some researchers might give their own judgments which cannot be applied in some extend, and some analyzed only in the present by ignoring the past. Beside this, in order to produce this paper, first of all, I need to do a lot of extensive reading on the found sources to select the best source. During the reading, I also quoted regarding to the theme which I was prepared on the time of literature reviewing. Once I had done all the reading, I started to type all the important information to each belonging theme or coding, then I read those information which came from many different scholars to get the common sense of idea on one particular point, so by doing it back and forth with a serious attention, Finally, I can produce this research paper which can summary all the main ideas of the existed sources. Therefore, this paper presents an analysis on the democracy-growth relationship, based on 10 published studies. It is an important step to addressing the deadlock on the democracy growth relationship. The literature need such as urgent comprehensive assessment on the issue in the wake of massive democratizations for many developing countries. Reviews of this literature and many authors who have contributed to it, state that the association is inconclusive. Faced with a diverse set of conflicting results, they are unable to conclude whether the association is positive, negative or non-existent. We find that once all the available evidence is considered, holding research design differences constant, the evidence does not point to democracy having a detrimental impact on growth. Moreover, this critic paper will be able to conclude that the effect is not inconclusive. There is, indeed, a zero direct effect of democracy on growth. Second, democracy has a significant positive indirect effe ct on growth through human capital accumulation. In addition, democracies are associated with lower inflation, reduced political instability and higher levels of economic freedom. However, there is some evidence that they are associated also with larger government and more restrictive international trade. Third, there are region-specific effects on the democracy-growth relationship. Particularly, the growth effects of democracy are higher in Latin America and Lower in Asia. This research paper also that much of the variation in results between studies does not reflect real underlying differences in the democracy-growth association Rather it is owing to either sampling error or the research design process. Raresh Kumar Narayan and Russell Smyth. Democracy and economic growth China: Evidence from counteraction and causality testing. Review of Applied economics, Vol. 2, No, 1, (2006): 81-89 To examine the relationship between the democracy and economic growth in the peoples Republic of China over the last three decades. Actually, China represents an interesting case in the debate over the relationship between the democracy and growth. This study was used the short and long run effect of democracy on the china within a production function framework by following the methods of error correction mechanism, and Granger Causality tests-testing between the labor and capital, and most studies by economist have tested for correlation between democracy and economic growth and have failed to adequately address the issue of causation, and using the Granger causality tests to explore the effects of shocks of democracy and economic growth beyond the sample period through the use of variance decomposit ion analysis and impulse response functions. While labor and capital can defined the core relationship between democracy and economic growth, real GDP and income of people are also the factors, and this study found out the democratization in China is impossible, and it can be true since the China never experience of being democracy. Moreover, economic growth of china is not because of democracy theories, but its own political culture, and its own indigenous development model. Meanwhile, real income and real GDP of each nations are also the factors for democracy growth too. Actually, according to Paresh Kumar Narayan, and Russell Smyth. (2007), who conducted the similar studies, examined the relationship between the democracy and economic growth in 30 Sub-Saharan African counties, supported the Lipset hypothesis. This study used the real GDP Granger to explore the cause of democracy and an increase in GDP results in an improvement in democracy. In the long run democracy Granger causes real income and an increase in democracy has a positive effect on real income, which is found for Bostwana with the freedome house data and for Madagascare, Rwanda, South Africa, and Swaziland. However, Hristos Doucouliagos and Mehment Ulubasoglu.( 2006). Democracy and Economic Growth: A Meta-Analysis. School Working paper-economic series 2006: Deakin University. This research paper is to explore the inconclusive relationship through a quantitative assessment of the democracy growth literature and use meta-regression as the methodology to analysis by collecting all the existed literature review to conclude the impact of democracy on economic. The strength point of this study was that this study concerned many variable at the same time. For example, it looked beyond the theories, the democracy in the past and the present, and so on. In addition, Elias Papaioannou and Gregorios Siourounis. (2004). Democratization and Growth. Job market paper: London business school. This research study challenges the empirical finding that democratic institution has direct effect on economic growth by using the before-after event study approach, and controlling the permanent democratization in the specific time. The strength of this study is that it study the long trend, omit the unrelevent variable, and observe the change from one time to other time of the variable affecting the democracy, but the weakness of this research article was that it didnt distinguish between different types of autocracy for example left or right wing dictatorship and democracy -presidential or parliamentary. Noam, L and Kanta, Murali. ( 2009). Does economic development explain democratic development?. Annual meeting at the Midwest political science association. This study explore the relationship between economic and democracy by using the modernization theories to analysis, and observing those change over time. The finding of this study seems to be able to apply for the new current democracy system, but it lacked of concerning about the democratization process in the past. This research study have found out the when there is economic growth, the democratization process will come as well, and according to my perspective, this assumption can be true since when one country has a high economic growth, that nation will prioritize on the domestic affair, freedom and the growth rate of the middle class. Moreover, the longer period of time, there will be positive effect of democracy, democratization growth, and economic development. Christian. H. ( 2010). Inequality, Economic development and democratization. University of Rochester. This research concerned about the inequality, income distribution of the economic sphere and took that variable to analyze the relationship between democracy and economic growth. However, this study focused on two theories-modernization and inequality theories, which was quite similar to Noam, L and Kanta, Murali. ( 2009). The strength assumption of this study was that when there is economic growth, autocracies more or less will change their political system as well in some extend, but this assumption also failed since some rich autocracies are not more likely to become democratic ( Przeworski and Limongi 1997; Prazewoki et al. 2000). Moreover, this study concluded that democracy inequality harms democratization. Of course, in the case of some nations, when there is class tension-between the level of middle class, there will be social clash, which lead to autocratic state more than d emocracy. What is more, this study fail to analyze other variable beside income inequality since economic crisis, the complexity of democracy system are also the cause of authoritarian shift. The availability of data and econometric techniques enables all the researchers to investigate these issues empirically. However, the empirical findings span a continuum of negative, insignificant and positive estimates, creating a conundrum. For instance, the distribution of results that we have compiled from 470 regression estimates from 10 democracy-growth studies shows that 16% of the estimates are negative and statistically significant, 20% of the estimates are negative and statistically insignificant, 38% of the estimate are positive and statistically insignificant, and 26% of the estimates are positive and statistically significant. This can be implied that three-quarters of the regressions have not been able to find the desired positive and significant sign. It also implies that around half of the regression models have found statistically significant estimates while the other half found statistically insignificant estimates. Such different results are not surprising because research question posed are narrow and approach the issue from different dimensions. For instance, while certain studies focus on the physical investment channel between democracy and growth, others look at the human capital or political instability channels. Likewise, certain studies present structural estimates of a well-defined model, whereas other focus on the empirical regularities in the data. Thus, the question is perplexed with a continuum of estimates, which differ due to data sources, estimate methodologies, sample composition, and time periods. The structure of this paper will be followed by the brief review of the key theoretical arguments behind a democracy-growth association, the effect of democracy on economic, the effect of economic on democracy, and conclusion of the research paper. Theoretical Arguments: Traditional perspective: Does political democracy cause the economic growth? To Hobbes (1651), absolutist regimes were more likely to improve public welfare simply because they could not promote their own interests otherwise. Similarly, Huntington (1968) also argues that democracies have weak and fragile political institutions and lend themselves to popular demands at the expense of profitable investments. Democratic governments are vulnerable to demands for redistribution to lower-income groups, and are surrounded by rent-seekers for directly unproductive profit-seeking activities (Krueger 1974, Bhagwati 1982). Non-democratic regimes can implement the hard economic policies necessary for growth, and suppress the growth-retarding demands of low-income earners and labor in general, as well as social instabilities because of ethnic, religious, and class struggles, and Democracies cannot suppress such conflicts. In term of economic progress, markets should come first and authoritarian regimes can more or less e asily facilitate such policies. Moreover, some level of development is a pre-requisite for democracy to function properly ( Lipsets 1959 hypothesis). In short, this view implies that political democracy is a best product that cannot be afforded by developing countries. Other proponents of the conflict view and stricter state command on the economy include Galenson (1959), Andreski (1968), Huntington and Dominguez (1975), Rao (19884-5) and Haggard (1990). The conflict view became more debatable after the growth success stories in South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore in the 1950s and 1960s. The argument rest on several assumptions, the main one of which is that if given power, authoritarian regimes would behave in a growth-friendly manner. In that regard, server contrasting cases are provided where dictators pursued their own welfare and failed in Africa and the Socialist world ( de Haan and Sirermann 1995, Alesina et al. 1996). Proponents of democracy, on the other hand, argue that rulers are potential looters (Harrington 1656) and democratic institutions can act to constrain them. Most of the assumptions of the conflict view can be refuted with good reasons. Implementation of the rule of law, contract enforcement and protection property rights do not necessarily imply an authoritarian regime. In addition, Bhagwati (1995) argues that democracies rarely engage in military conflict with each other, and this promotes world peace and economic growth. They are also more likely to provide less volatile economic performance. Finally, de Haan and Siermann (1995) note that a strong state and an authoritarian state are not the same thing. However, markets can deliver growth under both democratic and authoritarian regimes. The modern perspective Actually, the political democracy-growth can be seen more precise and focused today. Theory has moved away from traditional conflict with compatibility arguments, because different aspects of the broader institutions-growth problem have been identified. For instance, many researchers have separated economic democracy from political democracy. Factors like protection of property rights, business, credit and labor market regulation, which were previously attributed to political democracy, are now being treated as part of economic democracy. Analysis of economic freedom indicators from the Fraser institute ( by Gwartney and Lawson 1996, 2000, 2003) and the heritage Foundation ( by ODriscoll et al. 2003) has shown that economic freedom, with also its other aspects, is equally relevant to growth. Recently, the world bank introduced the Doing Business aspect of institutions problem. In particular Djankov et al ( 2002a, 200b, 2005), Djankov, McLeish and Shleifer (2005), and Botero et al (2 004) benchmarked business regulations and quantified the easiness of private sectors activity in the economics based on labor hiring and firing practices; ease of starting, registering and closing business; protecting investors and enforcing contracts; and dealing with license and paying taxes. At this point one may feel that dissecting these aspect from political democracy reduce its scope to multi-party and free election only. Of course, political democracy is more than free and fair elections. First, empirical evidence shows that all the aspects of the institutions made precise above, i.e., economic democracy, governance and private sphere in the economy have high correlations with political democracy. In other words, the mere existence of participatory democracy implies the broader institutions conducive to growth. Secondly, various studies find that political democracy has enormous indirect effects on growth through human capital accumulation, income distribution, and political stability. In addition, Sturn and de Haan (2001) find that the presence of democracy in a country positively affects the level of economic freedom. Thus, on the question of political democracy and growth, one should remember the broader associations that encompass the channels, or the indirect effects, between democracy and growth rather than one to one causation from regime to growth. Thirdly, as Bhagwati( 1995) and Rodrik (2000) point out, democracies provide higher quality growth through various means. Rodirk puts it in the following way: participatory democracies enable a higher-quality growth by allowing greater predictability and stability in the long run, by being stronger against external shocks, and by delivering better distributional outcomes. Democratic institutions would help market function perfectly, as is assumed in neoclassical economic models. As an extension to such argument, the volatility channel has also been shown to be an important indirect effect of democracy on growth. Non democratic regimes are not a homogenous lot ( de Haan and Siermann, 1995, Alesina et al. 1996, Alesina and Perotti 1994), whereas democracies are more homogenous and can provide stable economic progress. Effect of democracy on Growth: Sirowy and Inkeless (1990) suggest that there are three major views on the effects of democracy on growth with their label the conflict, and the compatibility and the skeptical. The conflict thesis suggests that democracy and economic growth are incompatible because elected officals longing for popular approval make shortsighted decisions designed to maximize whose objective is to divert resources from productive activities in favor of immediate consumption. Related arguments are that democracy is less conducive to long term stability (world Bank, 1991, pp. 132-133) or long term development ( Barro, 1996) because of the tendency in majority voting systems to enact rich to poor redistribution of income including land reforms. On the other hand, the compatibility thesis proffers that democratic features such as political pluralism, institutional checks and balances and freedom of the press provide safeguards against system abuse or predatory behavior often associated with authoritarian regimes. Friedman (1962) was one of the first to suggest that economic and political freedoms are mutually reinforcing. He postulated that an expansion in political freedom fosters economic freedoms such as secure property rights and certainty of contract, which, in turn, underpin higher rates of economic growth. As Barro( 1996) argues, of course there is nothing in principle preventing non-democratic governments from promoting economic freedoms. Examples of autocracies which have increased economic freedom include the Pinochet regime in chile and the Fujimora government in Peru. The point, though, made by advocates of the compatibility thesis is democracy is more likely to be conducive to promoting economic freedoms than au thoritarianism because the political legitimacy and therefore long term survival of a democracy depends on maintaining economic rights. The third perspective, which is the skeptical view, suggests there is no systematic relationship between democracy and economic growth. While it might generally be true that there is more economic freedom under a democracy than an autocracy, there is no guarantee it will be at an optimum ( Esposto and Zaleski. 1999). Even in a democracy there will be those whose aims is to challenges the private property status quo if it is in their best interests, and because of the very nature of a democracy they will have more opportunities to do so( Przewoki and Limongi, 1993). However, the empirical evidence on the three perspectives in not clear-cut. Sirowry and inkeles( 1990) review thirteen studies; of which, six supported the skeptical view, four suggested qualified or conditional relationships, and three provided unconditional support for the conflict perspective. In a later survey, Brunetti ( 1997) reviewed 17 empirical studies of the democracy-growth relationship. He found ( at p. 167) nine studies report no relationship, one study a positive, one study a negative, three studies a fragile negative relationship and three studies a fragile positive relationship between democracy and economic growth. Helliwell (1994), Barro (1996) and Tavares and Waczing (2001) found that democracy has either a non-significant or moderately weak negative effect on growth once other growth-determining variables are held constant. On the basis of the mixed findings in the literature, a reasonable conclusion is that: We do not know whether democracy fosters or hinders gr owth (Przewoki and Limongi, 1993, P.64). However, as a provision to this, the balance of empirical evidence is with the conflict and skeptical views rather than the compatibility view. Effect of growth on Democracy: Political scientists have examined the effect of the economic growth on democracy. Most studies have found that economic growth generates demands for political right ( Lipset, 1959; Bollen, 1979; Bollen and Jackman, 1985; Burkhart and Lewis-Beck, 1994). At one level, casual empiricism seems to also support the view that economic growth promotes democracy. As Gupta et al. ( 1998, pp. 589-590) note, all of the developed, industrialized nations have a democratic political system. In contrast, most of the nations in the poorest segment of the world community operate under various forms of non-democratic political system. However, This is not ture in a blanket sense. Casual observation also suggests that economic growth does not necessarily bring about a demand for democracy. There are examples of authoritarian regimes in Southeast Asia and the Middle East where citizens are willing to forego demand for political liberalization provided their economic needs are being met. In these instance there is a good argument that it is only when the authoritarians government stops delivering on the economic front that there are calls for more political rights. An example is the fall of the Suharto regime in Indonesia following the Asian financial crisis when spiraling inflation and unemployment prevented Suharto from delivering in the economic sphere. Glasure et al. ( 1999) obtain results that are consistent with this view. Their finding suggest that in developing countries and newly industrializing countries economic development has a significant effect on democratic performance, but contrary to Lipest( 1959) economic development leads to lower levels of democracy. Glasure et al. ( 1999, p. 475) conclude: The sign reversal may stem from the possibility that as nations strive for economic development, the nations tend to trade off democracy for economic development Discussion of the results: In the result using the Freedom House dataset, Botswana stands out as the one country where there is support for both the compatibility and Lipset hypothese, i.e. there is Granger causality between democracy and real GDP in the long run, and democracy and real GDP have a positive effect on each other. The results using the Beck et al. (2001) dataset confirm long-run Granger causality running from GDP to democracy and the GDP has positive effect on democracy. The democracy growth is well established in Botswana. The OECD (1999, p.29) posited: Political stability has result fromà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦favorable economic conditions. While this is true, Botswanas economic success has also been built on democratic tradition in which there are no narrow ethnic-based interest groups with distinct means of expression, which has avoided infighting over diamonds and other political issue (Wiseman, 1990). Of course, Botswana has been described as an African success story ( Acemoglu et al., 2001) with the highest growth rate of any country in the world between 1960 and 1999. From 1965 to 1973 Bostswanas annual rate of growth of GDP was 14.8% which was the highest in the world except for the high income oil rich Oman (21.9%). From 1973 to 1984 Botswanas annual growth rate was 10.7% which was the highest in the world, outstripping Asian Tigers, Hong Kong (9.1%) and Singapore ( 8.2%) (World Bank, 1986). Between 1980 and 1990 Botswana grew at 11%, also the highest in the world over this period, with China second at 10.3% per annum. From 1990 to 2003 Botswanas growth slowed to 5.2% but was still in the top dozen countries in the World Bank world Development indicators list of countries over this period (World Bank, 2005). Botswana is one of only a few African countries with a democratic tradition (Wiseman, 1990). It has had continuous democracy since obtaining independence in 1996. The disc overy of diamond mines has facilitated economic growth, but there is more to Botswanas success than simply having abundant natural resources. There is universal agreement that the Botswana government has used the revenue from diamonds to pursue good policies (See e.g Acemoglu et al., 2001). Conclusion: The aim of this paper was to review the accumulated evidence on the impact of the democracy on economic growth. Existing studies and authors of primary studies have drawn inferences from only a limited set of information and have failed to reach a decisive conclusion. In contrast, I apply analysis, critic to the pool of 6 studies with 10 published estimates of the democracy-growth associations, and are able to draw other variables conclusions. This in line with Bhagwatis (1995) prediction that democracy does not handicap development. Second, while the direct effect is found to be Zero, this research papers result indicates that democracy has significant indirect effects on growth through various channels. In particular, this study also finds that democracy has a favorable impact on human capital formation, on the level of economic freedom, inflation and political instability. However, This study also find that democracy is associated with greater government spending and less free int ernational trade. Third, while there is no evidence of a democracy-growth effect for all countries combined all together, there are clear regional effects. The available evidence suggests that democracy has a larger effect on economic growth in Latin America, and that this is lower in Asia. Moreover, it appears that there is country-specific effect like China. Fourth, by comparing the democracy-growth association to research conducted elsewhere on the economic freedom growth assocaiton( Doucouliagos and Ulubasoglu 2006), we find that democracys direct effect on growth is zero, while economic freedom has a positive direct effect. In short, this research paper conclude that the empirical evidence that has accumulate over the past 40 years points to a zero direct effect on growth and significant direct effects on growth through factor accumulation, economic freedom, inflation and openness, with an adverse effect through government spending. The net effect is that democracy does not harm economic performance. This analysis paper can be applied to other dimension of democracy. For example, the links between democracy and the level of development rather than growth, the channels through which democracy impacts on both growth and development, as well as the determinants of democracy, are all promising areas for future research analysis to make more inclusive result.

Patriot Act

Part I Summarize the U. S. Patriot Act. The U. S. Patriot Act was developed to expand the intelligence gathering powers and increase responsibilities at all levels of law enforcement in response to the September 11 terrorist attacks. It became apparent that law enforcement at the Federal, state, and local levels needed to work more closely. Much of the local governments were not equipped with adequate resources or the necessary training to assist in preventing terrorist attacks and responding to them.Congress recognized these weaknesses at the local levels, as well as the lack of a coherent flow of information between Federal agencies, the flow of information from Federal agencies to state governments, and the subsequent flow of information to local level governments. Within only weeks of September 11, the U. S. Patriot Act was passed with an unprecedented bipartisan support. (Doyle, 2002) The USA Patriot Act serves as an acronym for it â€Å"Uniting and of Strengthening of America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism† and is organized into ten titles.Title I enhances domestic security against terrorism and presidential authority. Title II enhances surveillance procedures. Title III incorporates the International Money Laundering Abatement and Anti-Terrorist Financing Act of 2001. Title IV addresses protecting the border. Title V removes obstacles to investigating terrorism. Title VI addresses providing for victims of terrorism, public safety officers, and their families. Title VII increases information sharing for critical infrastructure protection. Title VIII strengthens the criminal laws against terrorism.Title IX improves intelligence, and Title X is reserved for miscellaneous regulations. (Horowitz, 2002) The Department of Justice claims that the Patriot Act has played a crucial role in many of the successful operations to prevent terrorist attacks on domestic soil. By taking the legal principles that were alre ady in existence, Congress reorganized them in such a way that would improve counterterrorism efforts overall. Using tools that were previously available in organized crime and drugs trafficking investigations, the Act permits law enforcement to conduct electronic surveillance against more crimes of terror.Through enhanced electronic surveillance capabilities, Federal agents are able to better track highly sophisticated terrorists and conduct investigations without alerting terrorists to the operation. Federal agents are now able to seek court orders to obtain business records relevant to the National Security terrorism cases. (Department of Justice) These are some of the more controversial provisions contained within the Patriot Act, and as such these provisions require renewals and congressional oversight.The Patriot Act slashed many of the legal barriers that previously prevented Federal, state, and local entities from sharing information and coordinating efforts in the preventio n and identification of terrorist plots. Without the ability to coordinate and share information amongst all government agencies, there is a much greater chance that critical intelligence could be overlooked. Allowing for enhanced sharing and cooperation greatly increases the likelihood that government agencies can ‘connect the dots’ and have a clear and full understanding of terrorist plots and disseminate these plots prior to an attack.The Regional Information Sharing System (RISS) is a nationwide police investigative network that can now be used in law information sharing as it relates to terrorist activities as a result of the Act. Border patrols were increased as well as monitoring of foreigners within the United States. There are a number of provisions included to prevent alien terrorists from entering the United States, and to enable authorities to detain and that support alien terrorists and those who support them, and to provide humanitarian immigration relief for foreign victims of the as September 11 attacks. White, 2004) Federal law enforcement can now also communicate with banking regulators in relation to terrorist financing and money laundering, and the Act further provides for arrest powers outside of American borders for these activities. The authority of the secretary of the treasury was expanded to regulate the activities of domestic financial institutions and their international relations. (Doyle, 2002) A multitude of new money laundering crimes and amendments increasing penalties to earlier crimes now exist. Reporting requirements of suspicious transactions by securities and brokers have been strengthened.The act created two types of forfeitures and modifies several confiscation procedures, where all of the property of an individual or entity that participates or plans an act of domestic or international terrorism can be seized. (Department of Justice) Until the act was put into place, laws were not reflective of current techn ologies and threats. The search warrant process became far more streamlined, allowing Law enforcement officials to obtain search warrants in any jurisdiction in which a terrorist associated activity took place, irrespective of where the warrant is executed.Another major update to the laws included considering computer hackers the same as a physical trespasser, which permits victims of computer hacking to seek assistance from law enforcement officials. (Department of Justice) The Patriot Act significantly increased the punishment that would result for those who commit or aid in terrorist crimes. The harboring of terrorists became prohibited; crimes that are likely to be committed by terrorists have increased penalties, conspiracy penalties have been enhanced, and punishment against terrorist attacks on mass transit systems and bioterrorists.The act also eliminates the statutes of limitations for various terrorist crimes and lengthens them for other terrorist crimes. (Department of Ju stice) The penalties for counterfeiting, cyber-crime, and charity fraud were also increased. The warrants for information in terrorist cases have also been increased. (White, 2004) Although there has been overwhelming support for the Patriot Act, some opposition exists. Those who are in support feel that the ability to respond to terrorism will be strengthened through the creation of an all-encompassing intelligence community.Those who are in opposition believe that the law is too intrusive and attacks civil liberties, specifically with regard to the sharing of non-criminal intelligence during criminal investigations. Opponents also express discontent in increasing government power to monitor its own citizens. Some opponents have gone so far is to say that portions of the patriot act are unconstitutional. Other areas of concern as they relate to the patriot act include whether Federal response should be centralized or localized. (White, 2004) These initial controversies continue to exist, and arguably will continue to exist for many decades to come.NPR News examined some of the most controversial provisions during the 2006 renewals of provisions due to expire. These provisions included areas of information sharing, roving wiretaps, access to records, foreign intelligence wire taps in searches, sneak and peek warrants, and material support. (Abramson, 2006) References Abramson, L. (2006, Feb 14). The patriot act: key controversies. Retrieved from http://www. npr. org/news/specials. patriotact. patriotactprovisions. html A master plan for homeland security. (2002, Jul 17). New York Times. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. bellevue. edu:80/login? url=http://search. proquest. om/docview/432132148? accountid=28125 Cienski, J. (2002, Jul 17). U. S. to adopt terrorists’ strategies: Homeland security: ‘red teams’ to search for weaknesses in country’s defence. National Post. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. bellevue. edu:80/login? url=http://searc h. proquest. com/docview/330007852? accountid=28125 Department of Justice. Highlights of the USA patriot act. Retrieved from http://www. justice. gov/archive/ll/highlights. htm Doyle, C. (2002, Apr 18). The USA patriot act: a sketch. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. Retrieved from http://www. fas. org/irp/crs/RS21203. pdf Hall, M. (2002, Jul 17).Homeland security strategy lays out ‘lines of authority’ ; officials say plan will cost billions. USA TODAY. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. bellevue. edu:80/login? url=http://search. proquest. com/docview/4 08892001? accountid=28125 Horowitz, R. Summary of key sections of the USA patriot act of 2001. Retrieved from http://www. rhesq. com/Terrorism/Patriot_Act_Summary. pdf Office of Homeland Security. (2002, Jul). National strategy for homeland security. Retrieved from http://www. ncs. gov/library/policy_docs/nat_strat_hls. pdf White, J. (2004). Defending the homeland: domestic intelligence, law enforcement, a nd security. CA: Wadsworth

Expressing Disappointment in English

We try our best and hope that everyone gets along well. Unfortunately, thats not always the case and we need to express disappointment. We might be disappointed with other people, or with ourselves. At other times, we might want to express our view that something we expected didnt go as planned. For these situations, its important to keep in mind the use of register  when expressing our disappointment. In other words, who are we speaking to, what is the relationship, and how should you communicate with them? The phrases we use will be different depending on whether we are speaking with friends or at work. Use these phrases to express your disappointment in the appropriate way. Expressing Disappointment and Frustration with Yourself I wish I Past Simple Present Disappointments The use of I wish with the past simple to express something you are disappointed with at the present time. This is similar to the use of the unreal conditional  to express something imaginary. I wish I had a better job.I wish I had more time for my family.ï » ¿I wish I spoke Italian. I wish I Past Perfect Regrets about the Past The use of I wish with the past perfect  is used to express regret over something that happened in the past. This is similar to the use of the unreal past conditional to express a different result in the past. I wish I had been hired for that job.I wish I had worked harder in school.I wish I had saved more money when I was young. If only I Past Simple Present Disappointments This form is used to express things we arent happy about at the present. It is similar to the form above. If only I played soccer well.If only I understood math.If only I had a faster car. If only I Past Perfect Regrets about the Past This form is used to express things regret about past experiences. It is similar to wish past perfect. If only I had moved to this city earlier.If only I had asked her to marry me.If only I had known about that last year! These forms can also be used to express disappointment with others: I wish she had paid better attention in class.I wish they asked me more questions. Im sure I could be of more help.If only they worked with us! We would give them a better deal than Smith and Co.If only Peter had hired Tom. He was much better qualified for the job. Expressing Disappointment with Others Why didnt S Verb? Why didnt you tell me that?!Why didnt he inform me of the situation?Why didnt they finish on time? How am/was I supposed to Verb How am I supposed to complete the project?How was I supposed to know that?!How am I supposed to work with this? Formal Expressions For Disappointment What a shame!Thats too bad.Thats so disappointing!I was so looking forward to ...I / We had high hopes for ...What we had been led to expect was ... Informal Expressions For Disappointment What a bummer!What a let-down!That stinks. Role Play Exercise: Between Friends Friend 1: Im not happy.Friend 2: Whats wrong?Friend 1: Oh, I didnt get that job.Friend 2: What a bummer!Friend 1: Yeah, I wish I had prepared better for the interview.Friend 2: Maybe you were just nervous.Friend 1: If I had only thought about how my experience applied to the position.Friend 2: That stinks. Well, Im sure youll do better next time.Friend 1: I hope so. Im sick of this job.Friend 2: Every job has its ups and downs.Friend 1: Isnt that the truth!Friend 2: Lets have a beer.Friend 1: Thats something that never disappoints.Friend 2: Youre right about that. Role Play Exercise: At the Office Colleague 1: Excuse me, Peter. Could I talk to you for a moment?Colleague 2: Sure, what can I do for you?Colleague 1: Why didnt you inform me of the situation with Andrew Ltd.?Colleague 2: Im sorry about that. I thought I had the situation under control.Colleague 1: You know I had high hopes for this account.Colleague 2: Yes, I know and I apologize that it didnt work out.  Colleague 1: Yes, well, how were you supposed to know they would try to change everything in the contract.Colleague 2: If only they had given us more time to come up with a different solution.Colleague 1: OK. Well, please make sure to keep me in the loop on future situations like this.Colleague 2: Certainly, Ill be more proactive next time this happens.  Colleague 1: Thank you, Peter.Colleague 2: Of course.

Transcript Of American Alligator ( Alligator Mississippiens )

Transcript Transcript of American Alligator (Alligator mississippiens) SCIN 130 Power Point presentation by Serena L. Sobolewski Introduction: The organism that I have chosen for this assignment is an animal, of the crocodilian family, called the American Alligator. The scientific name is Alligator mississipiens In Spanish it is is called El Legarto, meaning the lizard. The habitat preferred by the American Alligator is fresh water swamps, marshes, rivers, lakes, and occasionally smaller bodies of water, such as man-made retention ponds. The alligator range is from the southern Virginia/North Carolina border, along the Atlantic coast to Florida and along the Gulf of Mexico as far west as the Rio Grande in Texas. I chose this organism†¦show more content†¦Reproductive Ecology: Alligators are polygynous. That means that each male mates with many females. During breeding season, male alligators are very territorial, and they will defend their area against other males by head ramming or attacking one another with open jaws. alligators use a complex series of underwater bellows, sighs, grunts and other vocalizations to attract mates. Before mating, female alligators prepare soft nests of sticks and vegetation. Each female lays 30 to 50 eggs, deposits them in the nest and guards them during the 65-day incubation period. The alligator mating ritual is often called water dancing. The animals underwater mating bellows are so forceful and low that they cause water droplets to fly up into the air, attracting potential mates. Alligators also use these noises to establish territorial dominance and intimidate other animals. Alligators breed in the Spring (April to May). A month after the noisy mating rituals and coupling, the female lays up to 50 eggs in a large (thre e feet tall and six feet wide) nest she constructed of mud, leaves and twigs on dry ground. The rotting vegetation in the nest warms the eggs. The temperature of the nest determines the sex of the hatchlings. If the eggs are incubated over 93 degrees Fahrenheit (34 degrees Celsius), the embryo develops as a male; temperatures below 86 degrees Fahrenheit (30 degrees Celsius) result in female embryos,