The Problem of Catch-Up in Developing Countries at the Level of the Essay

The Problem of Catch-Up in Developing Countries at the Level of the Nike In Relation To a Firm Level - Essay Example According to the research findings, the latter half of the 20th Century saw dramatic growth in industrial production and in the mass consumption in developing nations. The growth of industrial output in countries like China and India during this period was robust and to some extent, the process of catching-up also began in the technological field. The process is thus called "imitation to innovation" approach. This took place for the most part in traditional industries such as textiles and clothing and the earlier product generations of the machine tool and consumer electronics industries. Globalization has become increasingly important in determining the rate of economic growth, with estimations that emerging markets will account for a larger piece of the world economy by 2020. Studies suggest that the shift of labor-intensive production processes from regions like Western Europe to lower-cost economies will continue. In fact, it was during the 1980s that development theorists and pr actitioners began to re-conceptualize the catching up process, from one based primarily on the transfer of technology to one of learning to produce quality products efficiently. Evidence for the success of such a strategy was found in the growth of manufactured exports, notably from the Asian tigers. The indigenous manufacturing capabilities of such low-cost economies too are on an upward journey. These countries had progressively climbed the ladder in traditional industries such as textiles and clothing. This trend kept going even in consumer electronics, from low-cost assemblers of finished products to producers of higher value-added products, original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and, in a couple of cases, own brand manufacturers who had mastered the process from product conceptualization to the market.

Capital Punishment - Pro and Contra Research Paper

Capital Punishment - Pro and Contra - Research Paper Example Capital punishment is of very old origin. The word capital is derived from the old Latin word ‘caput’, meaning head. Capital punishment, therefore, refers to beheading or decapitation as a method of execution. Today, the term ‘death penalty’ is used interchangeably with the term capital punishment. Capital punishment originated in England, it was then transported to colonies in America during the 17th and 18th centuries. The English legal system considerably relied on capital punishment; this was partly because imprisonment of people for different periods of time was not developed until the late 18th century. For about four centuries, capital punishment has been practiced in America has been a basic part of its history. The first execution in the United States took place in James town in 1608. Latzer and McCord point out that it has accounted for â€Å"at best estimate, about 20,000 executions† (2011, p.1).   However, the method of execution has undergone remarkable changes over time. In the 17th and 18th century America, men, women, and children would attend a public and solemn occasion where death was imposed by hanging. Execution in public was aimed at frightening members of the public in order to avoid crime, administering justice to the accused, and giving the convicted a chance to repent and gain salvation after death. Hymn singing, sermons, and a speech by the condemned accompanied hanging. During the 17th and 18th century, the number of capital crimes was very big. However, there was a great deal of leniency although most trials took less than a day and appeals were not permitted until the 19th century. A benefit of clergy was sometimes granted to the accused resulting in the pardon of certain death sentences. State governors sometimes granted executive clemency to the accused. For example, in New York City, over half of the condemned were granted clemency. According to Latzer and McCord (2011) â€Å"there were even ‘mock hangings’ to empathetically deliver the message, but spare the life of the offender† (p.2).