To question to what extent did the dissolution of Parliament in 1629 Essay

To question to what extent did the dissolution of Parliament in 1629 sow the seeds for the English Civil War - Essay Example Moreover, England proceeded towards democracy and adopted it as its government’s policy. The process of democratisation naturally conflicted with the King and his power over the nation. Furthermore, the adoption of democracy and freedom rendered Parliament more powerful, and this in turn challenged the royal rule. These are the most frequently stated reasons for the outbreak of the Civil War (Civil War, English, 2008). Nevertheless, the revisionist historians contended that the Civil War transpired due to the events of November 1641. By that time, Charles had prepared to fulfil the aspirations of his subjects and he had revoked the ship money taxes in 1640. He had also promised to reinstate Parliament in 1641. Moreover, Charles agreed to abstain from levying further taxes without the approval of Parliament, and to dissolve the Star Chamber. At that juncture, William Laud was incarcerated in December 1640 and Charles’s close deputy Strafford was executed on the 12th of May 1641. Meanwhile in October 1641, the Catholic Great Rebellion took place in Ireland. It challenged the supremacy of the King and opposed royal rule in Ireland. In order to suppress that movement, the King required an army and other resources. However, the leaders in Parliament refused to ratify his request, as they feared that the King would use these resources against Parliament. This was tantamount to a direct and abrupt attack on Royal power, and in retaliation, Charles imprisoned five MP’s, who were the prime instigators in the Parliament behind that strategy against the Crown (Civil War, English, 2008). Charles was the second surviving son of King James and the duchess of Denmark, Anne. He impressed many people and was bestowed with good manners, patience, good temperament, and courteous behaviour. These qualities made him much closer to those who met him. Although, his deeds

Berlin Wall Essay Example for Free

Berlin Wall Essay The Berlin wall caused much strife during its existence. It started with the conflict between the USSR and the Allies and quickly escalated from there. The long years it stood were full of separation and conflict. The story of the Berlin wall is not one easily forgotten. During WWII the Soviet army captured the German city of Berlin. The U.S., Great Britain, France, and the Soviet Union all occupied a sector of Berlin. The United States, Britain, and France occupied sectors in West German and Berlin while the Soviet Union occupied the East. Because of this, when the Cold War started, East and West Berlin were divided both in opinion and territory. The Soviets were communist and the leaders of West Germany were determined that all of Germany should be communistic. The Soviets tried to force the Western powers to give up their control over their three sectors. After their attempts to convince them to give up their control failed, the Soviet side cut West Berlin, which was isolated in the middle of East Germany, from all land and air travel. West Berlin was frozen and starving, but they refused to give in. The Western Allies started what is commonly known as the Berlin Airlift. Great amounts of food and supplies were dropped by plane. West Berlin was not given up by the Allies. East Germany however, did give up the blockade of West Berlin after a year. They determined that something else must be done. East Berlin lost many people to West Berlin. It was said approximately two and a half million people escaped the communistic East Germany simply by crossing the border from East Berlin into the West. A common method of this escape was by subway. At one station they believed that one out of every three people leaving the station was actually an escaping citizen of East Germany. East Germany was rapidly losing its much needed work force. Walter Ulbricht was the man most blamed for the building of the Berlin Wall. In public, he denied all rumors of even the consideration of cutting off the border routes. The denial of the idea of closing the border was a plan to keep the flow of people escaping from increasing before the wall was built. Ulbricht believed that people would desperately flee as soon as they heard of the plans for the wall. On a Saturday night in 1961, the wall was hastily built. Since it was the weekend, the unsuspecting people were vacationing after their week of long work and did not notice the hidden rolls of barbwire and timber slashed away where the wall was to be built. People whose houses stood where the separation was were no longer allowed to use their Western doors. Many used the windows to escape but others were caught by the East police or lost their lives in the process. By the end of the first couple weeks, the windows and doors were sealed off with bricks. The Berlin was more than a sliver of grey concrete. It was watchtowers, guards, guns, barbed wire, and even mines. As determined as many East Berliners were to cross to freedom, they had to risk so much in the process. For many, the risk led to their deaths. The wall was disapproved of by many of the citizens. Because of the sudden construction, many families were instantly separated. The dangers sometimes outweighed the thought of unification. Wanting to at the very least see their loved ones, platforms were built on the West side of the wall and families would find some comfort in mere glimpses of their loved ones. Another negativity of the wall was the sheer conflict of beliefs. Some who did not share the opinions of Germany were quickly forced in a problematic situation. They couldn’t escape from the strict rules of communism. The wall had clearly put them on the wrong side. Family and beliefs were not the only things the wall separated. Though not physically, the Berlin wall drew a line right through Germany. You were either East German or you were West German. There were no in between grey sections. People had to choose sides or their side was chosen for them. Of course, through all this, France, Britain, and the United States stood beside their West German sectors. Tension of the cold was thick. Many showed what side they were on by simply choosing to support East or West Germany. Those who supported the East were Communistic. Those who supported West Germany were supporters of democracy of freedom. The problems within East Germany became more and more obvious as time went on. The most obvious problem was the existence of the wall itself. Many died from the wall and it wasn’t just the start. The problems of East Germany were from social to economic. At first, it was very possible to make it across the wall. People would break through with trucks, dig tunnels, fight their way across, sneak across during construction, forge papers, and all manner of escape. People didn’t let the risk of death keep them from their freedoms and families. Not everyone was lucky enough to make it across. One example of misfortune was a pair of young men who determined to sneak across a weak part of the wall. The first made it successfully across, but his friend did not. Shot by the guards, the young man lay injured and bleeding at the wall. Still on the East side, people from the West could not retrieve the dying young man. The guards waited for him to bleed out before disposing of his body. His screams and cries for help haunted and outraged the people. Fearing a future uprising, the guards were commanded to move bodies and dying individuals out of sight so the people wouldn’t be quite as disturbed by their deaths. After many made it across the Berlin wall, it was decided to reinforce the wall. This reinforcement crushed many people’s hope of ever crossing and killed many of those that retained their hope. The wall at first had been simply a tall concrete wall with armed watchtowers, searchlights, and barbed wire. The reinforcement included a higher fence with a column of concrete that was seemingly impossible to grip, extra fences, tripwires connected to automatic machine guns, and a seemingly hopeless run to safety. Forged papers at the gates were the most likely means of escape after the reinforcement. In East Germany, the work hours were long, the opportunities were few, the tension was high, and the rules were strict. Music was censored and lives were limited. East Germans created a distinct culture because they had to avoid breaking so many rules. You watched what you said and who you were with. Rules in East Germany were not taken lightly because the people never knew when they were being watched. The neighbors, their best friend, their lover, or even their mother could’ve been one of them; one of the agents for Germany’s secret police, that is. The secret police were called Stasi. Anyone could be suspected of being part of the Stasi, since the Stasi used anyone they could. The Stasi was a huge network of agents who watched over East Germany. They had their eyes on over one-third of the population. The Stasi spied on, arrested, and manipulated countless people. They picked up on plans of escape, wormed their way into possible rebellion for information, and even kept records of their target’s lives in incredible detail. Along with the suspicious activity they stored in the files pertaining to the lives of their targets, they included elaborate plans for their victims. These plans interfered with lives, ruined marriages, kept certain kids from getting into universities, and even destroyed futures. They didn’t stand for any possible uprising. They snuffed out any spark that could lead to anything contradictory to East Germany’s policies. Pollution was a major problem in East Germany. Their pollution was actually so great that it actually caused diseases not seen since Victorian ages. The diseases killed many of the people. People started environmental programs to try and do something about the pollution and stop the tragedy of diseases. A bit of freedom was the beginning of change and the start of hope in East Germany. The rules were loosened on churches across the land. Slowly but surely the church became the centers of protest across the land. People came to meetings with the accepted excuse of praying for the country or involvement at environmental programs at the church. The church quietly became the center of reformists. Because of the hope sprouted by the reformist church meetings, a protest of seventy-thousand people occurred openly in East Germany. The world watched in tense concern. Many feared that East German officials would use the â€Å"China option† where they would simply massacre the protestors like what had recently occurred in China. The world was shocked when there seemed to be no immediate consequences for the massive protest. The opening of the Berlin wall was a great event and actually an accident. After many years of separation and conflict, one man’s misunderstood words caused the great event. While an East German bureaucrat, Gà ¼nter Schabowski, was at a press conference on November 9th, 1989, his uncertain answer to a simple question was misunderstood. The misunderstanding was that travel restrictions were being lifted and effective immediately. People flooded to the gates of the wall demanding access they believed was granted by one man who simply misspoke. These people could not be turned away though what Schabowski had said was far greater than what the authorities had intended to do. For hours, the gates remained closed and the guards were hammered by questions and demands from the eager citizens. The guards tried to get an order from the higher ups, but at the time the whole system of authority was in chaos and disorder. No one seemed to know what to do. Finally, at about 11:30 that night, after countless meetings and useless phone calls, the order went out to open the gates. This order was given by Lieutenant-Colonel Harald Jà ¤ger, the senior officer in charge at the Bornholmer Strasse border crossing. When he gave the order, people flooded through the gates and climbed the walls. Harald Jà ¤ger later gave his report of what had occurred that night. It was apparent to all of the guards that something was amiss and that people would soon show up trying to pass through the gates as they watched the press conference. They were all surprised at the words spoken at the press conference but did not understand the enormity of the consequences that were to come. He said, â€Å"All I thought was: Now youve got to find out whether theyre allowed to travel immediately or not.† He called his higher up to ask, but it was apparent that he was just as surprised and simply ordered him not to let anyone through. Harald apparently held countless meetings with his officers all that afternoon. Everyone demanded that he tell them what to do. Fearing the consequences of letting them through and wanting to know if the men would support his decision, he had asked if they should open fire on the people. When the guards objected he knew what he must do. The people were bound to get hurt in a scuffle if he waited too long so he reached his decision. â€Å"†¦ I gave my people the order: Open the barrier!† The destruction of the wall was almost immediate. The world watched in awe as the socialistic experiment on East Germany quickly crumbled as the East and West citizens of Germany united in joy and merriment. The opening of the wall was well received by the West. That very night, they made their way over the wall to join and rejoice with their Eastern brethren. Even the Chancellor of West Germany called the current President of the U.S., George H. W. Bush, and ecstatically relayed the events of the night. They knew Germany would never be the same. Despite all the official government problems with the occasion of the wall falling, the East and West strove to be together again. After forty years of that cursed wall, the people finally had their chance to tear it down. They gladly took that chance. The people of the White House shared the Chancellor’s enthusiasm and encouraged the President to go to Germany. The President refused to take any credit in the happening, â€Å"This is the German moment.† The people of Germany jumped at their chance to seize freedom and unity. They feared they would lose the opportunity as abruptly as it came. Germans wanted freedom to decide their own fate. They wanted the freedom to see their loved ones and choose who they wanted to lead them. They wanted to be a whole nation again. As joyous as the world was at the fall of the wall, many feared what was to come. How would the world take it? What would it lead to? How was the Soviet Union going to handle this? The very symbol of socialism had fallen by the hand of its own people. Was this reunion of sides going to be allowed? Or would there be a violent backlash? Leaders and the world watched anxiously. There were so many consequences that could occur, but everyone simply wondered whether they would be positive or negative. Mikhail Gorbachev was a name well known among the USSR. He was the man who was trying to reform the Soviet Union from the inside. He was trying to make a stronger, greater Soviet Union, but even his supporters in the Soviet began to think he had taken it too far with the opening of the wall. It had never been his intention to open the wall, but it had happened on his watch. Everyone feared that this would somehow end up in violence. A man by the name of Helmut Kohl, the Chancellor of Germany, saw this even at the opportunity to reunite Germany. Many called his idea premature and the very idea made people uneasy. The concept of having a reunified strong Germany struck concern into Germany’s neighbors and nations around the world and Europe. People feared another German attack and the change that could take place. As much as the concept of reunification was feared, it turned out that it was actually out of the European leaders’ hands and in the people’s. The people of Germany started the ball rolling on the reunification of Germany. Within the first day of the fall of the wall, over one million East Germans made their way to West Berlin and within the first week over nine million had done the same. It was almost a large party. The mood was full of celebration. They were even given a welcome gift as they came. People went to shop and to drink and simply enjoy the fact that they were now on the other side of the wall and the gates were open. It became extremely obvious to the East Germans that personal freedom meant that they had the option of doing whatever they desired to do. They could lose their job, try to find a new one, follow their dreams, and they all had to change. The economy of East Germany couldn’t avoid a drastic change. It was unstable, but the Germans determined that they were going to do what they wanted. Though it was roughly known that the German Chancellor Helmut Kohl desired a reunified Germany, he had not officially stated any means of doing so. Upon hearing that others were already beginning to discuss their own plans for East and West Germany, the Chancellor felt that he should hold a speech that stated his views and display his plan for reunification. The plan was supposed to take about five to seven years to complete and had been carefully crafted within his group of trusted advisors. Helmut Kohl had not consulted with his allies before holding his bold speech for the entire world to hear. Had he done so, he believed the speech would have never been made. Thought his speech had been a gamble, it was one that paid off. Because of it, he was personally identified with reunification of Germany. The United States decided to fully support Kohl’s plan for reunification. The only problem now lay in convincing the leaders of France and Britain that a reunified Germany would be beneficial to Europe. While world leaders struggled to decide what was to be done and what Germany was to become, the people of Germany had gathered their own to plan their new land. They continued to daily tear down more and more of the ugly wall that had so long separated them. The people didn’t want a Germany that was simply a larger West Germany, but a completely new Germany that took both the best of the West and the East. The people planned on taking this into their own hands and becoming a form of Democracy. The group who were planning such an event was a group called the Round Table. Among one of the first things they strove for was and open election in East Germany, something that hadn’t been done in over sixty years. Of course, not everything would turn out right. One major cause of concern was when the Round Table had received a report that things were turning violent. An angry mob was reported storming the East German secret police’s, the Stasi’s headquarters. They feared that many were about to be lynched, but to their surprise, the mob simply stormed the headquarters and no violence actually seemed to occur. They now found themselves surrounded by mass amounts of information, years of spying and reports written about them. They had overthrown the Stasi. In March of 1990, East Germany held their first election in over sixty years. Many were torn between voting for the conservative West German runners since they had the money to pull them out of their bad economy and the Democratic candidates of the East that had pulled them out of their situation in the first place. As time when on, many began to realize that the people were pushing for materialism over all other things. The feeling of revolution was quickly dying out as they voted for those they believed would grant them prosperity. It was all too obvious that a new Germany was no longer desired. The East simply wanted to be like the West. The majority of the elected officials were rich conservative Westerners and only a handful of reformists. A major problem with the gradual reunification was the horrid, polluted economical state of East Germany. It dawned on many Westerners that they would have to pay a lot of the price for the East German pollution problems. It was estimated that as the lifelong security of jobs guaranteed by the strict East Germany was destroyed that almost every two out of three jobs were lost by East Germans. They abruptly had to face the reality of joblessness and strive to succeed in other places. Despite the hardships, Germany was indeed being unified. One of the symbols of reunification was when the leaders of France, Germany, the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union gathered to watch the removal of checkpoint Charlie, one of the focal points of the Cold War. The Soviets were facing the reality that their East German socialist empire was quickly meeting its end. The last thing blocking German unification was Soviet permission for Germany to join North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). When this was surprisingly overcome, there was nothing standing in the way. On October 1st, 1990, the four victorious powers formally gave up their rights to Germany. Germany was now free to do as they chose. Less than a year after the fall of the Berlin Wall on October 3rd, 1990, Germany became one nation. Mikhail Gorbachev was forced to resign and blamed for the fall of the Soviet empire who suffered a great loss when Gorbachev chose to give up Germany. Despite this, he believed he had done the right thing in the end. The leaders involved in the reunification of Germany all seemed to stand by their decisions that it was right to let Germany choose who it was going to be. The Cold War had peacefully ended. The people of East Germany were now free and unified. They were free to enjoy music, free to see their families, free to choose their own jobs, free to say what they wanted, and free from fear of the Stasi. East and West Germany ceased to exist, and though there is still a distinction between the people, they grow more and more unified as time passes on. Parts of the wall still stand, but people now simply see it as a reminder of what had been and a way to urge themselves to look to a greater future.

Internet - Tracing the Source of Denial of Service Attacks :: Exploratory Essays Research Papers

Tracing the Source of Denial of Service Attacks      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Abstract:   Denial of service attacks are becoming increasingly prevalent and serious, yet the anonymity that these attacks affords the hacker provides no means for a victim to trace the attack.   The weakness of the TCP/IP protocol allows for this anonymity, yet it would be very difficult to change this protocol.   Savage, Wetherall, Karlin, and Anderson present a method for tracing back the source IP address and network path of denial of service attacks.    As the internet becomes increasingly vital to the everyday life of millions of people around the world, it also becomes increasingly vulnerable to hackers.   Through forcing servers or web sites to shut down, hackers have the ability to affect almost every aspect of modern society; finances, safety, education, and many others.   One common method used by hackers to maliciously affect these servers is the denial of service attack.   Savage, Wetherall, Karlin, and Anderson define a denial of service attacks as those that "consume the resources of a remote host or network, thereby denying or degrading service to legitimate users.   Such attacks are among the hardest security problems to address because they are simple to implement, difficult to prevent, and very difficult to trace."1   Denial of service attacks, and the means for servers to deal with and trace such attacks, present numerous ethical issues.    The Computer Emergency Response Team, CERT, is a group based at Carnegie Mellon University.   CERT describes their goal as "[to] study Internet security vulnerabilities, provide incident response services to sites that have been the victims of attack, publish a variety of security alerts, do research in wide-area-networked computing, and develop information and training to help you improve security at your site." 2   This simple description presents an ethical dilemma;   should this team publish information about new vulnerabilities that will provide hackers with the sources from which to create new DOS attacks?   As new software packages are developed at an increasing rate, there will inevitably be more bugs that will provide vulnerabilities to DOS attacks.   If hackers have equal access to information about these vulnerabilities as do system administrators, can the system administrators "keep up" with the hackers?    A fairly simple observation seems to answers this question.   In modern society, it is increasingly difficult to keep secrets.   For example, a few years ago, Intel encountered a bug in the Pentium chip, but did not release information about this bug.

Preferences for Boys and Girls in South Korea, China, India and Nepal

Preferences for boys and girls in South Korea, China, India and Nepal The studies of gender bias in several developing countries in Asia have received wide attention over the past two decades. Demographers have noted worrying trends in sex ratio at birth in some of the most populous countries in Asia; South Korea, China, India and Nepal are the most markedly countries. One of the measures of agreement that has been recognized in this phenomenon among these four countries is the traditionally-and-culturally-rooted of son preference. Son preference has several features that illustrate the inclination of the male sex in contrast to the female sex resulting numerous differences in preferences of boys and girls in the societies of these four countries. The features of son preference are based on socio-cultural, socio-economic and institutional factors in South Korea, China, India and Nepal, and consequently, have formed an imbalance in the countries’ sex ratios mainly due to female infants mortality. South Korea was one of the first countries to represent the trend of son preference. This is mainly due to Confucian influence that is acutely embedded in the populace, whereby the eldest son of the most recent male ancestor must lead family rituals. The family â€Å"dies† if there were no sons being born (Westley & Choe 2007). Since pre-industrial South Korea, a person’s access to power, social status and economic opportunities depended heavily on their gender, lineage and their position within that lineage. Chung & Gupta (2007) described that a number of the lineages in South Korea had formed into larger super ordinates lineage or in other words can be referred to as â€Å"clan†, where some joint properties are held and utilized to support ancestor worship rituals and to help lineage members in need. Therefore, it was a primary duty to bear sons to ensure the continuity of a family’s lineage. On another note, son preference played a role in terms of a socio-economic view when the South Korean governments had subsequently reinforced the Confucian traditions in a series of authoritarian policies in order to maintain social and political stability. For example, the Family Law stipulated that family headship must be held by men in the line of the eldest son, inheritance should be through male line, women should be transferred to their husband’s family register upon marriage and children are belonged to the father’s lineage even in the case of divorce (Chung & Gupta 2007). {draw:frame} _Figure 1. 0: Trends in sex ratio at birth and total fertility rate, South Korea, 1980-2003 (Westley & Choe 2007). _ In addition, ultrasound equipment was first mass-produced in the country in the mid-1980s. Therefore, the introduction in technologies to determine the sex of unborn fetuses combined with the widespread of abortion availability made it possible for couples that wanted a son to selectively abort female fetuses. In 1990, as seen in Figure 1. 0, the sex ratio indicated that nearly two boys were born at this birth order for every girl (Westley & Choe 2007) resulting in an increase of sex ratio at its highest peak in South Korea. Similarly as South Korea, son preference became visible in China since it is another Confucian-practiced country. The people held beliefs that a person’s empowerment relies on their lineage and the lineage is solely traced through the male. Therefore, failure to produce a son is considered tantamount to extinction of the family line (Almond et. al 2005). Furthermore, the influence of son preference has been historically and traditionally strong in the country where it can be reflected in this ancient Chinese song quoted; â€Å"When a son is born, Let him sleep on the bed, Clothe him with fine clothes, And give him jade to play†¦ When a daughter is born, Let her sleep on the ground, Wrap her in common wrappings, And give broken tiles to play†¦ â€Å"- Book of Songs (1000-700 B. C. ) (Baculinao 2004). {draw:frame} _Figure 2. 0: Sex ratio of population age 0-4 in China, 1953-2005 (Shuzhuo Li 2007)_ In rural areas of China and among the less educated societies, sons are basically preferred because they are needed to carry out farm work, offer financial support to aging parents, continue the family name and receive family inheritance, and also responsible for ancestor worships. Apart from that, as seen in Figure 3. 0, there has been a sharp rise in sex ratio of children age 0-4 since 1982. This is due to China’s government imposing the â€Å"one-child policy† as one of the forces to fast-track economic modernization. The policy’s main condition is that a family, reliant to their will, is allowed to have one child only. Subsequently, a son is more favoured among the societies due to putting Confucian values into practice (Muller n. d). The government had later on enforced the policy strictly over time where by the regulations included mandatory IUD insertion for all women who had one child and abortion for a woman who had an unauthorized pregnancy. Consequently, out of desperation for a boy, some parents may have killed newborn daughters or undergo an abortion (Graham et. al 1998) and thus, mothers suffer tremendous psychological pressure and health risks while undergoing sex-selected abortions, which affect both their physical and reproductive health (Shuzhuo Li 2007). {draw:frame} Figure 3. 0: Sex ratio of the child and overall population, India, 1951-2001 (Guilmoto 2007)_ In India, son preference is influenced by the strong religious Hindu belief in the country to a certain extent where by a family needs a son to perform last rites in order for salvation to be achieved. In other words, sons are considered as breadwinners as they will look after their parents and continue the family name. In addition, Almond et. al (2005) stated that only sons could light a man’s funeral pyre and perform the traditional ancestor cult. Moreover, some Indian societies practice a tradition whereby daughters have to be married off with a substation dowry and hence, daughters are more often considered as a financial burden resulting the killing of female newborn babies as the final solution to the dowry problem. What is more, it is enlarged and even becoming more accepted, particularly in the poorer areas of India (Almond et. al 2005). Since daughters will be married into another family, therefore only sons can guarantee for the care of the parents in old age, which then resulted a far more widespread practice of discrimination against daughters. Hence, in its most extreme manifestation, the influence of son preference in India can affect on how many girls survive into adulthood and even how girls are born (Westley & Choe 2007). As summarize in Figure 3. 0, from earlier years mortality conditions of female infants had increased from killing of the female infants and sex-discrimination regime started to experience a deep change during the 1970s, since pre-natal sex-determination tests became widely available and often led to selective abortion to female fetus (CHREHPA 2007). draw:frame} Figure 4. 0: Trends in sex ratio at birth under 1 year old in Nepal, 1952/54 – 2001 (CHREHPA 2007). Nepal has been classified as having considerable levels of son preference since the World Fertility Surveys first documented the phenomenon in the 1980s. As seen in Figure 4. 0, there was an inclining trend in sex ratio at birth in 1970s to 1980s. Son preference in Nepal is a little different compared to the other countries concerning the discrimination against daughters are at a distinctive level. Daughters are very much loved in the family, as they are valued for their responsibility in religious festivals as well as for their emotional and household contribution to the family. Hindus in Nepal assign great value to marrying a virgin daughter. Girls marry early and universally in Nepal because of the religious merit bestowed on those who give them in marriage (Karki 1988). Nevertheless, having sons are very highly prized among the Nepalese societies compared to daughters (Leone et. al 2003). Sons are preferred due for old age security, and lineage where by the Hindu code of conduct in Nepal reinforced the transfer of family name through male offspring. Other than that, sons are more desired for their roles in religious rituals, agricultural labor and companionship. However, many Nepalese couples are willing to surpass their ideal family sized to satisfy their desire for sons (Hollander 1997). As a consequence, the son preference has affected the contraceptive behavior in Nepal to the extent that Nepalese rarely begin contraception until the desired numbers of sons are born. However, they began to articulate their realization that large families are contributing to shortage of cultivable land and to the deteriorating fuel wood and water supplies in the hills of Nepal (Karki 1988). Hence, methods of pre-natal sex determination came to view during the 1970s, and according to research from CHREHPA (2007), 10 out of 25 women that had been told the fetus was a girl resorted to sex-selective abortions an increase in Nepal’s maternal mortality rates and sex-ratio imbalance as seen in Figure 4. . As a whole, it can be seen that the rationale behind son preference in South Korea, China, India and Nepal are based on these six features; discriminatory inheritance laws, economic value of sons, continuity of family line, family security and strength, socio-cultural norms and customs and dowry system (Gupta et. al 1998). Enhancement of new medical technologies and sex-selective abortions had somehow supported the idea of son preference in these four countries a nd seem to be a method of having the desired son. Next, it is then perceptibly has created several impacts in socioeconomic and demographic manifestation where by it resulted in higher fertility transition, promotes inequality in social and human development, associated with excess female deaths and poor health of women, lowers quality of life for women, wastes a valuable human resource and perpetuates cycle of poverty and increases income inequality in these four countries (Gupta et. al 1998). Fortunately, the imbalance in sex ratio has spurred some official efforts to shift public opinion in these four countries. Approaches have been made to reduce the sex-ratio imbalances in these countries by making daughters more wanted. Governments and non-governmental organizations work through advocacy, sensitization and awareness-raising programs. In South Korea, after a series of extensive campaigns and programs, sex ratios were once greatly imbalanced, are now returning to normal after women gained status in society through employment opportunities, increased education, and parents with enough money to be financially secure without dependence on their sons (Guilmoto n. . ). South Korea now is the first Asian country to reverse back the trend of rising ratio of sex at birth. China on the other hand, participated by the country’s ambitious â€Å"Care For Girls† program. The program encompasses many dimensions of the sex-ratio predicament. It offers cash and other incentives to families with daughters, scholarships for girls, better housing or loans for targeted families and others. It als o includes several awareness-raising campaigns, as well as repressive measures against illegal abortions and infanticide. In India, a program called Tamil Nadu is created in 2004 that gave monetary rewards to couples that had one or two girls and agreed to be sterilized. The state also created a Cradle babies in which empty cradles were placed in government centers across the states for couples to abandon unwanted female child without killing them. Furthermore, in 2007, the New Delhi municipal government sponsored a program that provide every girl born in a government hospital with a gift deposit of 5000 rupees that accumulated interest and could be cashed once the girls reached the age of 18 (Lederer 2008). Nepal has banned sex-selective abortions in 2002 when it liberalized its own law on abortions. These laws were then strengthened later on in various ways, in order to make them more effective (Guilmoto n. d. ). Although the strategies for reducing son preference and getting back female’s rights are many, these are all rather considered as a short-run implication despite the positive and optimistic outcomes. According to an American demographer who has been closely following China's population program stated that, â€Å"The country may be coming o grips with problem as they country is still in dilemma – emotional and policy dilemma – because the solution to the problem will conflict with other parts of their population strategy to reduce birth rate or some of the measures could perhaps make the problem even worse. The country still has a lot of work to do. There’s no road map yet on how to achieve the goal of normal sex ratio† (Baculinao 2004). There fore, the future trends of the son preference are impossible to predict in the long run. Patriarchal systems are still underneath the attitudes among the societies in these countries. Regardless of how many levels of development in lasting efforts to address sex-selective abortion and female infanticide, it will fully require fundamental changes in cultural norms that promote son preference. References Almond, D, Edlund, L & Milligan K (2005) ‘Son preference and the persistence of culture’. Downloaded from http://www. nber. org/papers/w15391 as at 25 November 2009. Baculinao, E (2004) ‘China grapples with legacy of its ‘missing girls’, MSNBC. Downloaded from http://www. msnbc. msn. com/id/5953508 as at 20 November 2009. Chan, A & Yeoh, B. S. A (2002) ‘Gender, Family and Fertility in Asia: An Introdyuction’. Downloaded from http://www. unescap. org/esid/psis/population/journal/Articles/2002/V17N2A1. pdf . As at 25 November 2009. CHREHPA (2007) ‘ Sex Selection: Pervasiveness and Preparedness in Nepal’. Dowloaded from http://www. unfpa. org/gender/docs/studies/nepal. pdf as at 20 November 2009. Chung, W & Gupta, M. D. (2007)’Why is Son Preference Declining in South Korea? : The Role of Development and Public Policy and the Implications for China and India’, Policy Researh Working Paper, No. 373, The World Bank. Eberstadt, N (2004) ‘Power and Population in Asia: Demographics and the strategic balance’. Downloaded from http://www. aei. org/docLib/20040211_PowerandPopulationinAsia. pdf as at 25 November 2009. Edlund, L & Lee, C (2009) ‘Son pereference, sex selection and economic development: Theory and evidence from South Korea’. Downloaded from http://www. e con. columbia. edu/RePEc/pdf/DP0910-04. pdf as at 25 November 2009. Graham, M. J, Larsen, U (1998) ‘Son Preference in Anhui Province, China’, International Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 24, No. 2.

Microeconomics †Summary Essay

Linear demand curve: Q = a – bP Elasticity: E d = (ΔQ/ΔP)/(P/Q) = -b(P/Q)E d = -1 in the middle of demand curve (up is more elastic) Total revenue and Elasticity:Elastic: Ed < -1↑P→↓R (↑P by 15%→↓Q by 20%) Inelastic: 0 > Ed > -1↑P→↑R (↑P by 15%→↓Q by 3%) Unit elastic: Ed = -1R remains the same (↑P by 15%→↓Q by 15%) MR: positive expansion effect (P(Q) – sell of additional units) + price reduction effect (reduces revenues because of lower price (ΔP/ΔQ)/Q) 1. Monopoly – maximizes profit by setting MC = MR Monopolist’s Markup = price-cost margin = Lerner index: (P-MC)/P = -1/ Ed (the less elastic demand, the greater the markup over marginal cost) 2. Price Discrimination Perfect price discrimination – the firm sets the price to each individual consumer equal to his willingness to payMR=P(Q)=demand (without the price reduction effect), no consumer surplus,find profit from graph Two-part Tariffs – a fixed fee (= consumer surplus) + a separate per-unit price for each unit they buy (P = MC) 2 groups of customers – with discrimination: inverse demand function for individual demands → MR → MR=MC * without discrimination: sum of not-inverse demand functions = one option for aggregate demand. Other option is the â€Å"rich† people demand function. Compare profits to find Qagg. * max fixed payment F (enabling discrimination) = ∆ Ï€; max d added to MC1 = ∆π/q1 (with discrimination) Quantity-dependent pricing – one price for first X units and a cheaper price for units above quantity X. profit function = Ï€ = Pa*Qa+Pb(Qb-Qa)-2Qb Qb includes Qa, so the additional units sold are Qb-Qa. Example: P=20-Q. Firm offers a quantity discount. Setting a price for Qa (Pa) and a price for additional units Qb-Qa (Pb). Pa=20-Qa Pb=20-Qb. ÃŽ  =(20-Qa)Qa + (20-Qb)(Qb-Qa) -2Qb = 18Qb-Qa^2 – Qb^2 +QaQb derive π’a=-2Qa+Qb π’b=18-2Qb+Qa compare to 0. 2Qa=Qb. Plug into second function: 18-2(2Qa)+Qa=0. So Qa=6 Qb=12 3. Cost and Production Technologies Fixed costs: avoidable – not incurred if the production level = 0; unavoidable/sunk – incurred even if production level = 0, don’t exist in the  long run, for the short run typical Efficient scale of production – min AC: derivative of AC = 0; MC = AC Production technologies – production method is efficient it there is no other way to produce more output using the same amounts of inputs Minimization problem – objective function: min(wL+rK), constraint: subject to Q=f(K,L) → express K as a function of L, Q (from production function)→ plug the expression into objective function (instead of K)→ derive with respect to L = 0 → express L (demand for labor) → plug demand for labor into K function → express K (demand for capital) → TC=wL+rK Marginal product ratio rule – for f(K,L)=KaLb – at the optimum: MPL/w = MPK/r : find MPL, MPK from production function → find relationship bet ween K,L using marginal product ratio rule → plug K/L into production function → find K/L for desired level of production – for f(K,L)=aK+bL: compare MPL/w, MPK/r → use production factor with higher marginal value, if equal – use any combination 4. Perfect Competition Short run – 1. Quantity rule – basic condition: MR = P = MC → 2. Shut-down rule: P(Q) ËÆ' AC(Q) produce MR=MC, P(Q) Ë‚ AC(Q) shut down, P(Q) = AC(Q) – profit = 0 for both options * shut-down quantity and price: min AC (derivative of AC = 0); AC=P=MC (profit = 0) * when computing AC ignore unavoidable/sunk fixed costs (not influenced by our decision) – market equilibrium: multiply individual supply functions (from P=MC example TC = 4q^2 so MC = 8q compare to p so 8q=p so q=p/8) by number of firms = aggregate supply function Qs → Qs=Qd (demand function) → equilibrium price and quantity Long run – profits = 0 → P=AC, equilibrium: MR=P=MC=ACmin * in the long run, unavoidable/sunk cost don’t exist → fixed costs are avoidable → take them into account – market equilibrium: find individual supply function (MC=P), quantity produced by 1 firm (MC=AC =price → plug price into demand function â⠀ â€™ total quantity demanded → number of firms in the market = total quantity demanded/quantity produced by 1 firm 5. Oligopolistic Markets Game Theory – Nash Equilibrium: each firm is making a profit-maximizing choice given the actions of its rivals (cannot increase profit by changing P or Q); best response = a firm’s most profitable choice given the actions of its rivals Bertrand Model – setting prices simultaneously; 1 interaction:  theoretically max joint profit when charging monopoly price (MC=MR) but undercutting prices → P=MC, Ï€= 0; infinitely repeated: explicit x tacit collusion (when r is not too high) Cournot Model – choosing quantity (based on beliefs on the other firm’s production) simultaneously → market price – market equilibrium: residual demand for firm 1 from the inverse demand function → profit 1 as a function of q1, q2 → derivative = 0 → best response function for firm 1 → same steps for firm 2 → find q1, q2, market quantity → price, profits Stackelberg Model – choosing quantities sequentially ; firm 1 not on its best response function → higher profit, firm 2 is – market equilibrium: find best response function of firm 2 → plug into profit function of firm 1 → derivative = 0 → q1, q2 (from BR2 function) → price, profits