History[ edit ] The area along the Arkansas River had been inhabited for thousands of years by indigenous peoples of various cultures. They used the river for transportation as did European settlers after them, and for fishing.
Introduction Standard theory views government as functional: The analogy rests on the Is government dominated by big business essay economy: But surely it is strained to say that, in the same way, a demand for postal services will spontaneously give rise to a government monopoly Post Office, outlawing its competition and giving us ever-poorer service for ever-higher prices.
Indeed, if the analogy fails when even a genuine service e. When the government, in short, takes money at gun point from A and gives it to B, who is demanding what? The cream cheese producer on the market is using his resources to supply a genuine demand for cream cheese; he is not engaged in coercive redistribution.
Who are the demanders, and who are the suppliers? One can say that the subsidized, the "donees," are "demanding" this redistribution; surely, however, it would be straining credulity to claim that A, the fleeced, is also "demanding" this activity.
But the really interesting role here is played by G, the government. G, the government, in other words, performs his act of "redistribution" by fleecing A for the benefit of B and of himself. The felt need, then, might be on the part of the governmental Robin Hood himself.
Why The Welfare State? Why has government increased greatly over this century? Specifically, why has the welfare state appeared, grown, and become ever-larger and more powerful?
What was the functional need felt here? One answer is that the development of poverty over the past century gave rise to welfare and redistribution. But perhaps inequality has been aggravated, and the masses, even though better off, are upset by the increased income gap between themselves and the wealthy?
But it should also be evident from one glance at the Third World that the disparity of income and wealth between the rich and the masses is far greater there than in Western capitalist countries. Another standard answer more plausibly asserts that industrialization and urbanization, by the late 19th century, deprived the masses, uprooted from the soil or the small town, of their sense of community, belonging, and mutual aid.
Certainly it is true that the welfare state emerged during the same period as industrialization and urbanization, but coincidence does not establish causation. One grave flaw in this urbanization theory is that it ignores the actual nature of the city, at least as it had been before it was effectively destroyed in the decades after World War II.
The city was not a monolithic agglomeration but a series of local neighborhoods, each with its own distinctive character, network of clubs, fraternal associations, and street corner hangouts.
Large city life in the United States by was almost exclusively Catholic and ethnic, and both the political and social life of Catholic males in each neighborhood revolved, and still, to an extent, revolves, around the neighborhood saloon. There the men of the neighborhood would repair each evening to the saloon, where they would drink a few beers, socialize, and discuss politics.
Typically, they would receive political instruction from the local saloonkeeper, who was generally also the local Democratic ward heeler. Wives socialized separately, and at home. The beloved community was still alive and well in urban America. On deeper historical inquiry, moreover, this seemingly plausible industrialism explanation falls apart, and not only on the familiar problem of American exceptionalism, the fact that the United States, despite industrializing more rapidly, lagged behind European countries in developing the welfare state.
Detailed investigations of a number of industrialized countries, for example, find no correlation whatsoever between the degree of industrialization and the adoption of social insurance programs between the s and the s or the s.
The earliest massive social welfare program in the United States was the dispensing of post-Civil War pensions to aging veterans of the Union Army and their dependents. Yet, these post-Civil War pensions were more likely to aid farmers and small townsmen than residents of large industrial cities.
County level post-Civil War pension studies in Ohio in the late s, the peak years for these pension payments, demonstrate a negative correlation between the degree of urbanism, or percentage of people living in homes rather than on farms, and the rates of receipt of pensions.
The author of the study concluded that "generally, pensions were distributed to predominantly rural, Anglo-Saxon areas," while the major city of Cleveland had the lowest per capita rate of receipt of pensions.
This thesis has been summed up boldly by one of its adherents. Everywhere, he says, the welfare state has been the product of a highly centralized trade union movement with a class-wide membership base, operating in close coordination with a unified reformist-socialist party which, primarily on the basis of massive working class support, is able to achieve hegemonic status in the party system.
But setting that aside and concentrating on the United States, there has been, for one thing, no massively supported socialist party, let along one which has managed to achieve "hegemonic status.
But here, historians, almost uniformly starry-eyed supporters of labor unions, have wildly exaggerated the importance of unions in American history. Indeed, until the New Deal, and with the exception of brief periods when unionization was coercively imposed by the federal government during World War I, and in the railroads during the sthe percentage of union members in the labor force typically ranged from a minuscule 1 to 2 percent during recessions, up to 5 or 6 percent during inflationary booms, and then down to the negligible figure in the next recession.
Labor unions could flourish, moreover, in such geographically uncompetitive industries as anthracite coal, which is found in only a small area of northeastern Pennsylvania; and the various building trades carpenters, masons, electricians, joiners, etc.A VERY, VERY SHORT HISTORY.
To understand fully any country's political system, one needs to understand something of its history. This is especially true of the United Kingdom because its history has been very different from most other nations and, as a result, its political system is very different from most other nations too.
Say's Law and Supply Side Economics. It should be known that at the beginning of a dynasty, taxation yields a large revenue from small assessments. Some business school admission essays, recommendation letter, resumes, and statement of purposethat have been reviewed by myEssayReview.
Pine Bluff is the tenth-largest city in the state of Arkansas and the county seat of Jefferson County. It is the principal city of the Pine Bluff Metropolitan Statistical Area and part of the Little Rock-North Little Rock-Pine Bluff Combined Statistical r-bridal.com population of the city was 49, in the Census with estimates showing a .
The relationship between political stability, freedom and economic performance has raised many debates in economic literature in the past de. Over the years, the federal government granted million acres of land to railroad builders.
What political purpose did the theory of social Darwinism serve in the late nineteenth century? Social Darwinism justified economic inequality and curbed social reform.