First of all, the answer must first be rounded down to prominent nations in Europe during this time that attempted to practice imperialism. These include Russia, the United States, Italy, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Great Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Russia and Austria-Hungary practiced similar forms of imperialism, simply expanding into the immediate nearby nations. The "winners of imperialism would first and foremost include Great Britain, who took over approximately 1/3 of the globe at one point, had an extremely populous and powerful overseas empire, and commanded great profits. France comes in next, owning vast portions of Africa and pieces of Asia. The "losers" would first include Austria-Hungary, who definitely achieved minimally. Portugal and Spain both obtained small amounts of territory due to their poor economies, Spain especially losing parts of its empire to America after the 1898 Spanish-American War. Italy is prominently known as the biggest loser; it invaded Ethiopia, and failed, owned no land in Asia, and had one major colony, Libya, which was unprofitable and continually rebelled. Germany was a very powerful nation, yet it failed to gain mus territory for joining the game too late, thought Germany's incredibly able prime minister Otto von Bismark commented that imperialism was a waste of time. Belgium and the Netherlands may also be seen as "winners", both taking territory of a size far greater than their own nation, both of which were highly profitable. Russia would probably be on neither side, having owned a vast territory and much imperialism yet not much of it was incredibly significant. Now, the United States owned little territory, only some in the Pacific and the Caribbean, which was a small amount for the strength of the country, but the nation was typically opposed to imperialism and what it got was VERY profitable, and truly all that the nation desired. So true winners would be Great Britain and France, while losers would be Italy and Austria-Hungary.
The risks of harm in behavioral or social research are psychological, economic, social and legal in nature. In rare cases there may be a risk of physical harm – a study of victims of physical abuse may be subject to retaliatory violence.
When the subordinates have the characteristic of non-cooperation and lack interpersonal understanding, the democratic leadership style turns ineffective.
<u>Explanation:</u>
Running a democracy is only possible through <em>utter cooperation</em> not only among the like-minded people, but also among the people bearing conflicts of thoughts with each other.
If there is no cooperation among the players running the democracy, the democracy ends up being a mess rather than being a convenient mean of governance.
As every single player in the democracy is significant for the functioning of the democracy, it is necessary that there is harmony among all the players responsible for the running of democracy.
