Explanation:
As governance indicators have proliferated in recent years, so has their use and the controversy that surrounds them. As more and more voices are pointing out, existing indicators – many of them developed and launched in the 1990s – have a number of flaws. This is particularly disquieting at a time when governance is at the very top of the development agenda.
Many questions of crucial importance to the development community – such as issues around the relationship between governance and (inclusive) growth, or about the effectiveness of aid in different contexts – are impossible to answer with confidence as long as we do not have good enough indicators, and hence data, on governance.
The litany of problems concerning existing governance indicators has been growing:
Indicators produced by certain NGOs (e.g. the Heritage Foundation), but also by commercial risk rating agencies (such as the PRS Group), are biased towards particular types of policies, and consequently, the assessment of governance becomes mingled with the assessment of policy choices;
Many indicators rely on surveys of business people (e.g. the World Economic Forum's Executive Opinion Survey). While they have important insights into governance challenges given their interaction with government bureaucracies, the views of other stakeholders are also important and remain underrepresented, as are concerns about governance of less relevance to the business community (e.g. civil and human rights);
The other main methodology used are indicators produced by individuals or small groups of external experts – for example, the World Bank’s Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA), Bertelsmann’s Transformation Index, and the French Development Agency’s Institutional Profiles. This entails the risk that different experts ‘feed’ on each other’s ratings; and the depth to which external raters are able to explore the dimensions they are rating can vary.
Answer:
- The Renaissance
- Protestant Reformation
- Scientific Revolution
Explanation:
The Renaissance—influenced by Greco-Roman values, established the roots of humanism and its emphasis on the individual. Furthermore, the Protestant Reformation questioned the Church's historic authority and supported individualism. In addition, the Scientific Revolution also emphasized observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and cause-and-effect analysis, (which is the scientific method we use today).
Advances in the educational system and significant growth in the number of printed books contributed to the formation of a society that was more eager for knowledge than ever. These events sparked people's interest in the process of question and analysis, as they searched for solutions to life's issues in a variety of places.
Answer:
The first and third quotation expresses realism while the second one is idealism.
>In philosophy, idealism is any of the many systems of thought where objects of knowledge are held to be dependent on the mind’s activity. Realism on the other hand is the quality of representing a person, thing, or situation in a manner that is true to life.
Explanation:
Answer:
Concurrent powers are powers that are shared by both the State and the federal government. These powers may be exercised simultaneously within the same territory and in relation to the same body of citizens. These concurrent powers including regulating elections, taxing, borrowing money and establishing courts
:)
Cuba is approximately 110,860 sq km, while United States is approximately 9,833,517 sq km, making United States 8,770% larger than Cuba. Meanwhile, the population of Cuba is ~11.1 million people (321.6 million more people live in United States). We have positioned the outline of Cuba near the middle of United States.
